From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 01:17:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA09408; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:14:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:14:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:14:07 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [off topic?] Next Space Science Update Features Sun's "Magnetic Carpet" In-Reply-To: <199710311516.KAA01615 spinoza.hq.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-zj3d3.0.wI2.RBlMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12220 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have just read about 'RE-posting' messages here (sorry), but the following reminded me of Ross somehow & aether pulses.. now to figure out the harmonic balance calculations on "40 Hours" ... see below ... Is this a spinning vortex(?) rapidly changing(?) what? +/- /? within the sun or just the surface. Must be internal, but 40 hours/mass?? ------attachment----- On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 NASANews hq.nasa.gov wrote: >>Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:16:03 -0500 (EST) >>From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov >>To: undisclosed-recipients: ; >>Subject: Next Space Science Update Features Sun's "Magnetic Carpet" >> >>Donald Savage >>Headquarters, Washington, DC October 31, 1997 >>(Phone: 202/358-1547) >> >>Bill Steigerwald >>Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD >>(Phone: 301/286-5017) >> >>NOTE TO EDITORS: N97-76 >> >>NEXT SPACE SCIENCE UPDATE FEATURES SUN'S "MAGNETIC CARPET" >> >> The next Space Science Update (SSU) is scheduled for 1 >>p.m. EST, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1997, at NASA Headquarters, >>Washington, DC . The Update will feature new data from the >>joint European Space Agency-NASA Solar and Heliospheric >>Observatory (SOHO) mission. Scientists have found a rapidly >>changing magnetic carpet covering the solar surface which >>changes on a time scale of approximately 40 hours. >> >> Panelists will be: >> >>* Dr. Joseph B. Gurman, Deputy U.S. Project Scientist for SOHO >> mission, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; >> >>* Dr. Alan Title, Professor and Co-Director of the Stanford- >> Lockheed Institute for Space Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; >> >>* Dr. Edward Spiegel, the Lewis Morris Rutherford Professor in >> Astronomy at Columbia University, New York; >> >>* Mandy Hagenaar, astronomer, Utrecht University, the Netherlands, and >> Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research; and >> >>* Dr. George Withbroe, Science Director for the Sun-Earth >> Connection program, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, is panel >> moderator. >> >> The SSU will originate from NASA Headquarters >>Auditorium, 300 E St., S.W., Washington, DC, and will be >>carried live on NASA TV with two-way question-and-answer >>capability for reporters covering the event from participating >>NASA centers. >> >> NASA Television is broadcast on the GE2 satellite which >>is located on Transponder 9C, at 85 degrees West longitude, >>frequency 3880.0 Mhz, audio 6.8 MHz. Audio of the broadcast >>will be available on voice circuit at the Kennedy Space Center >>on 407/867-1220. >> >> - end - >> >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 01:31:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA25079; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:27:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:27:31 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:27:23 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex cc: Free Energy , fepps@halcyon.com, kami@iafrica.com Subject: Re: Fw: DEBUNKING VIRUSES In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-851401618-878376443=:6358" Resent-Message-ID: <"PBL_G.0.f76.0OlMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12221 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---559023410-851401618-878376443=:6358 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Steve Ekwall wrote: Sorry, forgot to attach it (used read file instead): last try... Is this the one??....see below: >>On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Fred Epps wrote: >> >> >>virus supposedly ravaging his country. He wanted me to post it on the >> >>list, but instead I told him that these email viruses were actually mental >> >>viruses, and I didn't want to spread the >> >>disease :-) Unfortunately I have deleted the posts debunking these types >> >>of viruses. Can anyone who has this information please send it to him? >> >>Thanks! >> >> >> >>Fred >> >>---------- >> >>> From: kami >> >>> To: halcyon.com >> >>> Subject: Fwd: DEBUNKING VIRUSES >> >>> Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 11:37 AM >> >>> >> >>> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 11:35:20 PST >> >>> From: kami >> >>> To: FRED >> >>> Subject: DEBUNKING VIRUSES >> >>> >> >>> HI FRED >> >>> Thanks for the e mail , very interesting that the virus story has been >> >>> debunked on your side , I would greatly appreciate any further info I >> >>> can get on this as this country is practically in hysterics regarding >> >>> these viruses right to the point of it being mentioned on T.V. Perhaps >> >>> a little official debunking would do it some good , mainly because our >> >>> postal and telephone systems are so inefficient people are scared of >> >>> the fact that e mail may go that way too. >> >>> REGARDS >>> MARTIN>>> kami iafrica.com >>------------------snip--------------- >> ---559023410-851401618-878376443=:6358 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; name="virus.anti_txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: DQpGcm9tIGJwYWRkb2NrQGNzb25saW5lLm5ldCBNb24gQXVnIDE4IDE3OjUw OjM3IDE5OTcNCkRhdGU6IFN1biwgMTcgQXVnIDE5OTcgMDk6NDQ6NTUgLTA0 MDANCkZyb206IEJvYiBQYWRkb2NrIDxicGFkZG9ja0Bjc29ubGluZS5uZXQ+ DQpUbzogdnJhbW9zQGN0di5lcw0KQ2M6IGZyZWVucmctbEBlc2tpbW8uY29t DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTUFJTCBWSVJVUyAtIFJFQUQgVEhJUw0KUmVzZW50 LURhdGU6IFN1biwgMTcgQXVnIDE5OTcgMDY6NTI6MDcgLTA3MDAgKFBEVCkN ClJlc2VudC1Gcm9tOiBmcmVlbnJnLWxAZXNraW1vLmNvbQ0KDQo+RnJvbSBl YXJsaWVyIHRoaXMgeWVhcjoNCg0KRGF0ZTogU3VuLCA1IEphbiAxOTk3IDE1 OjM0OjAxIC0wODAwIChQU1QpDQpGcm9tOiBXaWxsaWFtIEJlYXR5IDxiaWxs YkBlc2tpbW8uY29tPg0KVG86IGZyZWVucmctbEBlc2tpbW8uY29tDQpTdWJq ZWN0OiBob2F4IHZpcnVzZXMNCg0KDQpIZXJlJ3MgYSB3YXJuaW5nIHdoaWNo IHNob3VsZCBpbm5vY3VsYXRlIGZyZWVucmctTCB1c2VycyBhZ2FpbnN0IHRo ZSBtaW5kLQ0KdmlydXNlcyBjYWxsZWQgImhvYXhlcyIgYW5kICJ1cmJhbiBs ZWdlbmRzLiINCg0KLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4udXV1dSAvIG9vIFwg dXV1dS4uLi4uLi4uLC4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uDQpX aWxsaWFtIEJlYXR5ICB2b2ljZToyMDYtNzgxLTMzMjAgICBiYnM6MjA2LTc4 OS0wNzc1ICAgIGNzZXJ2OjcxMjQxLDM2MjMNCkVFL1Byb2dyYW1tZXIvU2Np ZW5jZSBleGhpYml0IGRlc2lnbmVyICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmVza2lt by5jb20vfmJpbGxiLw0KU2VhdHRsZSwgV0EgOTgxMTcgIGJpbGxiQGVza2lt by5jb20gICAgICAgICAgIFNDSUVOQ0UgSE9CQllJU1Qgd2ViIHBhZ2UNCg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBUaGUgVS5TLiBEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEVuZXJneQ0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBDb21wdXRlciBJbmNpZGVudCBBZHZpc29yeSBDYXBh YmlsaXR5DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBfX18gIF9fIF9f ICAgIF8gICAgIF9fXw0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAvICAg ICAgIHwgICAgIC9fXCAgIC8NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg XF9fXyAgX198X18gIC8gICBcICBcX19fDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fXw0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIElORk9S TUFUSU9OIEJVTExFVElODQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEludGVybmV0IEhvYXhl czogUEtaMzAwLCBJcmluYSwgR29vZCBUaW1lcywgRGVleWVuZGEsIEdob3N0 DQoNCk5vdmVtYmVyIDIwLCAxOTk2IDE1OjAwIEdNVCAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBOdW1iZXIgSC0wNQ0KX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpQUk9CTEVNOiAgICAgICBU aGlzIGJ1bGxldGluIGFkZHJlc3NlcyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGhvYXhlcyBh bmQgZXJyb25lb3VzIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgd2FybmluZ3M6IFBLWjMw MCBXYXJuaW5nLCBJcmluYSwgR29vZCBUaW1lcywgRGVleWVuZGEsIGFuZCAN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEdob3N0LmV4ZQ0KUExBVEZPUk06ICAgICAgQWxs LCB2aWEgZS1tYWlsDQpEQU1BR0U6ICAgICAgICBUaW1lIGxvc3QgcmVhZGlu ZyBhbmQgcmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZXMNClNPTFVUSU9OOiAg ICAgIFBhc3MgdW52YWxpZGF0ZWQgd2FybmluZ3Mgb25seSB0byB5b3VyIGNv bXB1dGVyIHNlY3VyaXR5IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgZGVwYXJ0bWVudCBv ciBpbmNpZGVudCByZXNwb25zZSB0ZWFtLiBTZWUgYmVsb3cgb24gaG93IHRv IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgcmVjb2duaXplIHZhbGlkYXRlZCBhbmQgdW52 YWxpZGF0ZWQgd2FybmluZ3MgYW5kIGhvYXhlcy4NCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KVlVMTkVSQUJJTElUWSAgTmV3IGhvYXhl cyBhbmQgd2FybmluZ3MgaGF2ZSBhcHBlYXJlZCBvbiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQg YW5kIG9sZCANCkFTU0VTU01FTlQ6ICAgIGhvYXhlcyBhcmUgc3RpbGwgYmVp bmcgY2lydWxhdGVkLg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fDQoNCg0KSW50cm9kdWN0aW9uDQo9PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KVGhlIElu dGVybmV0IGlzIGNvbnN0YW50bHkgYmVpbmcgZmxvb2RlZCB3aXRoIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IGNvbXB1dGVyDQp2aXJ1c2VzIGFuZCBUcm9qYW5zLiBI b3dldmVyLCBpbnRlcnNwZXJzZWQgYW1vbmcgcmVhbCB2aXJ1cyBub3RpY2Vz IGFyZSANCmNvbXB1dGVyIHZpcnVzIGhvYXhlcy4gV2hpbGUgdGhlc2UgaG9h eGVzIGRvIG5vdCBpbmZlY3Qgc3lzdGVtcywgdGhleSBhcmUgDQpzdGlsbCB0 aW1lIGNvbnN1bWluZyBhbmQgY29zdGx5IHRvIGhhbmRsZS4gQXQgQ0lBQywg d2UgZmluZCB0aGF0IHdlIGFyZSANCnNwZW5kaW5nIG11Y2ggbW9yZSB0aW1l IGRlLWJ1bmtpbmcgaG9heGVzIHRoYW4gaGFuZGxpbmcgcmVhbCB2aXJ1cyBp bmNpZGVudHMuIA0KVGhpcyBhZHZpc29yeSBhZGRyZXNzZXMgdGhlIG1vc3Qg cmVjZW50IHdhcm5pbmdzIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSBhcHBlYXJlZCBvbiB0aGUgDQpJ bnRlcm5ldCBhbmQgYXJlIGJlaW5nIGNpcmN1bGF0ZWQgdGhyb3VnaG91dCB3 b3JsZCB0b2RheS4gV2Ugd2lsbCBhbHNvIGFkZHJlc3MNCnRoZSBoaXN0b3J5 IGJlaGluZCB2aXJ1cyBob2F4ZXMsIGhvdyB0byBpZGVudGlmeSBhIGhvYXgs IGFuZCB3aGF0IHRvIGRvIGlmIHlvdQ0KdGhpbmsgYSBtZXNzYWdlIGlzIG9y IGlzIG5vdCBhIGhvYXguIFVzZXJzIGFyZSByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgdG8gcGxlYXNl IG5vdCBzcHJlYWQgDQp1bmNvbmZpcm1lZCB3YXJuaW5ncyBhYm91dCB2aXJ1 c2VzIGFuZCBUcm9qYW5zLiBJZiB5b3UgcmVjZWl2ZSBhbiB1bnZhbGlkYXRl ZCANCndhcm5pbmcsIGRvbid0IHBhc3MgaXQgdG8gYWxsIHlvdXIgZnJpZW5k cywgcGFzcyBpdCB0byB5b3VyIGNvbXB1dGVyIHNlY3VyaXR5IA0KbWFuYWdl ciB0byB2YWxpZGF0ZSBmaXJzdC4gVmFsaWRhdGVkIHdhcm5pbmdzIGZyb20g dGhlIGluY2lkZW50IHJlc3BvbnNlIHRlYW1zDQphbmQgYW50aXZpcnVzIHZl bmRvcnMgaGF2ZSB2YWxpZCByZXR1cm4gYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFuZCBhcmUgdXN1 YWxseSBQR1Agc2lnbmVkIA0Kd2l0aCB0aGUgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uJ3Mga2V5 Lg0KDQpQS1ozMDAgV2FybmluZw0KPT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KVGhlIFBL WjMwMCBUcm9qYW4gaXMgYSByZWFsIFRyb2phbiBwcm9ncmFtLCBidXQgdGhl IGluaXRpYWwgd2FybmluZyBhYm91dCBpdCANCndhcyByZWxlYXNlZCBvdmVy IGEgeWVhciBhZ28uIEZvciBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBwZXJ0YWluaW5nIHRvIFBL WjMwMCBUcm9qYW4gDQpyZWZlcmVuY2UgQ0lBQyBOb3RlcyBpc3N1ZSA5NS0x MCwgdGhhdCB3YXMgcmVsZWFzZWQgaW4gSnVuZSBvZiAxOTk1LiAgDQoNCmh0 dHA6Ly9jaWFjLmxsbmwuZ292L2NpYWMvbm90ZXMvTm90ZXMxMC5zaHRtbA0K DQpUaGUgd2FybmluZyBpdHNlbGYsIG9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBoYW5kLCBpcyBn YWluaW5nIHVyYmFuIGxlZ2VuZCBzdGF0dXMuIFRoZXJlIA0KaGFzIGJlZW4g YW4gZXh0cmVtZWx5IGxpbWl0ZWQgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHNpZ2h0aW5ncyBvZiB0 aGlzIFRyb2phbiBhbmQgdGhvc2UgDQphcHBlYXJlZCBvdmVyIGEgeWVhciBh Z28uIEV2ZW4gdGhvdWdoIHRoZSBUcm9qYW4gd2FybmluZyBpcyByZWFsLCB0 aGUgcmVwZWF0ZWQgDQpjaXJjdWxhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgd2FybmluZyBpcyBh IG51aXNhbmNlLiBJbmRpdmlkdWFscyB3aG8gbmVlZCB0aGUgY3VycmVudCAN CnJlbGVhc2Ugb2YgIFBLWklQIHNob3VsZCB2aXNpdCB0aGUgUEtXQVJFIHdl YiBwYWdlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucGt3YXJlLmNvbS4gDQpDSUFDIHJlY29t bWVuZHMgdGhhdCB5b3UgRE8gTk9UIHJlY2lyY3VsYXRlIHRoZSB3YXJuaW5n IGFib3V0IHRoaXMgcGFydGljdWxhciANClRyb2phbi4gICAgICAgICAgIA0K DQpJcmluYSBWaXJ1cyBIb2F4DQo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQoNClRoZSAi SXJpbmEiIHZpcnVzIHdhcm5pbmdzIGFyZSBhIGhvYXguIFRoZSBmb3JtZXIg aGVhZCBvZiBhbiBlbGVjdHJvbmljIA0KcHVibGlzaGluZyBjb21wYW55IGNp cmN1bGF0ZWQgdGhlIHdhcm5pbmcgdG8gY3JlYXRlIHB1YmxpY2l0eSBmb3Ig YSBuZXcgDQppbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBib29rIGJ5IHRoZSBzYW1lIG5hbWUuIFRo ZSBwdWJsaXNoaW5nIGNvbXBhbnkgaGFzIGFwb2xvZ2l6ZWQgZm9yIA0KdGhl IHB1YmxpY2l0eSBzdHVudCB0aGF0IGJhY2tmaXJlZCBhbmQgcGFuaWNrZWQg SW50ZXJuZXQgdXNlcnMgd29ybGR3aWRlLiBUaGUgDQpvcmlnaW5hbCB3YXJu aW5nIGNsYWltZWQgdG8gYmUgZnJvbSBhIFByb2Zlc3NvciBFZHdhcmQgUHJp ZGVkYXV4IG9mIHRoZSANCkNvbGxlZ2Ugb2YgU2xhdmljIFN0dWRpZXMgaW4g TG9uZG9uOyB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBzdWNoIHBlcnNvbiBvciBjb2xsZWdlLiAN Ckhvd2V2ZXIsIExvbmRvbidzIFNjaG9vbCBvZiAgU2xhdm9uaWMgYW5kIEVh c3QgRXVyb3BlYW4gU3R1ZGllcyBoYXMgYmVlbiANCmludW5kYXRlZCB3aXRo IGNhbGxzLiBUaGlzIHBvb3JseSB0aG91Z2h0LW91dCBwdWJsaWNpdHkgc3R1 bnQgd2FzIGhpZ2hseSANCmlycmVzcG9uc2libGUuIEZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uIHBlcnRhaW5pbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBob2F4LCByZWZlcmVuY2UgdGhl IA0KVUsgRGFpbHkgVGVsZWdyYXBoIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGVsZWdyYXBo LmNvLnVrLiAgICANCg0KR29vZCBUaW1lcyBWaXJ1cyBIb2F4DQo9PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KVGhlICJHb29kIFRpbWVzIiB2aXJ1cyB3YXJu aW5ncyBhcmUgYSBob2F4LiBUaGVyZSBpcyBubyB2aXJ1cyBieSB0aGF0IG5h bWUgaW4gDQpleGlzdGVuY2UgdG9kYXkuIFRoZXNlIHdhcm5pbmdzIGhhdmUg YmVlbiBjaXJjdWxhdGluZyB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgZm9yIHllYXJzLiANClRo ZSB1c2VyIGNvbW11bml0eSBtdXN0IGJlY29tZSBhd2FyZSB0aGF0IGl0IGlz IHVubGlrZWx5IHRoYXQgYSB2aXJ1cyBjYW4gYmUgDQpjb25zdHJ1Y3RlZCB0 byBiZWhhdmUgaW4gdGhlIG1hbm5lciBhc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0aGUgIkdvb2Qg VGltZXMiIHZpcnVzIA0Kd2FybmluZy4gRm9yIG1vcmUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g cmVsYXRlZCB0byB0aGlzIHVyYmFuIGxlZ2VuZCwgcmVmZXJlbmNlIENJQUMg DQpOb3RlcyA5NS0wOS4NCg0KaHR0cDovL2NpYWMubGxubC5nb3YvY2lhYy9u b3Rlcy9Ob3RlczA5LnNodG1sDQogICAgDQpEZWV5ZW5kYSBWaXJ1cyBIb2F4 DQo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQoNClRoZSAiRGVleWVuZGEiIHZpcnVz IHdhcm5pbmdzIGFyZSBhIGhvYXguIENJQUMgaGFzIHJlY2VpdmVkIGlucXVl cmllcyANCnJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGUgdmFsaWRpdHkgb2YgdGhlIERlZXllbmRh IHZpcnVzLiBUaGUgd2FybmluZ3MgYXJlIHZlcnkgc2ltaWxhciANCnRvIHRo b3NlIGZvciBHb29kIFRpbWVzLCBzdGF0aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIEZDQyBpc3N1 ZWQgYSB3YXJuaW5nIGFib3V0IGl0LCANCmFuZCB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIHNlbGYg YWN0aXZhdGluZyBhbmQgY2FuIGRlc3Ryb3kgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzIG9mIGEg bWFjaGluZSANCmp1c3QgYnkgYmVpbmcgZG93bmxvYWRlZC4gVXNlcnMgc2hv dWxkIG5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGUgRkNDIGRvZXMgbm90IGFuZCB3aWxsIA0Kbm90 IGlzc3VlIHZpcnVzIG9yIFRyb2phbiB3YXJuaW5ncy4gSXQgaXMgbm90IHRo ZWlyIGpvYiB0byBkbyBzby4gQXMgb2YgdGhpcyANCmRhdGUsIHRoZXJlIGFy ZSBubyBrbm93biB2aXJ1c2VzIHdpdGggdGhlIG5hbWUgRGVleWVuZGEgaW4g ZXhpc3RlbmNlLiBGb3IgYSANCnZpcnVzIHRvIHNwcmVhZCwgaXQgIG11c3Qg YmUgZXhlY3V0ZWQuIFJlYWRpbmcgYSBtYWlsIG1lc3NhZ2UgZG9lcyBub3Qg ZXhlY3V0ZSANCnRoZSBtYWlsIG1lc3NhZ2UuIFRyb2phbnMgYW5kIHZpcnVz ZXMgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGZvdW5kIGFzIGV4ZWN1dGFibGUgYXR0YWNobWVudHMN CnRvIG1haWwgbWVzc2FnZXMsIGJ1dCB0aGV5IG11c3QgYmUgZXh0cmFjdGVk IGFuZCBleGVjdXRlZCB0byBkbyBhbnkgaGFybS4gQ0lBQw0Kc3RpbGwgYWZm aXJtcyB0aGF0IHJlYWRpbmcgRS1tYWlsLCB1c2luZyB0eXBpY2FsIG1haWwg YWdlbnRzLCBjYW4gbm90IGFjdGl2YXRlDQptYWxpY2lvdXMgY29kZSBkZWxp dmVyZWQgaW4gb3Igd2l0aCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZS4NCg0KR2hvc3QuZXhlIFdh cm5pbmcNCj09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQoNClRoZSBHaG9zdC5leGUgcHJv Z3JhbSB3YXMgb3JpZ2luYWxseSBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBhcyBhIGZyZWUgc2Ny ZWVuIHNhdmVyIA0KY29udGFpbmluZyBzb21lIGFkdmVydGlzaW5nIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uIGZvciB0aGUgYXV0aG9yJ3MgY29tcGFueSAoQWNjZXNzIA0KU29m dGVrKS4gVGhlIHByb2dyYW0gb3BlbnMgYSB3aW5kb3cgdGhhdCBzaG93cyBh IEhhbGxvd2VlbiBiYWNrZ3JvdW5kIHdpdGggDQpnaG9zdHMgZmx5aW5nIGFy b3VuZCB0aGUgc2NyZWVuLiBPbiBhbnkgRnJpZGF5IHRoZSAxM3RoLCB0aGUg cHJvZ3JhbSB3aW5kb3cgDQp0aXRsZSBjaGFuZ2VzIGFuZCB0aGUgZ2hvc3Rz IGZseSBvZmYgdGhlIHdpbmRvdyBhbmQgYXJvdW5kIHRoZSBzY3JlZW4uIFNv bWVvbmUNCmFwcGFyZW50bHkgZ290IHdvcnJpZWQgYW5kIHNlbnQgYSBtZXNz YWdlIGluZGljYXRpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGlzIG1pZ2h0IGJlIGEgDQpUcm9qYW4u IFRoZSB3YXJuaW5nIGdyZXcgdW50aWwgdGhlIGl0IHNhaWQgdGhhdCBHaG9z dC5leGUgd2FzIGEgVHJvamFuIHRoYXQgDQp3b3VsZCBkZXN0cm95IHlvdXIg aGFyZCBkcml2ZSBhbmQgdGhlIGRldmVsb3BlcnMgZ290IGEgbG90IG9mIG5h c3R5IHBob25lIA0KY2FsbHMgKHRoZWlyIG5hbWVzIGFuZCBwaG9uZSBudW1i ZXJzIHdlcmUgaW4gdGhlIEFib3V0IGJveCBvZiB0aGUgcHJvZ3JhbS4pIA0K QSBzaW1wbGUgcGhvbmUgY2FsbCB0byB0aGUgbnVtYmVyIGxpc3RlZCBpbiB0 aGUgcHJvZ3JhbSB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIHN0b3BwZWQgDQp0aGlzIHdhcm5pbmcg ZnJvbSBiZWluZyBzZW50IG91dC4gVGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIGdob3N0LmV4ZSBw cm9ncmFtIGlzIGp1c3QgY3V0ZTsNCml0IGRvZXMgbm90IGRvIGFueXRoaW5n IGRhbWFnaW5nLiBOb3RlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBkb2VzIG5vdCBtZWFuIHRoYXQg Z2hvc3QgDQpjb3VsZCBub3QgYmUgaW5mZWN0ZWQgd2l0aCBhIHZpcnVzIHRo YXQgZG9lcyBkbyBkYW1hZ2UsIHNvIHRoZSBub3JtYWwgDQphbnRpdmlydXMg cHJvY2VkdXJlIG9mIHNjYW5uaW5nIGl0IGJlZm9yZSBydW5uaW5nIGl0IHNo b3VsZCBiZSBmb2xsb3dlZC4NCg0KSGlzdG9yeSBvZiBWaXJ1cyBIb2F4ZXMN Cj09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQoNClNpbmNlIDE5ODgsIGNvbXB1 dGVyIHZpcnVzIGhvYXhlcyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gY2lyY3VsYXRpbmcgdGhlIElu dGVybmV0LiBJbiANCk9jdG9iZXIgb2YgdGhhdCB5ZWFyLCBhY2NvcmRpbmcg dG8gRmVyYnJhY2hlICgiQSBwYXRob2xvZ3kgb2YgQ29tcHV0ZXIgDQpWaXJ1 c2VzIiBTcHJpbmdlciwgTG9uZG9uLCAxOTkyKSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGZpcnN0 IHZpcnVzIGhvYXhlcyB3YXMgdGhlIA0KMjQwMCBiYXVkIG1vZGVtIHZpcnVz OiANCg0KCVNVQko6IFJlYWxseSBOYXN0eSBWaXJ1cw0KIAlBUkVBOiBHRU5F UkFMICgxKQ0KCQ0KIAlJJ3ZlIGp1c3QgZGlzY292ZXJlZCBwcm9iYWJseSB0 aGUgd29ybGQncyB3b3JzdCBjb21wdXRlciB2aXJ1cyANCiAJeWV0LiBJIGhh ZCBqdXN0IGZpbmlzaGVkIGEgbGF0ZSBuaWdodCBzZXNzaW9uIG9mIEJCUydp bmcgYW5kIGZpbGUgDQogCXRyZWFkaW5nIHdoZW4gSSBleGl0ZWQgVGVsaXgg MyBhbmQgYXR0ZW1wdGVkIHRvIHJ1biBwa3hhcmMgdG8gDQogCXVuYXJjIHRo ZSBzb2Z0d2FyZSBJIGhhZCBkb3dubG9hZGVkLiBOZXh0IHRoaW5nIEkga25l dyBteSBoYXJkIA0KIAlkaXNrIHdhcyBzZWVraW5nIGFsbCBvdmVyIGFuZCBp dCB3YXMgYXBwYXJlbnRseSB3cml0aW5nIHJhbmRvbSANCiAJc2VjdG9ycy4g VGhhbmsgZ29kIGZvciBzdHJvbmcgY29mZmVlIGFuZCBhIHJlY2VudCBiYWNr dXAuIA0KIAlFdmVyeXRoaW5nIHdhcyBiYWNrIHRvIG5vcm1hbCwgc28gSSBj YWxsZWQgdGhlIEJCUyBhZ2FpbiBhbmQgDQogCWRvd25sb2FkZWQgYSBmaWxl LiBXaGVuIEkgd2VudCB0byB1c2UgZGRpciB0byBsaXN0IHRoZSBkaXJlY3Rv cnksIA0KIAlteSBoYXJkIGRpc2sgd2FzIGdldHRpbmcgdHJhc2hlZCBhZ2Fp bi4gSSB0cmllZCBQcm9jb21tIFBsdXMgVEQgDQogCWFuZCBhbHNvIFBDIFRh bGsgMy4gU2FtZSByZXN1bHRzIGV2ZXJ5IHRpbWUuIFNvbWV0aGluZyB3YXMg dXAgc28gSSANCiAJaG9va2VkIHVwIHRvIG15IHRlc3QgZXF1aXBtZW50IGFu ZCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbW9kZW1zIChJIGRvIHJlc2VhcmNoIA0KIAlhbmQgZGV2 ZWxvcG1lbnQgZm9yIGEgbG9jYWwgY29tcHV0ZXIgdGVsZWNvbW11bmljYXRp b25zIGNvbXBhbnkgDQogCWFuZCBoYXZlIGFuIGluLWhvdXNlIGxhYiBhdCBt eSBkaXNwb3NhbCkuIEFmdGVyIGFub3RoZXIgaG91ciBvZiANCiAJY29ycnVw dGVkIGhhcmQgZHJpdmVzIEkgZm91bmQgd2hhdCBJIHRoaW5rIGlzIHRoZSB3 b3JsZCdzIHdvcnN0IA0KIAljb21wdXRlciB2aXJ1cyB5ZXQuIFRoZSB2aXJ1 cyBkaXN0cmlidXRlcyBpdHNlbGYgb24gdGhlIG1vZGVtIHN1Yi0NCiAJY2Fy cmllciBwcmVzZW50IGluIGFsbCAyNDAwIGJhdWQgYW5kIHVwIG1vZGVtcy4g VGhlIHN1Yi1jYXJyaWVyIGlzIA0KIAl1c2VkIGZvciBST00gYW5kIHJlZ2lz dGVyIGRlYnVnZ2luZyBwdXJwb3NlcyBvbmx5LCBhbmQgb3RoZXJ3aXNlIA0K IAlzZXJ2ZXMgbm8gb3RociAoc3ApIHB1cnBvc2UuIFRoZSB2aXJ1cyBzZXRz IGEgYml0IHBhdHRlcm4gaW4gb25lIA0KIAlvZiB0aGUgaW50ZXJuYWwgbW9k ZW0gcmVnaXN0ZXJzLCBidXQgaXQgc2VlbWVkIHRvIHNjcmV3IHVwIHRoZSAN CiAJb3RoZXIgcmVnaXN0ZXJzIG9uIG15IFVTUi4gQSBtb2RlbSB0aGF0IGhh cyBiZWVuICJpbmZlY3RlZCIgd2l0aCANCiAJdGhpcyB2aXJ1cyB3aWxsIHRo ZW4gdHJhbnNtaXQgdGhlIHZpcnVzIHRvIG90aGVyIG1vZGVtcyB0aGF0IHVz ZSBhIA0KIAlzdWJjYXJyaWVyIChJIHN1cHBvc2UgdGhvc2Ugd2hvIHVzZSAz MDAgYW5kIDEyMDAgYmF1ZCBtb2RlbXMgDQogCXNob3VsZCBiZSBpbW11bmUp LiBUaGUgdmlydXMgdGhlbiBhdHRhY2hlcyBpdHNlbGYgdG8gYWxsIGJpbmFy eSANCiAJaW5jb21pbmcgZGF0YSBhbmQgaW5mZWN0cyB0aGUgaG9zdCBjb21w dXRlcidzIGhhcmQgZGlzay4gVGhlIG9ubHkgDQogCXdheSB0byBnZXQgcmlk IG9mIHRoaXMgdmlydXMgaXMgdG8gY29tcGxldGVseSByZXNldCBhbGwgdGhl IG1vZGVtIA0KIAlyZWdpc3RlcnMgYnkgaGFuZCwgYnV0IEkgaGF2ZW4ndCBm b3VuZCBhIHdheSB0byB2YWNjaW5hdGUgYSBtb2RlbSANCiAJYWdhaW5zdCB0 aGUgdmlydXMsIGJ1dCB0aGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkgb2YgYnVp bGRpbmcgYSANCiAJc3ViY2FycmllciBmaWx0ZXIuIEkgYW0gY2FsbGluZyBv biBhIDEyMDAgYmF1ZCBtb2RlbSB0byBlbnRlciB0aGlzIA0KIAltZXNzYWdl LCBhbmQgaGF2ZSBhZHZpc2VkIHRoZSBzeXNvcHMgb2YgdGhlIHR3byBvdGhl ciBib2FyZHMgDQogCShuYW1lcyB3aXRoaGVsZCkuIEkgZG9uJ3Qga25vdyBo b3cgdGhpcyB2aXJ1cyBvcmlnaW5hdGVkLCBidXQgSSdtIA0KIAlzdXJlIGl0 IGlzIHRoZSB3b3JrIG9mIHNvbWVvbmUgaW4gdGhlIGNvbXB1dGVyIHRlbGVj b21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyANCiAJZmllbGQgc3VjaCBhcyBteXNlbGYuIFByb2Jh Ymx5IHRoZSBiZXN0IHRoaW5nIHRvIGRvIG5vdyBpcyB0byANCiAJc3RpY2sg dG8gMTIwMCBiYXVkIHVudGlsIHdlIGZpZ3VyZSB0aGlzIHRoaW5nIG91dC4N Cg0KCU1pa2UgUm9DaGVubGUNCg0KVGhpcyBib2d1cyB2aXJ1cyBkZXNjcmlw dGlvbiBzcGF3bmVkIGEgaHVtb3JvdXMgYWxlcnQgYnkgUm9iZXJ0IE1vcnJp cyBJSUkgOg0KDQogCURhdGU6IDExLTMxLTg4ICgyNDo2MCkJTnVtYmVyOiAz Mjc2OQ0KIAlUbzogQUxMCVJlZmVyIzogTk9ORQ0KIAlGcm9tOiBST0JFUlQg TU9SUklTIElJSQlSZWFkOiAoTi9BKQ0KIAlTdWJqOiBWSVJVUyBBTEVSVAlT dGF0dXM6IFBVQkxJQyBNRVNTQUdFDQogCQ0KIAlXYXJuaW5nOiBUaGVyZSdz IGEgbmV3IHZpcnVzIG9uIHRoZSBsb29zZSB0aGF0J3Mgd29yc2UgdGhhbiAN CiAJYW55dGhpbmcgSSd2ZSBzZWVuIGJlZm9yZSEgSXQgZ2V0cyBpbiB0aHJv dWdoIHRoZSBwb3dlciBsaW5lLCANCiAJcmlkaW5nIG9uIHRoZSBwb3dlcmxp bmUgNjAgSHogc3ViY2Fycmllci4gSXQgd29ya3MgYnkgY2hhbmdpbmcgdGhl IA0KIAlzZXJpYWwgcG9ydCBwaW5vdXRzLCBhbmQgYnkgcmV2ZXJzaW5nIHRo ZSBkaXJlY3Rpb24gb25lJ3MgZGlza3MgDQogCXNwaW4uIE92ZXIgMzAwLDAw MCBzeXN0ZW1zIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBoaXQgYnkgaXQgaGVyZSBpbiBNdXJwaHks IA0KIAlXZXN0IERha290YSBhbG9uZSEgQW5kIHRoYXQncyBqdXN0IGluIHRo ZSBsYXN0IDEyIG1pbnV0ZXMuDQogCQ0KCUl0IGF0dGFja3MgRE9TLCBVbml4 LCBUT1BTLTIwLCBBcHBsZS1JSSwgVk1TLCBNVlMsIE11bHRpY3MsIE1hYywg DQogCVJTWC0xMSwgSVRTLCBUUlMtODAsIGFuZCBWSFMgc3lzdGVtcy4NCiAJ DQogCVRvIHByZXZlbnQgdGhlIHNwcmVzZCBvZiB0aGUgd29ybToNCiAJDQog CTEpIERvbid0IHVzZSB0aGUgcG93ZXJsaW5lLg0KIAkyKSBEb24ndCB1c2Ug YmF0dGVyaWVzIGVpdGhlciwgc2luY2UgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHJ1bW9ycyB0aGF0 IHRoaXMgDQogCSAgdmlydXMgaGFzIGludmFkZWQgbW9zdCBtYWpvciBiYXR0 ZXJ5IHBsYW50cyBhbmQgaXMgaW5mZWN0aW5nIHRoZSANCiAJICBwb3NpdGl2 ZSBwb2xlcyBvZiB0aGUgYmF0dGVyaWVzLiAoWW91IG1pZ2h0IHRyeSBob29r aW5nIHVwIGp1c3QgDQogCSAgdGhlIG5lZ2F0aXZlIHBvbGUuKQ0KIAkzKSBE b24ndCB1cGxvYWQgb3IgZG93bmxvYWQgZmlsZXMuDQogCTQpIERvbid0IHN0 b3JlIGZpbGVzIG9uIGZsb3BweSBkaXNrcyBvciBoYXJkIGRpc2tzLg0KIAk1 KSBEb24ndCByZWFkIG1lc3NhZ2VzLiBOb3QgZXZlbiB0aGlzIG9uZSENCiAJ NikgRG9uJ3QgdXNlIHNlcmlhbCBwb3J0cywgbW9kZW1zLCBvciBwaG9uZSBs aW5lcy4NCiAJNykgRG9uJ3QgdXNlIGtleWJvYXJkcywgc2NyZWVucywgb3Ig cHJpbnRlcnMuDQogCTgpIERvbid0IHVzZSBzd2l0Y2hlcywgQ1BVcywgbWVt b3JpZXMsIG1pY3JvcHJvY2Vzc29ycywgb3IgDQogCSAgbWFpbmZyYW1lcy4N CiAJOSkgRG9uJ3QgdXNlIGVsZWN0cmljIGxpZ2h0cywgZWxlY3RyaWMgb3Ig Z2FzIGhlYXQgb3IgDQogCSAgYWlyY29uZGl0aW9uaW5nLCBydW5uaW5nIHdh dGVyLCB3cml0aW5nLCBmaXJlLCBjbG90aGluZyBvciB0aGUgDQogCSAgd2hl ZWwuDQogCQ0KIAlJJ20gc3VyZSBpZiB3ZSBhcmUgYWxsIGNhcmVmdWwgdG8g Zm9sbG93IHRoZXNlIDkgZWFzeSBzdGVwcywgdGhpcyANCiAJdmlydXMgY2Fu IGJlIGVyYWRpY2F0ZWQsIGFuZCB0aGUgcHJlY2lvdXMgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBm bHVpOWRzIG9mIA0KIAlvdXIgY29tcHV0ZXJzIGNhbiBiZSBrZXB0IHB1cmUu DQogCQ0KIAktLS1SVE0gSUlJDQoNClNpbmNlIHRoYXQgdGltZSB2aXJ1cyBo b2F4ZXMgaGF2ZSBmbG9vZGVkIHRoZSBJbnRlcm5ldC5XaXRoIHRob3VzYW5k cyBvZiANCnZpcnVzZXMgd29ybGR3aWRlLCB2aXJ1cyBwYXJhbm9pYSBpbiB0 aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IGhhcyByaXNlbiB0byBhbiBleHRyZW1lbHkgDQpoaWdo IGxldmVsLiBJdCBpcyB0aGlzIHBhcmFub2lhIHRoYXQgZnVlbHMgdmlydXMg aG9heGVzLiBBIGdvb2QgZXhhbXBsZSBvZiANCnRoaXMgYmVoYXZpb3IgaXMg dGhlICJHb29kIFRpbWVzIiB2aXJ1cyBob2F4IHdoaWNoIHN0YXJ0ZWQgaW4g MTk5NCBhbmQgaXMgDQpzdGlsbCBjaXJjdWxhdGluZyB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQg dG9kYXkuIEluc3RlYWQgb2Ygc3ByZWFkaW5nIGZyb20gb25lIGNvbXB1dGVy IA0KdG8gYW5vdGhlciBieSBpdHNlbGYsIEdvb2QgVGltZXMgcmVsaWVzIG9u IHBlb3BsZSB0byBwYXNzIGl0IGFsb25nLiANCg0KSG93IHRvIElkZW50aWZ5 IGEgSG9heA0KPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpUaGVyZSBhcmUg c2V2ZXJhbCBtZXRob2RzIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHZpcnVzIGhvYXhlcywgYnV0 IGZpcnN0IGNvbnNpZGVyIHdoYXQgDQptYWtlcyBhIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWwgaG9h eCBvbiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQuIFRoZXJlIGFyZSB0d28ga25vd24gZmFjdG9y cyB0aGF0IG1ha2UNCmEgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCB2aXJ1cyBob2F4LCB0aGV5IGFy ZTogKDEpIHRlY2huaWNhbCBzb3VuZGluZyBsYW5ndWFnZSwgYW5kIA0KKDIp IGNyZWRpYmlsaXR5IGJ5IGFzc29jaWF0aW9uLiBJZiB0aGUgd2FybmluZyB1 c2VzIHRoZSBwcm9wZXIgdGVjaG5pY2FsIA0KamFyZ29uLCBtb3N0IGluZGl2 aWR1YWxzLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9naWNhbGx5IHNhdnkgaW5kaXZp ZHVhbHMsIHRlbmQgdG8gDQpiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSB3YXJuaW5nIGlzIHJlYWwu IEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGUgR29vZCBUaW1lcyBob2F4IHNheXMgdGhhdCAN CiIuLi5pZiB0aGUgcHJvZ3JhbSBpcyBub3Qgc3RvcHBlZCwgdGhlIGNvbXB1 dGVyJ3MgcHJvY2Vzc29yIHdpbGwgYmUgcGxhY2VkIGluIA0KYW4gbnRoLWNv bXBsZXhpdHkgaW5maW5pdGUgYmluYXJ5IGxvb3Agd2hpY2ggY2FuIHNldmVy ZWx5IGRhbWFnZSB0aGUgDQpwcm9jZXNzb3IuLi4iLiBUaGUgZmlyc3QgdGlt ZSB5b3UgcmVhZCB0aGlzLCBpdCBzb3VuZHMgbGlrZSBpdCBtaWdodCBiZSAN CnNvbWV0aGluZyByZWFsLiBXaXRoIGEgbGl0dGxlIHJlc2VhcmNoLCB5b3Ug ZmluZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIHN1Y2ggdGhpbmcgDQphcyBhbiBudGgt Y29tcGxleGl0eSBpbmZpbml0ZSBiaW5hcnkgbG9vcCBhbmQgdGhhdCBwcm9j ZXNzb3JzIGFyZSBkZXNpZ25lZCANCnRvIHJ1biBsb29wcyBmb3Igd2Vla3Mg YXQgYSB0aW1lIHdpdGhvdXQgZGFtYWdlLg0KDQpXaGVuIHdlIHNheSBjcmVk aWJpbGl0eSBieSBhc3NvY2lhdGlvbiB3ZSBhcmUgcmVmZXJyaW5nIHRvIHdo b20gc2VudCB0aGUgDQp3YXJuaW5nLiBJZiB0aGUgamFuaXRvciBhdCBhIGxh cmdlIHRlY2hub2xvZ2ljYWwgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uIHNlbmRzIGEgd2Fybmlu Zw0KdG8gc29tZW9uZSBvdXRzaWRlIG9mIHRoYXQgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLCBw ZW9wbGUgb24gdGhlIG91dHNpZGUgdGVuZCB0byBiZWxpZXZlDQp0aGUgd2Fy bmluZyBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBjb21wYW55IHNob3VsZCBrbm93IGFib3V0IHRo b3NlIHRoaW5ncy4gRXZlbiB0aG91Z2ggDQp0aGUgcGVyc29uIHNlbmRpbmcg dGhlIHdhcm5pbmcgbWF5IG5vdCBoYXZlIGEgY2x1ZSB3aGF0IGhlIGlzIHRh bGtpbmcgYWJvdXQsIA0KdGhlIHByZXN0aWd1ZSBvZiB0aGUgY29tcGFueSBi YWNrcyB0aGUgd2FybmluZywgbWFraW5nIGl0IGFwcGVhciByZWFsLiBJZiBh IA0KbWFuYWdlciBhdCB0aGUgY29tcGFueSBzZW5kcyB0aGUgd2FybmluZywg dGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgZG91Ymx5IGJhY2tlZCBieSB0aGUNCmNvbXBhbnkn cyBhbmQgdGhlIG1hbmFnZXIncyByZXB1dGF0aW9ucy4gDQoNCkluZGl2aWR1 YWxzIHNob3VsZCBhbHNvIGJlIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgYWxlcnQgaWYgdGhlIHdh cm5pbmcgdXJnZXMgeW91IHRvIHBhc3MgDQppdCBvbiB0byB5b3VyIGZyaWVu ZHMuIFRoaXMgc2hvdWxkIHJhaXNlIGEgcmVkIGZsYWcgdGhhdCB0aGUgd2Fy bmluZyBtYXkgYmUgDQphIGhvYXguIEFub3RoZXIgZmxhZyB0byB3YXRjaCBm b3IgaXMgd2hlbiB0aGUgd2FybmluZyBpbmRpY2F0ZXMgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyBh IA0KRmVkZXJhbCBDb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIENvbW1pc3Npb24gKEZDQykgd2Fy bmluZy4gQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBGQ0MsIHRoZXkgDQpoYXZlIG5vdCBh bmQgbmV2ZXIgd2lsbCBkaXNzZW1pbmF0ZSB3YXJuaW5ncyBvbiB2aXJ1c2Vz LiBJdCBpcyBub3QgcGFydCBvZiANCnRoZWlyIGpvYi4gDQoNCkNJQUMgcmVj b21tZW5kcyB0aGF0IHlvdSBETyBOT1QgY2lyY3VsYXRlIHZpcnVzIHdhcm5p bmdzIHdpdGhvdXQgZmlyc3QgDQpjaGVja2luZyB3aXRoIGFuIGF1dGhvcml0 YXRpdmUgc291cmNlLiBBdXRob3JpdGF0aXZlIHNvdXJjZXMgYXJlIHlvdXIg Y29tcHV0ZXINCnN5c3RlbSBzZWN1cml0eSBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yIG9yIGEg Y29tcHV0ZXIgaW5jaWRlbnQgYWR2aXNvcnkgdGVhbS4gUmVhbCANCndhcm5p bmdzIGFib3V0IHZpcnVzZXMgYW5kIG90aGVyIG5ldHdvcmsgcHJvYmxlbXMg YXJlIGlzc3VlZCBieSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgDQpyZXNwb25zZSB0ZWFtcyAoQ0lB QywgQ0VSVCwgQVNTSVNULCBOQVNJUkMsIGV0Yy4pIGFuZCBhcmUgZGlnaXRh bGx5IHNpZ25lZCBieSANCnRoZSBzZW5kaW5nIHRlYW0gdXNpbmcgUEdQLiBJ ZiB5b3UgZG93bmxvYWQgYSB3YXJuaW5nIGZyb20gYSB0ZWFtcyB3ZWIgc2l0 ZSBvcg0KdmFsaWRhdGUgdGhlIFBHUCBzaWduYXR1cmUsIHlvdSBjYW4gdXN1 YWxseSBiZSBhc3N1cmVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHdhcm5pbmcgaXMgDQpyZWFsLiBX YXJuaW5ncyB3aXRob3V0IHRoZSBuYW1lIG9mIHRoZSBwZXJzb24gc2VuZGlu ZyB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgbm90aWNlLCBvciANCndhcm5pbmdzIHdpdGggbmFt ZXMsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhbmQgcGhvbmUgbnVtYmVycyB0aGF0IGRvIG5vdCBh Y3R1YWxseSBleGlzdCANCmFyZSBwcm9iYWJseSBob2F4ZXMuDQoNCldoYXQg dG8gRG8gV2hlbiBZb3UgUmVjZWl2ZSBhIFdhcm5pbmcNCj09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCiANClVwb24gcmVjZWl2aW5n IGEgd2FybmluZywgeW91IHNob3VsZCBleGFtaW5lIGl0cyBQR1Agc2lnbmF0 dXJlIHRvIHNlZSB0aGF0IGl0IA0KaXMgZnJvbSBhIHJlYWwgcmVzcG9uc2Ug dGVhbSBvciBhbnRpdmlydXMgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLiBUbyBkbyBzbywgeW91 IHdpbGwNCm5lZWQgYSBjb3B5IG9mIHRoZSBQR1Agc29mdHdhcmUgYW5kIHRo ZSBwdWJsaWMgc2lnbmF0dXJlIG9mIHRoZSB0ZWFtIHRoYXQNCnNlbnQgdGhl IG1lc3NhZ2UuIFRoZSBDSUFDIHNpZ25hdHVyZSBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgZnJv bSB0aGUgQ0lBQyB3ZWIgc2VydmVyIA0KYXQ6DQoNCmh0dHA6Ly9jaWFjLmxs bmwuZ292IA0KDQpJZiB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBQR1Agc2lnbmF0dXJlLCBzZWUg aWYgdGhlIHdhcm5pbmcgaW5jbHVkZXMgdGhlIG5hbWUgb2YgdGhlIA0KcGVy c29uIHN1Ym1pdHRpbmcgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIHdhcm5pbmcuIENvbnRhY3Qg dGhhdCBwZXJzb24gdG8gc2VlIGlmIGhlL3NoZQ0KcmVhbGx5IHdyb3RlIHRo ZSB3YXJuaW5nIGFuZCBpZiBoZS9zaGUgcmVhbGx5IHRvdWNoZWQgdGhlIHZp cnVzLiBJZiBoZS9zaGUgaXMgDQpwYXNzaW5nIG9uIGEgcnVtb3Igb3IgaWYg dGhlIGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBkb2VzIG5vdCBleGlzdCBvciBp ZiANCnRoZXJlIGlzIGFueSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgYWJvdXQgdGhlYXV0aGVudGlj aXR5IG9yIHRoZSB3YXJuaW5nLCBkbyBub3QgY2lyY3VsYXRlIA0KaXQgdG8g b3RoZXJzLiBJbnN0ZWFkLCBzZW5kIHRoZSB3YXJuaW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgY29t cHV0ZXIgc2VjdXJpdHkgbWFuYWdlciBvciANCmluY2lkZW50IHJlc3BvbnNl IHRlYW0gYW5kIGxldCB0aGVtIHZhbGlkYXRlIGl0LiBXaGVuIGluIGRvdWJ0 LCBkbyBub3Qgc2VuZA0KaXQgb3V0IHRvIHRoZSB3b3JsZC4gWW91ciBjb21w dXRlciBzZWN1cml0eSBtYW5hZ2VycyBhbmQgdGhlIGluY2lkZW50IHJlc3Bv bnNlDQp0ZWFtcyB0ZWFtcyBoYXZlIGV4cGVydHMgd2hvIHRyeSB0byBzdGF5 IGN1cnJlbnQgb24gdmlydXNlcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIgd2FybmluZ3MuDQpJbiBh ZGRpdGlvbiwgbW9zdCBhbnRpLXZpcnVzIGNvbXBhbmllcyBoYXZlIGEgd2Vi IHBhZ2UgY29udGFpbmluZyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiANCmFib3V0IG1vc3Qga25v d24gdmlydXNlcyBhbmQgaG9heGVzLiBZb3UgY2FuIGFsc28gY2FsbCBvciBj aGVjayB0aGUgd2ViIHNpdGUgDQpvZiB0aGUgY29tcGFueSB0aGF0IHByb2R1 Y2VzIHRoZSBwcm9kdWN0IHRoYXQgaXMgc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8gY29udGFpbiB0 aGUgdmlydXMuDQpDaGVja2luZyB0aGUgUEtXQVJFIHNpdGUgZm9yIHRoZSBj dXJyZW50IHJlbGVhc2VzIG9mIFBLWmlwIHdvdWxkIHN0b3AgdGhlIA0KY2ly Y3VsYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIHdhcm5pbmcgYWJvdXQgUEtaMzAwIHNpbmNlIHRo ZXJlIGlzIG5vIHJlbGVhc2VkIHZlcnNpb24gMyANCm9mIFBLWmlwLiBBbm90 aGVyIHVzZWZ1bCB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBpcyB0aGUgIkNvbXB1dGVyIFZpcnVzIE15 dGhzIGhvbWUgcGFnZSIgDQooaHR0cDovL3d3dy5rdW1pdGUuY29tL215dGhz Lykgd2hpY2ggY29udGFpbnMgZGVzY3JpcHRpb25zIG9mIHNldmVyYWwga25v d24gDQpob2F4ZXMuIEluIG1vc3QgY2FzZXMsIGNvbW1vbiBzZW5zZSB3b3Vs ZCBlbGltaW5hdGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgaG9heGVzLg0KDQotIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNCkNJQUMsIHRoZSBDb21wdXRlciBJ bmNpZGVudCBBZHZpc29yeSBDYXBhYmlsaXR5LCBpcyB0aGUgY29tcHV0ZXIN CnNlY3VyaXR5IGluY2lkZW50IHJlc3BvbnNlIHRlYW0gZm9yIHRoZSBVLlMu IERlcGFydG1lbnQgb2YgRW5lcmd5DQooRE9FKSBhbmQgdGhlIGVtZXJnZW5j eSBiYWNrdXAgcmVzcG9uc2UgdGVhbSBmb3IgdGhlIE5hdGlvbmFsDQpJbnN0 aXR1dGVzIG9mIEhlYWx0aCAoTklIKS4gQ0lBQyBpcyBsb2NhdGVkIGF0IHRo ZSBMYXdyZW5jZSBMaXZlcm1vcmUNCk5hdGlvbmFsIExhYm9yYXRvcnkgaW4g TGl2ZXJtb3JlLCBDYWxpZm9ybmlhLiBDSUFDIGlzIGFsc28gYSBmb3VuZGlu Zw0KbWVtYmVyIG9mIEZJUlNULCB0aGUgRm9ydW0gb2YgSW5jaWRlbnQgUmVz cG9uc2UgYW5kIFNlY3VyaXR5IFRlYW1zLCBhDQpnbG9iYWwgb3JnYW5pemF0 aW9uIGVzdGFibGlzaGVkIHRvIGZvc3RlciBjb29wZXJhdGlvbiBhbmQgY29v cmRpbmF0aW9uDQphbW9uZyBjb21wdXRlciBzZWN1cml0eSB0ZWFtcyB3b3Js ZHdpZGUuDQoNCkNJQUMgc2VydmljZXMgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB0byBET0Us IERPRSBjb250cmFjdG9ycywgYW5kIHRoZSBOSUguIENJQUMNCmNhbiBiZSBj b250YWN0ZWQgYXQ6DQogICAgVm9pY2U6ICAgICsxIDUxMC00MjItODE5Mw0K ICAgIEZBWDogICAgICArMSA1MTAtNDIzLTgwMDINCiAgICBTVFUtSUlJOiAg KzEgNTEwLTQyMy0yNjA0DQogICAgRS1tYWlsOiAgIGNpYWNAbGxubC5nb3YN Cg0KRm9yIGVtZXJnZW5jaWVzIGFuZCBvZmYtaG91ciBhc3Npc3RhbmNlLCBE T0UsIERPRSBjb250cmFjdG9yIHNpdGVzLA0KYW5kIHRoZSBOSUggbWF5IGNv bnRhY3QgQ0lBQyAyNC1ob3VycyBhIGRheS4gRHVyaW5nIG9mZiBob3VycyAo NVBNIC0NCjhBTSBQU1QpLCBjYWxsIHRoZSBDSUFDIHZvaWNlIG51bWJlciA1 MTAtNDIyLTgxOTMgYW5kIGxlYXZlIGEgbWVzc2FnZSwNCm9yIGNhbGwgODAw LTc1OS03MjQzICg4MDAtU0tZLVBBR0UpIHRvIHNlbmQgYSBTa3kgUGFnZS4g Q0lBQyBoYXMgdHdvDQpTa3kgUGFnZSBQSU4gbnVtYmVycywgdGhlIHByaW1h cnkgUElOIG51bWJlciwgODU1MDA3MCwgaXMgZm9yIHRoZSBDSUFDDQpkdXR5 IHBlcnNvbiwgYW5kIHRoZSBzZWNvbmRhcnkgUElOIG51bWJlciwgODU1MDA3 NCBpcyBmb3IgdGhlIENJQUMNClByb2plY3QgTGVhZGVyLg0KDQpQcmV2aW91 cyBDSUFDIG5vdGljZXMsIGFudGktdmlydXMgc29mdHdhcmUsIGFuZCBvdGhl ciBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhcmUNCmF2YWlsYWJsZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBDSUFDIENv bXB1dGVyIFNlY3VyaXR5IEFyY2hpdmUuDQoNCiAgIFdvcmxkIFdpZGUgV2Vi OiAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9jaWFjLmxsbmwuZ292Lw0KICAgQW5vbnltb3VzIEZU UDogICAgICAgY2lhYy5sbG5sLmdvdiAoMTI4LjExNS4xOS41MykNCiAgIE1v ZGVtIGFjY2VzczogICAgICAgICsxICg1MTApIDQyMy00NzUzICgyOC44SyBi YXVkKQ0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKzEgKDUxMCkgNDIzLTMz MzEgKDI4LjhLIGJhdWQpDQoNCkNJQUMgaGFzIHNldmVyYWwgc2VsZi1zdWJz Y3JpYmluZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzIGZvciBlbGVjdHJvbmljDQpwdWJsaWNh dGlvbnM6DQoxLiBDSUFDLUJVTExFVElOIGZvciBBZHZpc29yaWVzLCBoaWdo ZXN0IHByaW9yaXR5IC0gdGltZSBjcml0aWNhbA0KICAgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g YW5kIEJ1bGxldGlucywgaW1wb3J0YW50IGNvbXB1dGVyIHNlY3VyaXR5IGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uOw0KMi4gQ0lBQy1OT1RFUyBmb3IgTm90ZXMsIGEgY29sbGVj dGlvbiBvZiBjb21wdXRlciBzZWN1cml0eSBhcnRpY2xlczsNCjMuIFNQSS1B Tk5PVU5DRSBmb3Igb2ZmaWNpYWwgbmV3cyBhYm91dCBTZWN1cml0eSBQcm9m aWxlIEluc3BlY3Rvcg0KICAgKFNQSSkgc29mdHdhcmUgdXBkYXRlcywgbmV3 IGZlYXR1cmVzLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gYW5kDQogICBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHk7 DQo0LiBTUEktTk9URVMsIGZvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHByb2JsZW1zIGFu ZCBzb2x1dGlvbnMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZQ0KICAgdXNlIG9mIFNQSSBwcm9k dWN0cy4NCg0KT3VyIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdHMgYXJlIG1hbmFnZWQgYnkgYSBw dWJsaWMgZG9tYWluIHNvZnR3YXJlIHBhY2thZ2UNCmNhbGxlZCBMaXN0UHJv Y2Vzc29yLCB3aGljaCBpZ25vcmVzIEUtbWFpbCBoZWFkZXIgc3ViamVjdCBs aW5lcy4gVG8NCnN1YnNjcmliZSAoYWRkIHlvdXJzZWxmKSB0byBvbmUgb2Yg b3VyIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdHMsIHNlbmQgdGhlDQpmb2xsb3dpbmcgcmVxdWVz dCBhcyB0aGUgRS1tYWlsIG1lc3NhZ2UgYm9keSwgc3Vic3RpdHV0aW5nDQpD SUFDLUJVTExFVElOLCBDSUFDLU5PVEVTLCBTUEktQU5OT1VOQ0Ugb3IgU1BJ LU5PVEVTIGZvciBsaXN0LW5hbWUgYW5kDQp2YWxpZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBm b3IgTGFzdE5hbWUgRmlyc3ROYW1lIGFuZCBQaG9uZU51bWJlciB3aGVuIHNl bmRpbmcNCg0KRS1tYWlsIHRvICAgICAgIGNpYWMtbGlzdHByb2NAbGxubC5n b3Y6DQogICAgICAgIHN1YnNjcmliZSBsaXN0LW5hbWUgTGFzdE5hbWUsIEZp cnN0TmFtZSBQaG9uZU51bWJlcg0KICBlLmcuLCBzdWJzY3JpYmUgY2lhYy1u b3RlcyBPSGFyYSwgU2NhcmxldHQgVy4gNDA0LTU1NS0xMjEyIHgzNg0KDQpZ b3Ugd2lsbCByZWNlaXZlIGFuIGFja25vd2xlZGdtZW50IGNvbnRhaW5pbmcg YWRkcmVzcywgaW5pdGlhbCBQSU4sDQphbmQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gb24gaG93 IHRvIGNoYW5nZSBlaXRoZXIgb2YgdGhlbSwgY2FuY2VsIHlvdXINCnN1YnNj cmlwdGlvbiwgb3IgZ2V0IGhlbHAuDQoNClBMRUFTRSBOT1RFOiBNYW55IHVz ZXJzIG91dHNpZGUgb2YgdGhlIERPRSwgRVNuZXQsIGFuZCBOSUggY29tcHV0 aW5nDQpjb21tdW5pdGllcyByZWNlaXZlIENJQUMgYnVsbGV0aW5zLiAgSWYg eW91IGFyZSBub3QgcGFydCBvZiB0aGVzZQ0KY29tbXVuaXRpZXMsIHBsZWFz ZSBjb250YWN0IHlvdXIgYWdlbmN5J3MgcmVzcG9uc2UgdGVhbSB0byByZXBv cnQNCmluY2lkZW50cy4gWW91ciBhZ2VuY3kncyB0ZWFtIHdpbGwgY29vcmRp bmF0ZSB3aXRoIENJQUMuIFRoZSBGb3J1bSBvZg0KSW5jaWRlbnQgUmVzcG9u c2UgYW5kIFNlY3VyaXR5IFRlYW1zIChGSVJTVCkgaXMgYSB3b3JsZC13aWRl DQpvcmdhbml6YXRpb24uIEEgbGlzdCBvZiBGSVJTVCBtZW1iZXIgb3JnYW5p emF0aW9ucyBhbmQgdGhlaXINCmNvbnN0aXR1ZW5jaWVzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRh aW5lZCBieSBzZW5kaW5nIGVtYWlsIHRvDQpkb2NzZXJ2ZXJAZmlyc3Qub3Jn IHdpdGggYW4gZW1wdHkgc3ViamVjdCBsaW5lIGFuZCBhIG1lc3NhZ2UgYm9k eQ0KY29udGFpbmluZyB0aGUgbGluZTogc2VuZCBmaXJzdC1jb250YWN0cy4N Cg0KVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCB3YXMgcHJlcGFyZWQgYXMgYW4gYWNjb3VudCBv ZiB3b3JrIHNwb25zb3JlZCBieSBhbg0KYWdlbmN5IG9mIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQg U3RhdGVzIEdvdmVybm1lbnQuIE5laXRoZXIgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMN CkdvdmVybm1lbnQgbm9yIHRoZSBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IG9mIENhbGlmb3JuaWEg bm9yIGFueSBvZiB0aGVpcg0KZW1wbG95ZWVzLCBtYWtlcyBhbnkgd2FycmFu dHksIGV4cHJlc3Mgb3IgaW1wbGllZCwgb3IgYXNzdW1lcyBhbnkNCmxlZ2Fs IGxpYWJpbGl0eSBvciByZXNwb25zaWJpbGl0eSBmb3IgdGhlIGFjY3VyYWN5 LCBjb21wbGV0ZW5lc3MsIG9yDQp1c2VmdWxuZXNzIG9mIGFueSBpbmZvcm1h dGlvbiwgYXBwYXJhdHVzLCBwcm9kdWN0LCBvciBwcm9jZXNzDQpkaXNjbG9z ZWQsIG9yIHJlcHJlc2VudHMgdGhhdCBpdHMgdXNlIHdvdWxkIG5vdCBpbmZy aW5nZSBwcml2YXRlbHkNCm93bmVkIHJpZ2h0cy4gUmVmZXJlbmNlIGhlcmVp biB0byBhbnkgc3BlY2lmaWMgY29tbWVyY2lhbCBwcm9kdWN0cywNCnByb2Nl c3MsIG9yIHNlcnZpY2UgYnkgdHJhZGUgbmFtZSwgdHJhZGVtYXJrLCBtYW51 ZmFjdHVyZXIsIG9yDQpvdGhlcndpc2UsIGRvZXMgbm90IG5lY2Vzc2FyaWx5 IGNvbnN0aXR1dGUgb3IgaW1wbHkgaXRzIGVuZG9yc2VtZW50LA0KcmVjb21t ZW5kYXRpb24gb3IgZmF2b3JpbmcgYnkgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgR292 ZXJubWVudCBvciB0aGUNClVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgQ2FsaWZvcm5pYS4gVGhl IHZpZXdzIGFuZCBvcGluaW9ucyBvZiBhdXRob3JzIGV4cHJlc3NlZA0KaGVy ZWluIGRvIG5vdCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSBzdGF0ZSBvciByZWZsZWN0IHRob3Nl IG9mIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzDQpHb3Zlcm5tZW50IG9yIHRoZSBVbml2 ZXJzaXR5IG9mIENhbGlmb3JuaWEsIGFuZCBzaGFsbCBub3QgYmUgdXNlZCBm b3INCmFkdmVydGlzaW5nIG9yIHByb2R1Y3QgZW5kb3JzZW1lbnQgcHVycG9z ZXMuDQoNCkxBU1QgMTAgQ0lBQyBCVUxMRVRJTlMgSVNTVUVEIChQcmV2aW91 cyBidWxsZXRpbnMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGZyb20gQ0lBQykNCg0KRy00MzogVnVs bmVyYWJpbGl0aWVzIGluIFNlbmRtYWlsDQpHLTQ0OiBTQ08gVW5peCBWdWxu ZXJhYmlsaXR5DQpHLTQ1OiBWdWxuZXJhYmlsaXR5IGluIEhQIFZVRQ0KRy00 NjogVnVsbmVyYWJpbGl0aWVzIGluIFRyYW5zYXJjIERDRSBhbmQgREZTDQpH LTQ3OiBVbml4IEZMRVhsbSBWdWxuZXJhYmlsaXRpZXMNCkctNDg6IFRDUCBT WU4gRmxvb2RpbmcgYW5kIElQIFNwb29maW5nIEF0dGFja3MNCkgtMDE6IFZ1 bG5lcmFiaWxpdGllcyBpbiBiYXNoDQpILTAyOiBTVU4ncyBUQ1AgU1lOIEZs b29kaW5nIFNvbHV0aW9ucw0KSC0wMzogSFAtVVhfc3VpZF9WdWxuZXJhYmls aXRpZXMNCkgtMDQ6IEhQLVVYICBQaW5nIFZ1bG5lcmFiaWxpdHkNCg0KUkVD RU5UIENJQUMgTk9URVMgSVNTVUVEIChQcmV2aW91cyBOb3RlcyBhdmFpbGFi bGUgZnJvbSBDSUFDKQ0KDQpOb3RlcyAwNyAtIDMvMjkvOTUgICAgIEEgY29t cHJlaGVuc2l2ZSByZXZpZXcgb2YgU0FUQU4NCg0KTm90ZXMgMDggLSA0LzQv OTUgICAgICBBIENvdXJ0bmV5IHVwZGF0ZQ0KDQpOb3RlcyAwOSAtIDQvMjQv OTUgICAgIE1vcmUgb24gdGhlICJHb29kIFRpbWVzIiB2aXJ1cyB1cmJhbiBs ZWdlbmQNCg0KTm90ZXMgMTAgLSA2LzE2Lzk1ICAgICBQS1ozMDBCIFRyb2ph biwgTG9nZGFlbW9uL0ZyZWVCU0QsIHZ1bG5lcmFiaWxpdHkNCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgaW4gUy9LZXksIEVCT0xBIFZpcnVzIEhvYXgsIGFu ZCBDYWlidWEgVmlydXMNCg0KTm90ZXMgMTEgLSA3LzMxLzk1ICAgICBWaXJ1 cyBVcGRhdGUsIEhhdHMgT2ZmIHRvIEFkbWluaXN0cmF0b3JzLA0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBbWVyaWNhIE9uLUxpbmUgVmlydXMgU2NhcmUs IFNQSSAzLjIuMiBSZWxlYXNlZCwNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg VGhlIERpZV9IYXJkIFZpcnVzDQoNCk5vdGVzIDEyIC0gOS8xMi85NSAgICAg U2VjdXJlbHkgY29uZmlndXJpbmcgUHVibGljIFRlbG5ldCBTZXJ2aWNlcywg WA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBXaW5kb3dzLCBiZXRhIHJlbGVh c2Ugb2YgTWVybGluLCBNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBNYWNybyBWaXJ1c2VzLCBBbGxlZ2F0aW9ucyBvZiBJbmFwcHJv cHJpYXRlIERhdGENCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgQ29sbGVjdGlv biBpbiBXaW45NQ0KDQpOb3RlcyA5Ni0wMSAtIDMvMTgvOTYgIEphdmEgYW5k IEphdmFTY3JpcHQgVnVsbmVyYWJpbGl0aWVzLCBGSVJTVA0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBDb25mZXJlbmNlIEFubm91bmNlbWVudCwgU2VjdXJp dHkgYW5kIFdlYiBTZWFyY2gNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRW5n aW5lcywgTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgTWFjcm8gVmlydXMgVXBkYXRlDQoNCg0K LWINCg0KQm9iIEFudGlhICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIGFudGlhQGxlZnRiYW5rLmNvbQ0KVGhlIExlZnQgQmFu ayBPcGVyYXRpb24sIEluYy4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubGVmdGJhbmsuY29tDQpUQ1AvSVAgSW50ZXJuZXR3b3JraW5nICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgTEFOL1dBTi9OVC9VTklYIEFk bWluDQp+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn4NClRvIHVuc3Vic2NyaWJl IGZyb20gdGhpcyBsaXN0LCBzZW5kIGEgbGV0dGVyIHRvOiBNYWpvcmRvbW9A YWkubWl0LmVkdQ0KSW4gdGhlIGJvZHkgb2YgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UsIHdyaXRl OiAgdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgZGNzYg0KT3IsIHRvIHN1YnNjcmliZSwgICAgICAg ICAgIHdyaXRlOiAgc3Vic2NyaWJlIGRjc2INCklmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHF1ZXN0 aW9ucywgd3JpdGUgdG8gbWUgYXQgT3duZXItRENTQkBhaS5taXQuZWR1DQoN Cg0K ---559023410-851401618-878376443=:6358-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 02:11:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA12336; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:07:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:07:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 20:35:32 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT OU Proof Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------71FAB716949790B0E5CC5B74" Resent-Message-ID: <"7qY8X2.0.X03.KzlMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12223 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------71FAB716949790B0E5CC5B74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI All, Attached are two test set-ups that, IMHO, prove the SMOT Mk2 is capable of OU. The first test set-up clearly shows that the interaction of the SMOT Mk2 magnetic field and the steel ball is NOT conservative. The second test set-up shows that the start and final flux densities on 4 linked SMOT Mk2 ramps is not sufficient to pull the ball on a level track from the start point to the final point. I have verified these results in actual practice. The test set-ups are attached. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson --------------71FAB716949790B0E5CC5B74 Content-Type: image/gif; name="smot-ou-proof.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="smot-ou-proof.gif" R0lGODdh9AFABvcAAAAAAICAgIAAAICAAACAAACAgAAAgIAAgICAQABAQACA/wBAgEAA/4BA AP///8DAwP8AAP//AAD/AAD//wAA//8A////gAD/gID//4CA//8AgP+AQPAAAtQAAgAAAAAA ADkYdv8BdSgAABQAAhEAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAAAAB/uhwAANgAW7gAW/9/uLz//yYA W8R/txQAXQoAAAEAAAAAAKQAABIAW2MAABS/9woAAAEAAAAAAC8AAD+E7NAAACMAWwC/938A AOUAAXm/+Qy/9/QAAC4AWy+/9wCE7OwAAAAlf0YAAEoAAC4AAicAAD+/9wABJz8lf1ABJ0c7 +gAABAAAALca+QAAAAAAAQAAChA7+gAAADwAAP9501Alf0c8QX///wAAAD8lf4w5KAMAALca +Q+C5wAAAAEAABQACgABPwAACFkXJxR/t5QAWwcAW/9/uKD//+IAWxR/t6wAW8IAW/9/uLj/ /7AAWxR/t8QAWzUAW/9/uND//2EAWxQAQdwAW24AW/8AQej//8EAWxQAQfQAW9wAW/8AQQD/ /xgAWxQAQfQAWyUAW/8AQQD//5wAWxEAQQEAAAAAAJgAAAF/ugAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAEBEgAA AAAAAEYAAACAFgAAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEwAABQAAAAAALgAAAAAXwUAAAMAACQAAAQA X7QAAEAAWwAAABAAACYAXw8ACDwAHQAAX/IAAAB/uAAAAMgAAAB/uwAAAHMAAC10b3AtdWZv b3BtYiwAAAEAAMQCAIQAXUcAWyB/tywAAAEAAMQCAIkAXQR/twA5KCc5KPcnHBQAGKeHHAAA hAUADAAbUAAbWFCHJAAbKAAbUFCHMJgBFwAFFAIAAAAEktIAAAAAAAAbUACHcgCHWgAAAAAA AcgAAGYAABd/UCh/Uy8bX26HoGQBFwABL8gAAKAAAJAAAFgAAF8AAAEAAAAAAJAAlPgAjzAA lKoAABd/UDB/U2J5KdLB0uwFfy8RrNYMxiwAAAAA9AFABkAI/wAdCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHD hxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjypxJs6bNmzhz6tzJs6fP n0CDCh1KtKjRo0cBKF3qgKlSgU+bAlC4NCrSq1izat1qkSnXr2DDih0rdSrZs2jTqs1YtWtV s2vjyp1Ld6BXk3fr6t3L9+RbtzCt9h1MuLBDwRT/SiWpuCBiw5AjSz7cluFjxnANNk54efLG t50nhvZMmiPo0RDzfgTt+TRQ1aVjl3SduLLkzX1hy96tEndE1mhRO7YtVzjv4yt9pyauGXhz 5qszR9fNlTry6y9PS5epHKH1lt2LGv/HTr4s9Nznf6bv+b28XtTa3Q9vn3M9TfrywY73GH93 +Pr4obRfRVGFVuB2UJk14HUL8qQdgnT9V5OEIQWYH04NzvVgWs7pRKFd/2VIIIQXstVfiSci 1SF4JC7HkoglJkfbhSnuZKGLGMGokY4xJlUjeT8maJ93N1rW4kM8fnZkj7wFWVeSCR6knG+I rdiQlVdCWRaTXLo1o3pLUmZemEQOOdKXFZLZ5ZogOZmjms8l+WGZPMI4J5Fs5nnVg0XGhCVl XmkJmEuC6mmohiEWaiScIlVp5qGQHoemRH0KyGiWfGaqaKScivfoTJtGptiBUS42pql/hdrp qlmyyqGmk6L/52qpSCoI112kUlXprBHC+ieOvEp5abDENjqse/TtWuyyJnLama/QRgvrbMfS WO2r/kkbpJthWaXqYI4yq9a3ZJF7G4napquuuuJydi22xJrbroPvbiVveffO6xNtT+XallO3 BozqVAALS3CgBx888JYAk+oturbSSlDBgQq5sL8FmxpnxAtr7DHDCZsXpcMhgzyocAdmnGq9 +mb1WL4oqgZzy2zO3KnNNCPLcs7P8ewzdv2CKGS/mZ5K9MdDN4xweivbd/SYrq1s8c9UV92q 1QZPPbLA670c8cPC0grfrRILluuW8e6MNZBq/4xzmmu73Dazbxu8Lq5zxx1Y3tmm/9tcuWqe jbfEE3Osd0fGYVwqyRcrvLGmgB/uLLSDLls3ixAjeOdZZhcZLaKuXl7rcn67W5rooGN1N9+F E07vu9Yp2+vkmzPIOqbr3nQ2vJBehjp/q+f8u+Tz3U286jLfjqjxx+v7adiuNy+9qLJPb71s z8/Kr60qJ0z0v9x/rxtro4K/uPfih+97089WVr776jdOHcYIly0d+ew7nvL+7ScbMHBuyt71 9qW83glwgAhMoAIXyMAGTshAthlf57wWuAhOkE4gWlLDFgKd6i1KYCoangO1JrKlpaxwmTkP fkzIvanhLVYZ5FbyNigytK3whSWDXwsfVjKhzU+H/0OhEP+TRkKkjfCISGRbCkV4PxEV7YYQ WuFFioa4Kk2RW47x03ysp7QWos1ig3Nh+mCTFxoCyl3oK+P3hqirIBZxi3az4HYkuMT/zWmG JMShHHuWwS9mrY8vFGMB01a7JDZvdYhMpCIXychGOvKRkIykJCdJyUpa8leGzKQmN8nJTnry k0yKHctGA7aPlfJvYgLWcPwIylbKR4SmaVrH1uc4I8awlBR72vAaU77oGY1K+AMiLMdCnA25 8phEOaAv4UinQQZrmAQMpQeNtKNrYbJd0LSRM300zHxNE43fRE42MbRNUIUzJbA8528KSb3T lRN44wQeAd9JKXZG7lyqVJI6Qyj/N3pWcZ82iSdeojhHEMIThix6kzFXyZ1LUbF15lwo6QCq UFTyUStkJKhAJ3rNZb4Oi0IDk0R19UDINct/90SmAymKPJUOkKXd8qdLYwTTmdpUT6ckVC+9 NEqD3vSDR1sj/c7nsTVCr3WCIyXXQjZUsS1VNBzb3y1r+MvimY6hUltmMeu3GAuG9I0/DatY g7NV9Xnxb7pM46n6KD8JOhWESrVjNbdmMh/SMmhODWlaO2ZLjcGPqNA74VgHS9jCynOVjPPl 7urHw6/NaH0eNWybCjrLru0wjJ3LK1vxBBVD1VSyoA2taEdLWlfWSI2aW+hD0chGVqKwo6fV UoAQmrT3/11RpqVtrQ3Tp7WMppZMXRQkLxeEx82i1rWbLZNuL8rHpfnRubmNrnSbNN3qUuux Rv0ibV2rNIiCr4eCLWJ3MWVVu/p0ttvLbHI5yMMafta6pHlvTHEL3/pa7ZL4za9+98vf/vr3 vwAOsEntS2B+FvjAcNNnRxEs2Y02U5kMlpyDXwTSCE9uVSO18GQmDLQKa5he6KRsYm35NO0q jH+pjeyrtvvhN7UYqBD+iteu2Fdqspe+06GcX3Cc0Pxk+MXNurGvksnj1nj4PUXGaJLTpOMa v/TI7Fmyp+IrU2nx7MfUEqeUo2nkz/lYhlvWps6kpy0lCzl11vqwla961Jay1/+iYwby6L7a 5uo8NU8cNu2Jw4wZhh4qz5wMV0xrw2c7yxm5b7YwoIXHLhsfWsWvbDSSH+1nCpdZXHzSsKRT eT0sjzB3hll0CFn8500jUdSxhPK8UI21bqpak6y2lz25DM5ZTzfWe7F1rV7tZEpXOm4/1vVc fZ3oLnmanCzdT4mds9f8/Ra8woQaEX+V1kxn1bdjJOJas71W3RX6uqR2p+d2FuPbbnRAmxL2 mfh87ENaKd2Ujc6c1wlOSNfT0Lte8GjbW+uh6TWqaoxhG6VK1RL7e6qcPV/GSOxVYjv84WtJ rMQN+p0/8e+ouIa4xjfO8Y57PNIrOu7j5AhSkYO1thX/92ZcB9qfZPOatRVd79qKG1wTF/S3 Z7Qt1Pi96401U9vM/CMbWYhJUUK7jmNr4lmTa0aQBdHkz80udOX78aobdrU7prrVLeeo8Amc uUL+7sHX26FABnLrBdY62tfOdQG7/e1wj7vc5073uqud7XjP+6mVzsI4OnZD787fLzsYbYv/ nY4onvaeu/1abjv7cdJmPFIfT/nCX/u7P+zisx3PtOEadcaRFXtXL+jJjOt9Tz79oFbj7eKE y5ZR7bvaLp2ZoZYPS1GJY/2vORtXiNGZpFAdvbYvP3a/ep3NAztld4gPdIvST6NL/HrBod94 wPq86wRV+O6l/76LG5/e3j1+/2BxGb/xj72x1Oc+wNXL5uen/vQPD6r+5t84E9v1anRlLFxj L3zzmn/0TgFY1ZZwRNVUQsV3fEV+8pd9AFh//bc7/sc4C1dZDMdXqASBBWg47IdVELR/bUUw 1neBhgN/vrYZmXd2yedGI1I8+3dX4YV5kEVV4SdcDVdeJFNzxgd94RVHMgd+CHdyw6dWzJZ4 u5WCy5ZTcIQlwUR6dvNWzYdDx6ROpodAU2hv22cscJZl4pNoY4SBSoJWKYZ/9kN0oeKFT9Z4 QthLE6R5vid5t6RWFDiEteV3qcRbIShoBtd9nGdvdghnZHiFQSh8AKSB30aChniIiJiIikg4 AgVBPv8IJr9XRTQWiSs4bJPVfrcHJ7jXIhu4UoW4bsUWFFX4QItYive2NeQ3g2PIe+9XZzMo geKHhPaTgQ8YfayoWIdHUgvogffXf+fXivM2cZiIirzoZ/S3WMXogE1BiRb4b4tnhn6oOOVm irnlbEs4f5sXeUooeNeIPnPofs1XfTxYVUaIi5q3bcxXeURHh+VohNl4jTsnNYN4gnCIhtrY efcobd4Xg3a4V24IIOYkayZyd4Shboy2Y5GobP5UJ7AHjKrXaxAVfMZikIdFYVlYiRine+vW PT/4Wve3g8nzb06IJ8/HiHo0fZUlSj0YkSWJfP64UxnJVd0XkbjDiyTXRkz/h4/tmIOZQ3AU KIONJY4ZmYFmQ40bJ390ZUSpIpJ9lVkjxn9NuXQc6Iu9xYmOpX1VKYB71obKOIyCyH8vOYJT WYFfGYZhmX9H6JV5eJW1GILGeJUEaZQHRoY6J4vomJCCt5IGiF1gmINDJI2tiJRsNY9Dp39F 1T+G6YsuSIgUF2Pot3neuJJKSUMhGXriN3l/CUxNdJivU0/fFpdxeVty9olyGWhSl4tjaJVJ 2YksiZpN2JHIGD0Nt4WziILGGIdbeSQ5BZhRKZJJZTqCKVWEp5beA3xn2ZuzWH+OSJQaZJO1 xIylOZd5yYJwuHwwaFbRmZ3auZ3c2Z3eCSTcRJoD/ymen5Qiu8iEy2Uh5/l0d9VzQDR5JwR1 u9WCS3dcOuRvRlefuYdz3DWK3+kdHPKfAjqgBFqgBnqgCJqgCrqgDNqgDrpq4QGN0PmgzkNy AEeA/kmhnJOhGmpnmUZeHYpp5BKaIQoZoMmhJZodZiIoAoSiKbqROnI57OSiHpp5xFZ28qIs w2kt0yiaHmdqc8hRTRZxFAmQevdyRWoU7ckXJEpgupake1NNNIqT3HlH+uaZr2dpU9qk1Xil orhVr9GjfjKlbQel6MGlhCZqZBopLPpyZ4qm6wSnYDdTHOamGyqngPI7+xSUP+l85KmkfzpZ XlqjgWqmaBioMSNNg/qleP/6YBiJkMfTbpISbsgGM1Aio4h6M3ZaGB/KZDEYS0GmUwwmqRtG bhQ0bnFqqaWDd5saZZaYpwwoqNIHhPr0n6TaZ6H6cyMCU0kHby86cM/TgaFpaxSipzy2pgU6 o/TFpQr5q55im/BUUs56LlhHa0oWPArGp8U3rV+IU6iFdB8Jlz0JpNuJrJ+2qq6qPVzpjIqD nMtYpUOmrpTKrfNWaqd4UDhmd48EbJnaT4siqGKKkeZKigg2sDmmr9MCiRAJXwbbrRjWrwvU sI+YNiUImWJ5r8aaicj3qlZYk8aZRhLKaTRpbrUGsYoqkwEHdArIlL9moShncEBpWZKJjqmY gq3/uZzvmrKdOGJ5JEx/xVM0GXDN9pwfJ7FkRa+AyEUme2hGm2ATCrA3FKdXgrQCCUhZlZpL pYNDOyVg6pLPuYY8N3PQ9lZhO7JUGaFEWG/xeJ/fR7FUW6vPtLRMK7fYQ7euOKp2y6m6Sa6p treUhjIX2qdRhq4hxjtc+LNmuIPlmbdi0bT/1KhjajNrFlCMi3rWKpH1WqpBSlOVuzdeVlLn RFydC4qaKqV86yNmOy63SqWqe2FP22HYik9x4biiihnMo1KQiy+xG52PsmgI+7vAG7zCO7zE i19vqx+5i2Qwmas9NrG4mrq76rcAuLySOJ6fFbAPq4bDtblgs1Ofqo+P/3e21nhV1nmdWhl5 7niL28uZr4h02DmI5qhUiHWMRHu89nu/+Osg+au8Jpib6Clz6um/7Pls5FV0SVWc89lDrBsn wuV05hV996mA+llHedW1+3vBGIy70XaodkSXb9iFp5ko2NXBUxdAtjckEhUfZcaGKAa4fHed HmxMJxI1KvyYHzy615qTZuWzg9nCSpeZEmJ0L9vDLPat7ZGfbLtcUee+KZdePcvEivuyXRh0 fyhIGaxoxZvFWrzFXNzFWnzFYBzGYjzG+Ra1X5mA45qb0DuyW5u1bcvA5xucUhmmMruwHtW/ zisjY9OxwJp7oYPD84V+bvmDwrqZineRenyOzf/IvVpLv4baK0fMn5ubRLRbOd4aTk6kkNjL K5WMuZOKqdPRt51MTnX7punaGzPzyOACyPImaxzaiOmkyvimuR6SvFlGZIi6qHKzyi2ZtFKc t/HqsJGry7TKqLZcwJI8y664ydb7yKJTrZdoKatryVA1YA11t3xMx5N5zLbruMxcy1s6YIRn rqMMr6xckWR8XemMTeUMxnaJyojsIpvYt8u4teKLiu6ltatZfkN5g1T5xjC7ztnsrQLttDLy uhuriv+HxcRIZ5Y1tpo1tJo1fiiLi8lZ0Bi9uH2pmAxIekd4g+uLQafci95H0SjJvru5nNwM fyud0S790jDNqmiih0r/7FtlrLJRvK1+B7Y+DLJT3MdN7MTxKMXFbHU4qoKuE8RnJF4KkkUK NT/Xh1ec0SgcNDFWPVUVE9NajbyZE8qyLHQxJ6VLXc0KKsQoCFtryNRWzG/yqdMLzEofrcRU 3HSHWUED7NZbjWF5vdd83dcM2qvf7NeyolPzKtiWCzjEbNjRrLuF3dftPLhfnaznrGWNvYiS K2Lrh7O4OdEiONmeGti3RrcN+9gP1tK1sdFlW2m8+cbsSGVDascy5tmVCtpPItvwjDmvjc56 M81Vq7uyW9rQfDit+rxaFhsZOrlsOtwDXdu2wyrIbaKVfbRfdlPPPVCO1rrYbNy2rUA8zVNe //zd4B3e4j3euU1M202wRm2wfuxZ531fzalm7a3YI01mp1u7FTu79a1Eym1dPB3M7hbdpZff Y8po+/3HhPvHn5zYXELaCw7MBe428Y3g+BrZhsTglGvaHGzhVaPh4YmYFL7cL8bhuK3gHlu4 ouF6bfPOAqKwU6bdAI5607THDzw48GjRH5iGxKjiTmmLjKyD4Gu+bUnipNvhtM3YUHmjytOp Y9WuW/R5YMSWwnmx38ezDfhXOg7Bma1RrI08Qi7fXn7bpPNmKh3h7kzmX37maJ7mMh1yGwxW Ng2rOD3HeN2DgNdeMrxyI5dDOf3LT66C46Vca0vD6RVMRDyPbHvCH//eNyZXmUIJoCAK1019 1dFbVhTkc5IO3LN60VRR1R+8xGEnJf2mR4/Zwc+lGR7p1J2l5qquoj5ujzt3Y5/e6VN71S++ 6jCX4UM9s3xO1LqO6w9u68Ae7MI+7PJte7sK4kRqKa2cxyb+TyIrta3JgkOM4rKJ4S17eJq9 lmHEijDIjOFbY904jiDtxv8Y0fUov8wZe78JvvYohzk+yIwn4ze+0+f76mu82dNr7cR+yQsY 5HL8VU6OofTH0VlzgFt+s215kauduH8nuFbrdFKeS5zdvotX5VKeuRJfgf7sjz1zlu8sjA6o 4k5o8Miep1tHzvreTqf97LC97NjNvDA/FGX/6JDU7PLKDqnFYebx7MvNy2oivu9xRpvEWZse hIcjOOag564MJ/SV/rFoiZsy7oXde/HPDtJDb5Lqd+poTNIRT4jFZvWHG/IIfO9ATzd5mY5p uI6QV7776L3mk++6amNtr+k/HlzgiL5ijo93Fu39lutuj0w/b94pX/aEX/iGj7dTmV1JyFSG LNGrh89RJ/B15fFYLucAL64pxpFuGdAOPfCINuWMj5UAXb9if/CXj5bZ11QWbZsiv+MjefjT 43lJmc+5vvSTnEVjnvBhy7VJzFueB5lA2L++J/vGxZGE2ZE4wtZd3+09DO4eXUswvD2F3j/1 VtHbN8NHjWzu5Kzb/964yyq3qvIteK7ZJZ9PYG7+3r6uzI7Kb4+1SN3u2P694Q62KFf33Ead dDj/1PuNTPzq4a5wAAFAoAOBBQc6QJgQ4cGFAAgadPjwIUSFCSk2bGhQYkWGAw96vMgxJMOK GE2C1FhS4seIHSOuvEhSZMaCGCE6vKlS506ePX3+BBpU6FCiRY0eRZpU6VKmTZ0+hRpV6tOa KGFafKlQJkWQNlu+dInzq1edVq0SnDhxbFWxM9lulKl17EaVYa/SLUnSrNi2eOXuJXs37s+4 XPkuhJtVruC+g9MCVpu4bteaaB+vnauRJV3HnLvenRpadFnFo5WmNJ1a9eqjnVm/hh1b9P9m 0kVdY11a+aRdk6oLl+Z5mzBY4D6FS64d9LhR2j07u5x6HLpsostTW6c+u3h27Nm9T/4OtXt4 8uXNn0efXv169qcxL8bteXtz3eB3R96pWffv4my/TqeMOKzma6wvtPTab677NjvLvsBYqi+v rFCa0MDx4sMwOclQk3DAxNpKsELnROyQsQz/8jAtv9pjsUUXX4QxRhmZA/E/BG2EMD8OQwQu p5BUJE1BCm/KUcf3UsxJxekkrFDAkRzzMSbofhzQvxtpGmxIJDMLq0fD6ovwryvvY9LKImEK Uy0tU5xsyP+wJHJGOb2rLM0578Qzz/UurG47Pf8ENFBBqYPQNQD/+UozSq+eHLRRRx+FNFJJ J6W0UksvxTRTTTfltFNPPwU1VPLsVJNNFKtkUjnUwIQyxOBY9dM2PoeL9TrrYH1TpFpF5RXI yOpMCVYx26QVy4yOBZLI5X6MsMFTkfVwVURNFRbYIkm1tkmgcH2W1F6/BTdccS1Vtlxzz0U3 XXXXZbddd9+FN15556W3XnvvxTdffffNd1x//wU4YIEHJrhggw9GOGGFF2a4YYcfhjhiiSem uGKLL8Y4Y4035rhjjz8GOWSRRya5ZJNPRjlllSGm79ARZ1055osL5bK3Ei2TOWedd+a5Z1V3 9Tlolb0VuuiUiTY66YPjNJJDX5WGWmGn/5OaOmqrB4ZZqKyv5ppSpMXbumuxCf1aVbLHRltP Ko0DOrSw04b7vLVXzK3qmeLGW+65h9pbKsPyFtNuwGFL0mzCiSub7o+Z/nlw9Pp+e9u2944c XMajq9xxv/Vrm+/IGcW68PIy1xxz0SU/XevOE4f08jlZLz0811WHPdTZJ6099tFvp5X0PGm2 vXPd2eu7d+EBva143H0fnjvBUWde9uOrnB7P3Jt3MXXaYVb2NdKVDzR67PW+Hs7nX/Zd/DIj VX/89KIEf/Py2zd+0PLdV097FvVXfHf6ba0e/gB4PkfFL38EJF4ABdgnBPaKfwm8n2wiuEA0 8S5hBiTf/9yjQP/3Xah7UmugeTAYGw1erX0fDN0EvRdC3/zvfM3RFQcBVkK2WTB4KlzNCN0W vScBy2aBsxgNnYLCG+JwgM4b4pd8qLgHLkyIJLSh11joPCMaLnZPhKAO1TZFsr2NSiXEoqjC uMUmknGMP9sKC2l4xk+Z62HlEpQWTRO2J7IxhXIUFxHlhEf31A2KaYMjwwL5Ij4Ox48SlCHU BgnCMg7wM0k85Nko+KpGzlCP2xPO9xJpRzuO7ZIEcyPVcCRKpBSSKomcJCa5iCkvIoo/REte 8eBFyeOtMpXaiWIBUZnJqqWLKWZ6mfxuSchPzqiVATTlL5OpumHGMZeS7GMMFbhMK6L/CnPN zNQiR3NMNM6KmidCnzKxmcdiVhN94uNjJcG5wnE68ZI36mSZptlLVJaynjRqZ9HSaUtxIjGf XMNgFVH3nXj+M4j0tNXuaFlQgzpMm6JkqPkausByqgl4ItzXRPP2zcM9bl4aXVxEHcSrWY6I TLRZ05pAOi6ROvOkNbsKgwx0t5V6qqVHe1fDbirFmpquXey7Z8G6wz8YaqinnnPXH0FmKMXA DzlMFehRT5nUdZIsS9JaYqvgI9U9NXKnm/oqV2EU1kdNjZ9iFWNQ/4WdzJ31lGjd3MauqqM5 urVPleJXvViqVn+xla9t4uirlvpX5BG2r2Gya/YEpDGyCjCv/4/NaP90SiK4mhRhjW0aZDUb 1dLdy6KbBW1oRTta0pbWtKdlVxsNG77VrrW17cSsUq362nHGNqE4raysQGVbVtK2tghyUFZz pShkPVKauaLJhtwErVLJE7nEYhPolMQlAvUmQTZLY7auRV3EPUdwRaUebqTUXKvNdUdv8Yx4 jzRXayoXTniRVlWf6qXAWAal00LV8z5zX+w29UgLeo9wg+TdH1okPgEiC281x16fLTG3wQOo bx+cQLQpeMKRBKSEL+xPwFl4w+b8cIiv6U7KtvCuIIauiHkmU/dmSKZVMSqA19mycyoIvjXz sIqHJuEc23Sx9ZXvcXflV156UsNXfP/LlJxkY+oBZknwefKA36TEAkmWsUfWXZS7ZKPMVtlY KS7wVkHjlx6OrMc6lm3IzhzmC6/ZkqxFM5tNiGWw4SfOcjZa+nLKQPreWcwr3jNB1Tg5yDG5 yeNbVrOyuzyqRrN1hObcfKVMZ5Tx0mXzTVJFoZdaYuIVaD3kL2ApvbJWYbVJS3avm3c4WfzJ a8eXOtemRz3WWS801rc1c61zCOnENqrUQeX073TNKbJGUKsxduAX1+Vaju3UTOgS7InJmTFV 162kNRy2rR3NtjfLNdsffd+PYa1N1PZ6m9ket/mCbTl08/naYKu2Ia/85zciE9y6TPe8abrb e0ss3vKmdrv/u9zoCgu8rt42XqDFqh+K9tvPEK1uyej18BhN8d8QfzfF00pHc2sce5z1+FE7 HnKpjpzkPTV5xRiMzy3S9a3aeRqUS2xle0aFsClvNn3PwvD0PsjL+4bMfv+Lpp7bB7wtlnmC C0V0wB4Ypj9ksdNbHOqaqzfV/r14hruW9ZN33etfB3vYxT52spfd7IFbtKnQrl1NC0vtQpZ1 MFN17sBKUFcb9paUFF0axN4qWFh9O3Mzm/BugbqB3zX8s7eseKfRjPGHSaO6a2qt5rrq7nOv YeUdj/XGfTlI0WoQ5ZPFLO8irrhdajJv7u6fZ/mK8oxvKAotz9xyfm32lzH9Z2H5/3cCeQlH vEnc5Rj3eqZ9EFvwLJzbaf/Mszff+c+Hvp8MDn2P3h6R9VShnZB2P5AXa4NIpeJGa3TeHPE+ uVYSs9uvO3C7nPdYgJc7fvJufFbJP9PO4hG9MX/+Mdm5gu8XvfVbPvzKlpibrVGarvYbvvKL PGqhkCA7vsOQOfwywMtLQOkrNbfgDzCzPku7POVTtJgDvPhyQAk0vwosOK6jvhVkwRb8unKD wRiUwRmkwRq0wRvULBfUwR3kwR70wR8EwiAUwiE0qFgyrEuLIZerqqHqj+4jwj2Rs+QrPs5J FNZjOsH7s+XaOd7TPu76PS3EuSd8OedCNZViIhzDDMr5m/+oA0M1XBQfChAqnD5ukw+p+zyL Gqn3ukBNE8NRmcPWQECqSzo2Uz3++g1Bi0JDi7abQTGKYb4gRD1JK5EoA6eoo7mlqUIUUae4 UUHHGTRKErU/ZBlRpCC7IjJs60RNScUxjBicy5ra2cSTWcWmmEVcAqN7yr66q7ducy02Uh/O ikV/I0XpIakwJKVde61gxMTDUkUntLlZc8ZQHMW9erRoPDfyoRNdXJ5pEzauCyuRUkZPC5fY 0sZwq7hiK0da+xZwtMb2OLN2nCp4RMQieiFoK6sj+zd5lB99rKtQqsZ9exru4UM/TDgtiqdf qyR+pDuFlJWZCzzriTgNPJxHhCT/WwxHVlSmh2In9gMfhkQ2QhxGz8nD1nPHgVzE6jNJOvTD lLSshfTHayRJgCQj/fM/X5O9kGzIm/yTW7vEDNLI9Ym/DcLBoSTKojTKo0RKG+SpPlzHWjxG plQtnCRIqAQrp6wzqiQXqxwxrPxHroQtj/RKCMOzFvq7p9y2sBy30ONCV1IuOZw0n8M9DQEe +HkxvctJ1+s/nlsuFDxESzy2MXmkstTJIkRDOWRL4tJDRnzDvWjCtayy8eqv6mFAO4Mhobsx puqQ+zo+AERC5LhMtDTHStNK0CTNeTQx67K3LnO5MVqjJtxHyxrNAzQR9KMbBCu6JFsvcTuu yyCTVDEu/2vTLjycG9tsw+Csy6vikaeTJ/KaPO6COmwxMAy5NFzRTSD6sqMzFnM7zpnSH7WU zjR0PPmiS0FEO+YszfNEz/T0HwejEY4LspPMIuxEo0giMrAkTMH0QiW0TNykKSVbqBa5P0wj MLjkz63yT2k0u0MsFUpsL/t7w++MSRcbRgX9m0SEJwBbkv5bTvVcNdHk0A8F0RAV0REl0RKN meF0SGkSMgQCrgi1zk3LIFS0S3uSSmyav+CMyb7jNQTEy+eMlQhsPFdxzFopo7wDPb5TPh6k v/H7zP3Dws+DDDxMQqQivdzjzOgywvAyki1NQLx8rhYMpfyDlpd0UQscQeD7Sf91SzvdIypL q73SOz1XcioTpdM6tdM79bpYA0ZjtEDEoFEytQ1VEp4aRbNBssILfFK1o062cxMGjJMk5dIV 1T02BUX2o9T4gz0XjMDROzXv00ThOxPyy1EJ9FTJG5Y+pZ1JRVXREVLVW8FNnVQutDXyKzPc m9EnhR0d1bsqLchTC9LVeVSKxNPww0RCHdZjRVZFSsplZdZmddZnhdbIWrtopdZqtdZrxVYa TNZt5dZu9Up79Nao8SCWDFd9c0k+LVfVOiBhTVcf20lybVc4yyZ4jdcDCpg0rVdoakV6zVdm Mhl87VeZbDB+LdHYrEp2/VYeg0xA3EwldK6sRFhN1bD/ANXM0oOpKLVYg5U1+xQ5fETS7KxO H10MGpMyhyJYKSrLP4XP1gBQY6VJTjxZYxqvF6vAXQXPvQSPxvIle81KUIpZ01SvSOvCF7XM RHzZalQXsxTHiQHYF/ypR8u1iG3ZDhUkYFu3bBxYqbXJqqW1ZZM2sWlaiHQnfvNavAlbj7os l8U1odzZoDnbtRUYjW3ElSxbkXlblotbte2o3qrbfUVYuRXJ0DHZvu3FAGU2odJblE3aeU09 wO1Jbuysq0XbluxZrl24pz1LxdzGXSw7zH3ckkQxx1VasmvAlZVZ+BRdWkzcBUvRz1XHQRTG 6LOQ1aXS1D042Y1N+Yzd5tPd/27K1t8F3uAV3uHl2LjyV5Wj3Qib23PcGdt1W+c9KI+TXD+D 3k7JuKskuepdz+ndo+RVXksiOMF1WplVuIDTWo3juPLNmbsdu3gZHEB9OPe9XX362VJU38KK 2ouEm+u9IO8VtPrFqfAVGu1lX4/x3H/qxAJuXv99tf1R4IILMSF64FZjYGKqRW8CYMKURXRd IfjN0wq+x+Jt3IiUXWU1tgx+z7DTXjPS34p0vhX2SX5KR8rtXBB24PNVXQ5mQtfE2+D6Kw/E GBjeWBGOR6slvNv0svp7y/3MzSuEKvZsUUv8wCbuyyYOTXrk4DvZJ3HyxT/0O6qdXJvE4bwl ICEeLP/FQmFvU+LxncgWnrPuOhMO3LLvvNgntlL8PEHPK8/ZDNk4JWIMY1g3tt/eTLqOeCn/ o0L9pECpu1DUdNiidcOiw99pNeOAnUpLxmSf9ZvMa5pMPlgcLU4b+s1THTxP5ltggsvdGNoZ 4x0pNGVJqeRXluVZpuVatuVbxuX/ZEQjzK6BbNGH1FLnIEthdqRb3Ue1Ark/LlZdVjYkdeZu 8jwlXlMwU9HnDGYU5EvLEz1qPpWmMtAsJZZfdeZg4QiglCg/bdBD3eD7Y1INfbuywc3ZNavg 20DKZMzkSlQsbNVpudEtvT3lgb3k1JZqUUBtKUFOjdN/DSQx5dRWlo5IjEv/P36gJZVCgd7m UNw8a6rH3rvUiyZD62PTRhVpOa1ViUZTG87llFbplcZknmTYIU5Vlg7hjybpL6wx5BtST308 mc5GrHviMlVUM0TVSo1obObp6yhlPY7OI67mcq7dRj1qiYvlqKbqqo5P4sXqrNbqrV7Wm+bq rwbrsBbrzbLqsjbrs0ZrFizdwNUthwW4Ht5K4+1JzBxLuO6nuPbhtr6ZQmTQ/mSyvqawQibV XZ6pHl1NE/zlufPO67RizGPDwwTmnitayXIZZxlZIUnDGwMyCH1so+tjCI2ph36v3xTAJV5k 2wXcqYZllE7r1nZtPyrp6WpSxOzClB29a57iy0RO/1TOZ8McwCUUVUKe4jyWyC2xG25pmc9+ a+ZsWNl25xe9baW+5vU76Sp0S+OGxRq5uscMwfoi4Qe0ujDrbMCu7O1bLFOjyc72TMEm5Un8 uV9jZCsWyLsB79oY78EWbODq67rMb/9qSfV2XRp9YdZ20tdG1h02WoHdNevloLYyOIai66/t KnaeS5sVTh7d44sKTzV8NvPUUgSrcFPdUCpjywWdQhNnuOOUy7UUUEVEceOksg/JWRS97uXc TpD0cM1jcRCncd42pDjs8Bt35Da9bDyu8fLEaQSlWSndQ2mETC1BTKcjQcmO5PGUUyndbSbm ucTcTPm8qBGXrjPM8Scvcf+m83IML+IgJnDwM93rA+x1NXDqlczmLmL2rOsUVvAAB+Pl1VzJ yciFZTmINjnyBtYB1fM+J0YTWXHuhl29BsDN9mxIJzBebsvQzsMQN0QXl0S/Xm8JL1AGI1nQ ZszMzlDIU8RQX3RFB0gmJtCb45ZHNvJ0HlT/bksM1Og1zsz5u/UCx+erI6+lU+QfJW7XbUBg L1lJ1m0ffbpDsfOg/m/nbDpVDmZZnSRNAjvVjnNW+8jR7ag4POwsdPVch6gJxNIOxfbXERH0 gmTuNHXxVM74dm+l4zLLFu5OPmTNZm94V/TelfJvJ+03v23ifHcKRrQ1z/aDR/iEV/iFZ/iG 51D/+uPZTpNrOD/0kTxemFTJi4dbuSNHn/5y67TwFw/Ph43x1BlPkMVQYOrxveTwUF7oV7pv /D40kS9xkcZV32ZyJA9591b5lY9onJ15LTdquBVyFbVyzVvMAT15HD+0ox+zpc/rCsry9zY0 XQ9a1rNu31ZxSa5tdSdpRU56+45xkBRaVCfsC5f5PDN4RBc2h6fl+b7zcIrUeLf4Nt9bPxdb BsJzsMeozGXrorIgF0I1ovt3zu4zQq/ydidzZOdMofv0wo50MVd1o+du7Y5vApxdAZ+6iHx8 3lTsSh9lR81snMlA+B6/5+Z0Vg/wXU150O7ttXbrfF935Lt0/JT6Xvdh/wxs5Bn/EDi2Z/SS 9dLOeC819Iqt916n7tP+a2q3UPaKecTrZvQOY8g91sR2e40KoxxjHibE+7ofyS/WeOyNeryO fT4/TeOK4qHT98Dss0VBOqRT/aCNfA1k9H0/fHb37vov78w3Km8HjQwECAcCAQAYWNABQYQH BRpkmDChwogSGTacCJEixYsQHxYkuBAjx4oaF4aUeBGkR5MHS4ZMifElzJgyZ9KEebImzpw2 P+rs6fPnTqAzbwotCpSo0aRKHfJc6vQp1KhSp1KtavUq1qxat3Lt6vUr2LBix5Ita/Ys2rRP XZY06PKlx5Ud4zL9yDbu3Ldtkba0uxGv24wj//9GPPkWJV2FTd2mBFw3Jl65hf2SXExYMVOV j4/epGv482KLciVPRAxa5OihpxlX3nz5sGPTHPWODq2UMO7WMnNPbnhZNOrNQXkPLJ1Yc+be vQ+jDA5Z92zbFX1Lfh3aM2mWeaXTpD2XukPF3O+CLy24/N/ou6uTdK6+7vbk5s+796v2PvP7 O7nr7382v38BHiUggQUaeCCCCSron3WqkdbddfxNB2Fz8NV23FS/yZcTgEIhVdOHFYb404hJ abgehxJ6qCJ9AqYn3nfzLZfdg4IlFl16HeJo2XYRIpQZUSM5eFdj2JEHI40ARsYaknABtiSM z9045YQW9iglkXw9SSP/allqaWSRYMaY44U8inlhWl6y5iNtzgUFJHuxVSgjdTpStiZPIy7p 2JZHxrYjikzS2WJuGNpIJpfPCbofoowCqtmeUL4JKWWNQnkioXF2CFaJC3q64aehStWpgXKK eiqqqaq6KqutcrYiqAsGySKpUdW6HqYkHjlprDhJamimK8KmG55IfnhrikPuOuhtfV25ZXlO BhfiYModW2SdMw73XaGTtamctNiyhRmV4uaZl7W2fYacqXOmGy2y7jIrGrc1ylbbj23JV6K+ TtY73bXh2lcVtKD+SS1zmwKnkp6VYbppe/BZyK7DKFp34nF9tnYxwvQVPOi64u2bsYq/jgcd /75YogwwsPzG9+aLLTrqL1z6xVslWjevxaJZwLr6M9BBCz000UUbbZTOvvKsWq9QJV20z0sJ qXTOxPZEaq6MUTV1sz4l3Vdg2pG7rI3eghvo2MiJiGZyYfY7LdhmU3m2axSbi/PIL5MJcsWz LTyz2CITx3TYY/ood6KTut3l23m/K+3a9RpeVMT1YQxxku8parm6u07dWdRz51jlwZ1XCyfD 0nEdGOodc251c9qdK7HIaHOMa6WJQ27esHQHmzqWmWIr79HFY/h08ckrvzzzzTv/fIDxrk7w 0tBbfz32sKq9O29Kojs48tmLPz755Zt/Pvrpq78+++27/z788cs/P//99dt/P/75678///37 /z8AA5i+yJzrTo6aEgGjJhzMLNBfCmQd7ThTwJjdBjFfadcBvUMzAf5MYXwyVH5CeKsPahCC FoRQxay0ozDhyW/FaqGxXNgkGCrLYZLazwZFWD0OfopIUWIgEBtoQgf90Eugqx4LaRjEBSZM hmVj4mlK6EMpQVFCOmygwngYqgQKZ1i5w5wVT1e4FCawVjokIQ6xiCgbmsyABHRNw0yVxUP5 7I1avCMe86jHPfKRg2X8IyADKchBErKQhjwkIhOpyEUyspGOfCQkIynJSVKykhjsIyYzqclN crKTnvwkKEMpylGSspSmPCUqU6nKVbKyla7/fCUsYynLWdKylra8JS5zqctd8rKXvvwlMIMp zGESs5jGPCYyk6nMZTKzmc58JjSjKc1pUrOa1rwmNrO5zAdubzfa/CZXstbNDYKznFYpXYMs tkNzshNENqwP7sLXznnSsUe6k5k86anPffKTQPnsJ0CR9s+AElQncywoQqU20IQylJwNfahT DgrRibpznRTF5iGJeFGCcpNRWttoQCVaUZCGdKFPJGk7RUo5k6I0mCwlXEuz+VIKxfSaM3Vn TWvJ0ptSLaezvOFKxcJTn/bxkjQVqkWJekqjEi+oulIqMI26UKCiDaouPV5SK+o6q6ayo0rz akSbOEywapOqT+2K/1ltycUlApSpuOJUWqu6STseNaFuPelWmijRoQ7wrhp9aFzZek6XeTCr 7aOr0/gKTQwqdl4z2x3+EJuVxkazdIM1rJwo6yrJhkWlHF1rWF/K2fIFtmearSxodeVZga5W aKMt0GmpWcYalkm1GWXea3sY22oS8qutFV9uW/Vbhqb2an59XnCNttuyljaeht1sc482XIom 17nXA81y8ZNdcB43ns1D2HRTtV1zdldlxisZWYU7XnZG17uu3WF6VxXempbXgc/Vronii6r1 7rO+99rZfc8aWv7mlcD91a9sjIvA+Ro0wA6EmoH52V7zqjBFDJbr1hCcoAiXtLXFFZZJY//r 3wNdmKsTs29jJ7y5zmrYRQ42cYVN69kSK5TDNYbxSkd8wY7SOLE9HsuPIVpd2NbxxdQL8o5x bCyifVBBLf6PjY2pYqBNuWpI1sqVUavj82b5KlsGspGPucb6fRnMXR5VlFc52/2VGalppiJ5 zdTm7FW5LHOebJh9OcIhq+/OaH0ynvOsy/CtOX5+DueZWWvTPH+4z4DecaJfJVtBZ5DS0I20 jzmc6Lhmrc7sW2+jx+dpFmN6pNRj2cpgZmnkrhrEh770m4NnZ0b3iWIqa/V3cQ3gV6uK15cd b4/3ZmtV61p5sW7wqDv4aESX+oTN8k467QvAY7M22b1edoGX2+z/uRZbxr4m8bfR3GxsL7Xb /Qn10MJtK3LX07E6NTe4+Sxedv96nWbVLLXTDW9RoVu+9D6y6vx62nwHjeD+lLes1J3YH3rN 3AaH9bbfa20G/RvAXfszJwtN5n47ueJOzW+SR8lx942cyBGX2ccxrkqN06/kFN92PrP7cPS5 3NEIh7LHUa49uA665n2d+J+DHPN9442XLJefz4Mu2ucCm+ieTLr5/qj0kC384kiV5tENLfVn FxbNCp01c4FuvZpPeKdMd7rOv5n19611yzdfsUBNW9C1f/rRR/wafMWu1bajfaxvd94/qdpe M4YOkSh84N8lDHUIh5WOj+VVu32b1Cfn/7ycdGf81yn8X1Qjz+Xsrjw9F++pwKO3yHrPW4Qo ffI4Jz5698U7zCdor1Mree+rb3yNOw96C+v69nMXvVdIb6Uc71ZNl639gBUuYJBr3ratttNM fR9T4Fud+Xsn/tIlX3XkZ/v0cJfgar88Z50te+YopT5kef9i8WuY0Lrnvs0W3ynv1xD7DSaL +ZF/+S8Z2O2I73v+wR+KFYr0aZ+rDczVCaB6FWB+TVfrZV4CKuDPDdd2gVrfSeDoxddGqByY YWDLeZWIXaC7eeD6SFWx9Z8IkuACHhFWMGDRmYYKsl2tZYiN8V8AxuC5iZ0LQo7y4eDY+dcD etkO+qCx3Zaz4f+cIRHh//RgCyJRIymhzQ1hsgQfI0FhEUrh95ncIindEQqWFYLb8jzh/Q2b OH2hi8EPupEMPMWQEpkhi/FQOjWI2DSOGyLatKHTobQOe9BJb9Vh3G2T4d0hH90gtxmhow1i Cl6VIZ4XInJfIu1XIhZhw7nMC2ZEhyVhmkRi8kjP7LXNyWiilAVihjWiXKHTPcUOKGKUKNYV Hm0V6q3hAflhpaHfB2Zhk1xKJxpHKh7YIz7dLsoi5GUSIVrhMCobMIKhHgXSMRJZHhXWLy7j CEYW4a3fM0JVMW4YsgQbE9KWJQ3SM10jgtzMUG1j2pFaN54j/4AjMt7LOcZRilVjvC3/InDB o7/xzI8VEp7tkTrSHhxOY70VHz0aY9QFJKuAkaAx4PQIookBknTBjkKGniPdWjviI5bl4v2A DjTS4ERuJEHmYyX20z6+YYZxZDtmXkiW0kna4QSSpCXlEiSJWkfOm5uxJEUu4SfSJE7mpE7u JE/2pE+KYa7VnT7GJC2lJA1iklGaUlLujCYtJSk5pfUhJVEW5VQKoS+eX1WO4idBpShx5RiC kleCZerNDe65maQVWPo14MnUSZP9YVoq2q390qwEY8Nl4s69ZVSOIuZMCEZW30eOYcAQE3b5 CXawpT2lzmGiWBEVJuKIyZrE4iWRUKMgJqXYCePozt0BSsEI/1tamWDR4SJokuNDnocLMSbX zGEnrsvwoGaMZEtCeiLeDA5szgi+OFEeriHVwY3HTE5pWmRPzd8edk9WzmOTmcxjssxixuYX 3eJsDaY9dc6i/Bcuwo0azhAPXomb8M4enlikbOZYBhzVHcy70CF98YiatWZGamVTiWXvpCda xlJYXlR8MtlwctV8Yp57HuUt3efv9Vx+rpvR1WdL8WcYCuhGEShuGSh1KahQ/udZOug0IajX leM/hpGC8YeEUqX9VCcDKWOH/kta6osJ1taQtBACISeEnsoGIs7YLI622KDf7IV5/o17uc2z bGeK8ts7yWbIxGhg7iaNzua8aARfDv+MGOXoFs1OlORmEFUOZD5IZPYl3Imo7AkRkgIig26i 1bzNNILg0hxUlqJkmDIiitoiXbIimqaRhvYnYyIm27DjDHXmmTDNGmmM4Yxpx9mVuJDmxqBL iOKolpRpXOoikPpOK+LpVZrQCllnPfHmvWEVTJ2Nc1rpoV4pTr1nUSFqDGZo1UAiYGkqTMrk p+pZlnKqFpkqffrbgvrntYGqWOIStRkeqt7RrKoqs2Ei7qwncbkqmTpfTXIdhgkZrzJeL1Ih 4SHbWvIhFp7qsGLjKuagEwImdCrrX7JqOj5rmhYkrZAMYTafYIYRt1ZKq+Kqer7XFNZOtM1J rSaotOImduL/SIV6o1qEZZc+SqeJZigRVhxmzp2SJzsKkqhaqkpep7uCh3BmELsKLBXK2kc1 bNzEDfmsq/0tlocmKpchGL5mXB9mKylC2N3VX8/J6/YJY7O622BI7CTOmsiKZKZ6LLLOD+iR 68G1LDPmWMoO5INVW8VCV8dCq1rSHcpGzk3uLKs14y9CX2+RX8na7Moe1tLKmHYRrYXdLM4K UNDOYrFm4p2J1LLO69N2IH0qUtcYXLIB59emXACR7RYmIIGCUNdSHK3iWhUmXNN4bMv4ZM0y K7LKo75RqIqKbbU1JLPKrNO+HOAGXTR6aj/W7YYe5NxmYK+mLQKymekcriQK7uL6/23EAqUM Rq7kOpS+rW0yPu3V8mOSiu55amnm4t/j+p3qrq7OYitv7R5+9WNENhSHThrqWlWRyWXrEiE3 lW7UWi6EkpXwihvxKqxWneXxcq7yjmRW2Wbt5t6vPi8SWlyp/KT2bi/3dq/3fi/4hq/1ns/b jq/kHq/5Uln5pm//0C77dpL7vm8hnq38Jij6Di/ZCBh/KW2w5mXiXl+grJBv+u8Bqt76ku+M fmiXPObp0CFo5qEcotGJbZ4znpR4ss7FBHAKbU9mHme3QtCIYg2ckIdbxe8dFmfmpA1ydsuX oOv3TE5jAuq05oq5rEThoEdt5mJbpisL+ihxBM7wmIjj7f8N/6mVeWJV4ADHDydw7VCKbkbQ a8IikBKprSHxyyjKvhbp2hDqePrpvWaRajqqdu7SdDYxvZxmamSnwUAb2/SLFU+rFwpKdd7O K65YGmdnX7rxYMrxAF+qHhos/f5UIC9g/X5lK5lwISeyIi8yIzeyIz8yJEeyJE8yJVeyJR+c 92iuHG1dXbGgslyoH+sq8hrlAbtScXkR1qoQj63GEDWq2QbvFQkh/UEaXoGkO75pK8eyAVqW kLayYh5eAd3mGClYiT6GFx1z3wRxkTpnxEhpxh6yZEmmAXVhHEsbw01RznIjeOpimdTp1Epk Nz9nOIszt8ZQNw/zGM2yS9pRDXP/s5pSKs346PDB4FdNsJq+iBRR0A2BERylMRJ/lAaxECpX 0TBniTXpVTrfsS7X8ltJMGip1EC/1fDl8x3/1Qj38xA5JjXz8TQ36cni8kGvGbR10dqB6cka cwPvHyeDrgvz8l6JdBsltBElkTUzpKJ+tCoPstP+c0Y3RQl/8xKtaHhckDdF0FAXx4X6dAhZ YnRG5zYPsWHUDEM/8yVXtVVfNVZntVZvdVn+L7MVMDZbNENrZBDCWaaVsljDJyubJTwDswSj kFlLNFgvXUeDH9c2XV3DkjR7FD2jsz3T1QSZGmQkWBX9X2bNERiXs5E0MRvtcT2XDRs7dosG dl8vGVIb/zVNb+WCfdFMh7OJvlBna7M/890401YbDmBnk3Nzjpk5CzYNsTMXrTZsh+YUkTZV 05yz0Atkp3RqGDReuehj45Bvt+hYO1sJxfUTnehxEjdJpwxcJzcr+3Zk7zZ4UTdGVzMivisF MTdFM5xDZbZrWxBjORFii1EFP54Qec801xdCezQbsTQqn7df1/b90rLDCrCN8vZnE7RKm85+ p7ZrJ5dBzuBYR3RrOxcZrbVso/bODjRgb3chqtHEtPdl/4jjSTVTG3VRb3hTy54IV/ZQAHCF ZziGH/WFm7aJ+zR6V66fmrGJV3jLkDisqjNX+89t1ziO57iO77hShq+P/ziQB/+5kA85kWdm kR85kie5ki85k5c1jz85lEe5lE85lVe5lV85lme5lm85l3e5l385mGcgeD5Nw/SyZaffj54r YYf5YLviCPO2envx7KW5tqgNMm+Oed/oSNd4btH24/DNQ3jLWqP5CycnuFyLDxGxGOsWJXr1 c3PX4SjwwzrkAk96T6FOnXNowGSxpTMu3PJNtdYtnYdyVLE4nzLMekawYSL63TzOG9sxH9Pm 6CQcG6vxhI/3Zuv55Wn1SZ70sG1xqH8Ojnr6Vve6nZ6idbJ6e0YKXk7dDNvjd2KNTsNVfRsx qpk5dN+twJz4CT8nNHbnr+9207xRqzt63c0lG7ohZyL/+2+MOvhM+yhjmBGFYj3i9DgtCnit 5ntv3LFmIY2/KgbqF2G5FxnDe7m9X3APqrWXoMF33+t9ab02/N8y/PkaGZlzIiLrT7VX+yQa 8LMdYFdJfKR+4DtiL/aJfPwdotbFnrglH8rLHW6TnO/dlDZmPGm9fLNjj82f6brR2s5fF85r rv1qIr6N441f7s0D/dsCpMNbbdCHurKpLak5e/s+PX/+vFtOPaShdd6GqsQRYoTN/NHraNLD WsBambdxPNS/LiSmZKwN4b9f2+bqqFPm27LGvW7NfThiPQdisuvxvV3Ooxay/d7TI967ntcP b1AyeuFzfVf/YF0CHOT/7VSO/71H6jy0A53jV6Stivnm763l32oaylno75rCoWBotf3n87Uw q+/kilDHH75+/qs8hT3AEvO4ml/++nLbQ963uPzSO+Gur71V2l4IdyrXHZuU5ryY+7u/njXg mzuCR78ogz710/7wzzPMb7T05+DIG6roM+HArTSmQq+TL5/k0WITov/Ed7zhvprtZz/7O7uv 0bVN8xz3d3/KN/vqk/+lYzJAABA4UKADgwcRJkxYUGFDhw8hRlRIkCJDiRMBXNS48WBFjxk5 bhxocCTEkiFRplTZESTLhydXxpRp8uPLljNxyvxoEWNOnyF33lwo9KfPoDA5EryItGhToAx5 IlTqlP8qzqBVsaa8mpWrzZpduR6FOZKp1Khg0bI8OzVtW7dv4caVO9coW5JHm4rVu5dvX79/ AQcWPJhwYcOHESdWvJhx4690u56FPJlyZcuXMWssm3muZM6fQYcWPRrlZtJtPZ9WvZp1a7em XUcmGpt2bdu3I8LGTTX1bt+/gWfWHfxnb+LHkSevOlz5TOPNoUeXTnP29JzPrWfXTpz59tLV vYcXT7v7ePPn0R8vn559e/eq17+XP59+ffv38efXv5//bYvYw6LoLp3ic+g/8PpLUEEDyeJp rAMLgiqjiu4Cb60JQYqwJc8kNCtDDNX60IHHAOxpQLooHBHBpVZMqsUFs1P/CsQOG1TRrAEb 7LChFDU8UUAGXaKxx6gODPJFIE/sjKgSgWSSRRjFk3DGk3TEUUQHYbvQxi1/3PFDDIvc0scN byowRBXJLEnANa9kczMeQbQxRyS5lNFNIeE8EkrbdJQyTQ0h7NFDC5f8UlAxMcKyTzDJdEmt lSgcUlApx0QUUDqNTDLLRi9dtFFN49xT1OnMrFTOOwFN9VA03yyU1U45/DHSNtX8tMJRcZXO yVwx5dXXX9nbFdhhiS3W2LpQq05YFo2r8thn81v2Olu/sylJE6WFVtsYZbXTW8kktfJbP+NU dbYuu712qByzvTGtMBF9yivTnN1WOyHRtBRML8ly/1RMfE8F1doKRawTSUqnfdBQhHualFFV Paw0xaFA/bQ3Kku1Vzhaawwx1nwFlniqiVObdeSCE2VXz9zCPZVRda00uOKAaYY3ZVhNTZRm jXluDk9q7VoX5H8tLtdof7E9OWeK9e3Zae4KVnrQlzpyl+gxy2SrZK2l3prdp8EOW+yxyS7b 7LPRTltJqSFdmeXr1I6bWxPbjtc5t28dDU4CkVUpaLm5VRrPoZmuU+WHxe2WULs3ptvvUKd1 EWbAo9Oyyk0z7ZhheFddN+NkBaeVcKvJfRVxlxXnt13KyXPV5NE9XvjodK+lN2vRLEcZ85g1 /9LfIj+enPW0V8csd29hJ/+Y3NnZVnTe4od/Fnpcp4/eemirv1777bnv3vvvwQ9f/PHJL9/8 89FPX/312W/f/ffhj1/++enn7Wm86//MI6EfVV3xrbwSsf4xqEssKyBJiuOiv3luf59LXv5W YzuMnUtRhdITupynugEGkIN3O9KcqJMVB0IQRRc7GVKYksIS/S9NGxRgCP13QlTpxYDY2Un/ SLS/B5KQNI8J2MSSp8ILTolr+0qZSHS4wROyKm87fBQQb1ZEgoFsiU7kYQQplbomunCLIdRi EruolQwSDoT8MqDHYGhGKl4Kh9m7IlgUZkQtbnGBzKnVHfM2QSjq7EwDlKIEawhGPqoRj1K0 4hv/N0YyCL3QdF5jlhLZuEYfxvBCWcMLAZnFsEHyEY+NLCMiQRlKUY6SlKU05SlRmUpVrpKV reTVVkaoRrTEkoF7lA0tXYkbWLrRkwGyJIFuCEzNCPKMuQQOIEe0ENKZ8E83i1gc/xM733FR lgyspfKalU1oAkgossOfMYsTzDJOkIkdnKInvfmwTuqwihIRoslYqM0CitOWgzwcLsH5FEIZ kYwL5N8z/dRGQ/1zdJ8spkCbuclAgjBoKJznIsmZz9c4MqLKcyeRVEZIjGrynStz6KbGaM58 HZCRBx0nLyV6UJ3Rc5rPUyQ7swjTXyr0ohaEp12GA8BghtGl9/xmSnWS/5tBfTKnJLWoVJB6 1Kopk6ZLed5Qd4TEOtbxOzP8KVBH5c/64BOrMOIqqVDaVbGOlaxlNetZ0ZpWta61co5x61vh Gle5zpWudbXrXfHqmKHmla999etfARtYwQ4WsGw17GERm1jFLpaxjXXsYyEbWcnuiZiTXetG 62nZlK5wkppt5ep26llShhWdor0iaXuKWtOeTbUKNOpqv9daD2YWtoCTLW86W9uy3RZ0tNUt 9q7KmtD+tli81V9uibsg4woXucndanC3M1znpme5ymnudHUFXftIF7tQ6xl3uxub6m73uuHl zHgTBF7zljC25V2vCLVLPPe+l2/xUy99JTdL2v+1zYT8jS/uKovfgcHRVTHpXH69JDzrzhe7 xt3b4Fp1x5+Zy3/BYrBpHew63fXXUQCzWeHQC58LN3a5x5tTq6Aas6sR8KtgDfBiQ/zG+95r v4+zHU2epLf/knXGyMmdihm3M4zV7LXnBE2M7za/EYs3XZ7yWtRE92FnApjJbSXvi1vzY8Nt zV0ephbddgxfwEAGyRNN75Ipo6VXrdhx/ZRZkJumnr7g1jpl/k2PsfqXHNc5zO/BM3/sfBq/ zM1ef65NWAO9m+Vd0j99Vi6avZNoPn1Tz8eNm6HBSllHUxKA79p0cbEMHUm3znhzjlx7Q33n T2d30nx52/kwLeJHu9j/1euLdakVNOo0p/PWcut1XHQt6FUfGm+D3t6vA9SfYO8aK5W+NKTD CehhN3rXtR4bsquln2VbZtupxTaUoH3RaE1b0eSWi7OB9e1u4/o+6/a0tTWdaqTRx93cNreq 4a3t3NabzPf2Db9dY2x6hzvT+wF4ctAdpW+r+szRE7icOU3jXPt7Ww8X9p4L3vD8JfzcLTp4 32atSovnZUUfP7VXKf6+kYt7wBlHuWP1zGU+Uy/l+dyLLofYK/yYHII2rHm0WV44Zf9c5N0s OdGLks02Dx22WGr5pFvOc0uvVspwrilhsZ51rW+d6133er6PeTupX5zqULbygV+J9KJr1cct /5bP2FXudgDDPctqR2WRvTvvYdE9fU4H5tcBH3jBD57whRdM219NLL6Pj8NhRyKoH+tzx8tr 73bvuUctb5VsLf7ImZefsDj/bOeGXr4Y9jz8SG82w8D49PIds4Fbb9/YK/71b0m99W4v6sDI mrG5F3btEU/i2ded49QdPuqPD5fDoxzvhr397itP8LQue/kaWzjrfblysV3fstyEvsO5L9rq iy/8vQe+3skv/ct+X/Pd67T5i2/75FtY3kAdP3OvrX5Esp/VwNV/3M9v4Hyl/MLn/n7F9/Sr /siH/3Zr/ibj/QqQAdvLPAiw4gKwfhCQ0xyw3Xzr7jZQnxQQ9z5QBP+JrwPLJwOdZtsq0P1G kAQ77v/UBwVTkNxWMO4s0MoSxgQ/qwXxTe4qg7NgMJVkUMd8UElqqQhXaQixCAkJLAQVSwmZ jO1KyIegcAIpp/mW48Kq0Hu28N+kUIycUOc8qwuhpjwgMOl4kH7IcMF8CunWEPzAh4aYrexY 5wyjyAhNT/WCcM3MTPzSMOzCUPOYUMFwLMEIcemWic6CLjTG7g17SwflrwidBKe4RmbGhYIi qZ/aRIBoS4a+olbQb1wYachWZRAfR1Rq8N14CQgvh1M2Ueg8J5lwBsKO5hBTB1UMBlxux2V4 MZl40WHO6w/7LRCZ6wuHac82LFPiLMhiKhf/9+VnYBHEamcXFwnHvOxfVExSjs8RF8oY2+pz lO53KnHNKPFgoEzCarEcMaUUja6iYpEP+bASnWwbhRENiTE8sBARxcjqbikYcw636PEbIVHf ugN6TPGIpu4Y7dEBSc8OjQXvuFEPSzAfZ1CFIqvbUlFbXkc29DHJFJLyMIkfKdDyHPIEG6rP eEu1ZO4QT9ELE3AgkU8UKyweaYdNEkdZWIgmTYcmpyp0xOWBZqjcSO4eN87sksZuFqUX7SSI XFGSlPEnq24a3+zG2AznbIwoQ6l0YmgnLVGdOsyoGggXd2YnX8zpXqcsFInhqAMmBazumC4j 23IBDzIu6bIu7fIu//GycZ7uI1lsn+YyL/GREptyecppXtayECMSMPUrG6OsaDIJJ6dkKxWT 9hizMtVlJXGSmgxnMqOvGi1zy6IOMtHuoTgzVxKzNHeuHlFzNVmzNV3zNWEzNmVzNmmzNm3z NnEzN3VzulTTF3vo0EpJkBSmLz2xvIZTM7Hp6MwNpJqwJnwQK5tKKwjqeiTIM0dRiKTKOiOs hUQqCxFkEJFpKLkzYQSR8ZhJK7kIO4cJHf0oVpSTODtn0VqqmvYqjzTpCCGqGtuJPvcKHf3z pP7kEgFUj7zxWKiQiI5zOg8pczCIn6amphAyZ1Kly5gJIU/MoPCzhSoKy9pwiTyUnCJqP/+H s4qQB20KqZ3UU0Ex6YugaD06akTNJaRoKkRLEpDc8QuxM0VHynlANKRglDs76X4qSJI4akij k39YtKVmTEeJJkixJo0Q6pyk0EY907fiKIz+qEc19EZ5NKCcMmxyaDw1scjsSDsj6T9B6qY+ qj/FNIruiRN1A5mcU8LWUjA1UJ3QNDm51JsEajf99E8BNVAFdVAJtVANVXvk0MBcKz5681Df LZw+SFr+0lGLMeLmlEPPU0CfQ0spklLn7h1/chojNU92kadCckfv01OJDz9BFTnPqLM+KkEB VFWJrR0pxkw9bkgdqqTSiKEmlVYh1U3TiVcjTppsNTs1FVhZsFH/lZX+mrUAnzVapXVaqbVa rfVaac3wtHVbubVbvXXrvO1bxXVcybVczVX7sDVd1XVd2bVd3fVd4TVe5XVe6fXKasy1WBL9 9HUvQbLZhi0qO7IqH49fPVIkq2px8nUmQyY5e4lO6gU65c+aNPPB7oQr63NoLlGD7NOfJsww 4XGNiEwXZXJjX/Rjb8xhSHSOiPRQQLFCLbY+HwphY9FJBfaIQBEp/3CjiCw0UbXAzBHI9NXv OKdrahEWawRfWqYQd3RpCTE/3+xWWdbsMoqNbAUYO4ZpAHZmgJE4pygyQUw5JwR1Zgr/KLQw 1xFyxBExLdIWX8ZqDHFrf3ZnDQozXzFr/8NkQq2lFY1MaEOlaplncvRWaaHRYVG2F91sYI62 aAPO6LDmO8XOkkrVEMtJHSOUcvvyYx+0K8tkqcwWzM7Rbh2zc28kcCe3Hb00ZIaMGTEq8Zzs qUwlUHz2besWT9WQWes1OE7zdnV3d/FrEuvFbRN2EZW2DwP2K3EQBNkGwU5ueIVH8vixIG3X YMVQ5wxSZqu3X4E3bvEQvmAvGjGu/YRXdb+XYNN2fNczJ8kxJ2dFqS5WKwmzwkhVZA+HfdHo po7KPdnzaaHKfu8wfXuydOYxeCUXm+j3K+cXc2PnfmWHa3Vyy7zyDuP3ZY+xZax2E1N3LHmW avuWgioTYO+WiP9O1RlBWHx3Vn9FZnR18TM/pneccWmyzXgzEYU7GGWwdoSj9mc1mHeydsXg dlnCRU1F+IIp7Gy5Mka3csLo9iYx8YMzVnX904UJuIJSWGyzN4qDcm8EOF6QuEmIVoJhuMnq KZ5EZhwHbIuzuL4IjJWqkO4asUCxD+HcmHfleI7pWLJ2+B1Xcl/TOOPaJXt0jUlWkYaLl3xB rm4aFE71ZYGts33HE3aNjJNU1p4iUz9d0ZHaqEmBFKZIloLn03Mhdyo9GGA2eZqqLmmvyYlu lsJkjmPz1z5/CG0TeEH39xmZx2uHlooyWGqbMoBg5XeZ9odpWYdhqJbHkhaZ6GqZWHH/y/YX idmXjZkWk3KF0e51ObiElxFqmTdxhRln4haQJ9mCK3h1gUxmUUeGpfIojVR2oTIpu2iKZXF2 UfjDlpLNAortTvca2RlUB7dp3BGb4Syfy5Z0SbhpdXmdjVKdpVeYeXJrKfd0B/ieA1R069d0 XRcqOBce6ZTF2jNx+kjNMNpv+0hyi8h9k/dBW1eLDSnBfHlmzAmDqricNVZzk8o3V7pJ+zH6 RjJ8h9FUE3I+4ljjcpp51yZydayOjfqo/ZW/CBn2sPilOXIOsTcLc7Cks81HUSuPH8l8X/gy fPjouNep+VKrhXJgtxp89dh8xZnkwjrxCNesuRp9TxmMW3kf/xkZgclSFG0JYtA5WWGnJsOS aNFSLPu3Uwe4iFk5dJr4ijN2fRvYmfI6KO3arw9YsPtGG8vYKFt28xhXphFXjvxOdv2Smf1Z kre5oKnSmXdZs2vYcBNRYIGHHX8ZpAHaeNn2i4HytWf4SxdygQkXsYc4oS9Tl09bsLmMTBXZ gi63hYf4t5NmOzPqrNvMjI9wYSvmau96YZd7iYnac5V4JvUaiAk72b4rzHK3rD9O0spb39Q6 8qIXqd37veF7cem6sN36jPlGr3FYkxXRnL23sGE3Rh2tpuNQZefZjKFJMpmzPYWYnRNcpYs2 dT9bgVOWpT+acRw6c2N4h327kQVZLv/bdhaFu3RrlrZFVilv5RqPucOZ9uowm4Z1tpfh2VOk d5o7DGipO7qXkoWBmzo/+YRbOKRDGYp/3Bej+Uq1SsDNmcGJWpR/3LJNmIhFelahW7nTUcXT T5890cYFk24dN6O78pEDxXWDbj6dRZzjU4oVOGHx1r8jur/31pa72L6vXPbaW6zSW/fuPL71 fM/5vM/9/M8BPdAFfdAJvdAN/dARfTc/MSCnd6nrG41Jq49v9tERLNKtF3+8uWDPU86Vz3TH tnKt+hUL2LCbaY/yZGqKHEUDe2RR2cvEQu8odpz9MpMxWYmjMrNT7Jpi9rJL/bUmXbpjuYKn XLyfSJnPmWr/RVjIEJbJmxdvQXyMRXxTt/TJjflJTVnoGJqVlfHZWxuDTzyYg/zbn1y0PXq1 K5ygk3xhHnCz1zxvhbjJN7izPTp43twy2bHcv5ajNVpCO3x37F3b9f1pBRrF5PbLWrvdG8bF DR7MybjxSji8pXqZDzuhChPC2zzKHZre3zx/z/zC8x009z1wK2l4AXjhJVy4QRo5bRKTL71x 5b3dnwx1Tf7Y53nHWavO1xN389yVutD3dj7RgX5eVdse2drcB9nNGZFZQW+766Y9Pjimf/C/ QCtXybnRrT5ZlFe+6VrSh93TCrYl9Tfcb4k9+RfAeQqyJ0LBtliDnxiCi1OV/xe//+N64rPc f8P5udkSyAtcux8Y7SVWsTsUsJkbjTQosz+dTfVU3cnasmUcu2EZlHsqvwOemy2cGsGZs7s5 M185M4G5ygvaSOJdqeH9snXY2FH63y0/oKv5KI+4bfMVt5HWmxX7JqnbucF6X/GZY4zYcWId 7oe7Onk74cXWK2c/gZNI9gk/s56eseX3u3Wftq2YjE/Z3O+eKkfZi9e9rOG4UO/4rZ+LUCM8 6MV//Mm/h4iujfd7rRudqmH9HxcfJR236536lq9eqF8w8dfJ5HGd8Ode8U99ogHCgQMAAAQO JGjwYMGEDAkuZGjQYUKHBREejGjxIkSBEhV27MiRosaMH/8pLgTp8eFEkyExPiQpcqNIkyct 0qR5EWFGhRtdhoy5ciZQnj11Vnx5VKjPlhBt1kQ6EqnKnlSrNjXKk6XWmhobYpWIlanXpFyd Zi3ZNazRk1FlhvXaEuzRuGqnMl2bMidUs3Ix3p0r9urKtnr9CoZ7NnHapIW7Bl1cFeZcs24V w/Tb13FQxnzLcrUKGnTnwYYlF/VM1zDin1Ab/4U8mqNHqpTHtq5LeCfmt20vx748W6xu0nR3 vh1OnDJv4YC/Iq+NXHXn6KkJw/4cXWlvz9RDe3fJWzfLn7S1S34+NeZ48exLupdqF3z84Hnr r5+/1Tb8p05Bnt88n2P9tVafbcn/aXdgbkMBqFplr9EnmHIEDviZg/bxx993Gm6oIUocflge iCKO6F13HHpIYooqrshiiSa2CGOMMs7I4os0HnZjjjiOuKCOPv5YI4pADklkkUYeiWSSSi7J ZJNOPglllFJOSWWVVl6J5Yo2yjjclpr56OWMYY4VmGgBmqnjeFKOCWOXZ3b4ZoNlPsmmiMAR l+WHY965YZ1ywnmjf37mOKiKhaJ52p9EbqWemgym9B6GkE7amJBrRTrpfXKhhVOBAJIVH06d Oiofd5h+uR2n2PUYmpujNmrpU3nVpp+k02UHK4WrZnYphqEyqqqQhqLmGq57TUbsnRJWFyGx DeIl4bHV/1G3bKKv4WXttM1VaOCyowlrVXux7YYfstpai9ts2CK2nIJ6ZQgtgThWC26Kopoa q6rvUpigdeDidu+nmTaa6r+ShngtqXgCfB/Crw4MlJc3JSwUq+RdaPGtwHVaK6XeqqkrpAFu jG+eSh6KJMpcxmmykSq3TCfLMGsps5MKz4wzoTXnzHPPPv8MdNBCD0100UYfjXTSSi/NdNNO P53mquXRivC8I8vMXqmg1msvt3NGxnW48n5nI9V4Irry1zuu9rKFYCu65m3VwpWu2R6bK1+i HJOWsaBESXemo4IO+JffF18VccgdC07tUIajB+vUxhlLb4Uo3XxvpLL6e165Ff9PvjOYeKdL 97YPuh0vZBY2jirfzAL+dqWAlVm5dVYX17pppLPLmdToel2a6YfVnezsrJMX72/CZ7a6c2qn /PHXmwb//OTbwc3narnD9/flgRe/sO+3ik39iyRDOPzywFO/fXFXn1sw7NmOe31haLWu+qVx S/VoUxHxvb7AkO5mqquMxTTTubXpZynBSRxrANgd0MGtX4Q7DejmZrXvXdCCCVTQBd+XMDLl 7ULVk9sDYxY6qLkshSqEWdts9kIrxbCFMZohDWMWtAPecIc87KEPfwjEIApxiESsIQsVODM3 ke2IPGLiUlR2P7c9D2yO29KgPJQ9TRHQhmIz3BTz5Kf/7OFMiUmzHokkZpcrpudNYmxVuQDH vy+mzYI+MaOYPncTUEXlV+Zx1aZOxbtZTexvu9kjv7BVl1/d7Y+9Yo0e98UvxOnrXYQsVeGi Fbaq7c2SrxIWxyo2pzYOBnNa3JoCw+NE8rlGQFLDVQjnhxpP9oV5r8sbd+JXvjfSj5WW2Zzs bKe9AZrIeog0HhOzFrvrZTJky/Hi7974S7W1p4ArQxArE3c1730vlwdkZhpZp7mBnc5gBUMl Hh/JsG6qpFe9A6H7NCZKScaTOe/kI8E8uKBhPjKQjJOcNrk4xz6lMlADtVNBV1i1IEEJoEVE IpPqxNAzHlRPE/0RARuK0Yxq/3SjHO2oRz8K0pCKdKQkLanRuGjDiG40k137GURZZjcGEnRo KD3oPIeFUYbedIIIlaMUf5dQI/IUUEQ90ehKCTHKHZJVmQPkAqeXRzxy0JSClGp/3HKqPDoS q4xE5yAXh9RNOhJTGvMUJ5HK1UjaramNFJk92blVeSZ1a2I1E1hyqRjcOYh42wxhrLqHTDOi p5eUFKyzzhY957jTsKk5Xv3i6TxMUrKSbIulK6MZU2omdrGW9RwAa4k/ND3OlB+EJlwver66 Zg6wAiRlH8VpycOB1W+KJWdraTu720FybKNElvfGalYKUlWudyvhsxzYLvnBlbiGbJdKTRrQ 56oSuv+Lqih1TQoy6153u9ztrne/C97wine85C2veTW6J94G9LzsbS+cIpfWfVL2Mau8qHvv i1/2OXaW65tOsbSb3wCPFIOVdZ/k8OpTASs4vKZJpmQ5OE4HLnjCFK6whS+M4QxreMMc7rCH PwziEIt4xCQusYlPjOIUq3jFLG6xi18M4xjLeMY0rrGNb4zjHOu4xaQ8G3PHat/jitCfdkWc QdcIymquUIf9+59MdlxNUmkzvtjUahfpK9ta1QuLhfonlpu4TuluxkVWpixLoUxmKkZSplme 71TjSkiqcW1wYR4cfeocMQNJ8lMv0TPyysblIKPIPUZGM802idY2mxmNgCT/NFeLfLioupUx QL6YlSUtMksPssxU3k8EIdfmMxvajZ0sbJ2xWugipw64fk6znRuoOwk+pkdTlun0NO3LVNf6 yoUeNIBzHOg/O3rRfHQ1fMssaoHBmc2yDXa+vjzlVw9b17LmNZar+GscR9WX2NSaLGH6H2E/ EdNdFBejUM3mrqq72+PObq7lOU1SfxXIYqbx3l79J0GnOcs2aUiQPGcc2gzZyeB5asD9XXCE y6bc6F6iwZI96ohLfOIUr7jFL47xjOd32xzvuMc/DvKQi3zkJC+5yU+O8pSrfOUsb7nLXw7z mHuczzKvuc1vjvOc63znPO+5z3/ecm8DfehEL7rRM4+O9KQrnegab7rTnw71qEt96lSvutWv jvWsa33rXO+6178O9rCLfexkL7vZz472tFMlIAA7 --------------71FAB716949790B0E5CC5B74-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 02:22:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA30250; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:16:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:16:56 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:16:50 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: water balls (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5_wlL2.0.aO7.M6mMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12225 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: -snip- >>I see water balls all the time on the surface of the sea. They're just -snip- >>You've inspired me to take a strong magnet out with me next time I go >>bodysurfing to see if I can steer them around by swishing the magnet under >>them. >> >>- Rick Monteverde >>Honolulu, HI >> "Surf-iving the Blizzard of 97" here in Denver & 'Envy (greenly)' of you .... :) ---now, what can I do with "a" snowflake---- :) hummm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 02:27:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA13366; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:24:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:24:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <345B033F.6BA08BB3 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 20:53:59 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> <345B25CE.4380@keelynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8CyRI1.0.gG3.1DmMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12226 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jerry wrote: > > Gnorts! > > Amazing, the new TOMI..........and multiple inclines too...thank you > Stewart Harris for starting this off, someday maybe it will even do work? Hi Jerry, SMOT like patents exist that are almost 20 years old. The SMOT and the TOMI are VERY different. The TOMI is about Magnet to Magnet interaction and the TOMI field contours are symmetrical. The SMOT is about Magnet to Ferromagnetic interaction and the field contours are highly NON symmetrical. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 03:05:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA29884; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:12:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:12:23 -0800 Message-ID: <345B25CE.4380 keelynet.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 04:51:26 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JInC73.0.mI7.52mMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12224 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Gnorts! Amazing, the new TOMI..........and multiple inclines too...thank you Stewart Harris for starting this off, someday maybe it will even do 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 03:08:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA27965; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:57:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:57:22 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971101045329.0077f2d4 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 04:53:29 +0000 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: First Swartz Critique & more artifacts Cc: rmforall earthlink.net, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, rgeorge@hooked.net, wireless rmii.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, mizuno@athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti msn.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, dennis wazoo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, ine@padrak.com, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, droege@fnal.gov, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, shellied sage.dri.edu, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, reeber aro-emh1.army.mil, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov In-Reply-To: <345A983C.7D5F earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"udYJn1.0.oq6.0qlMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12222 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Following my defense yesterday of Mr. Murray, at 08:47 PM 10/31/97, Richard Murray wrote the following, thereby both begging correction, and heralding that no good deed will remain unpunished: >Dear all, Here I am raising questions re "Consistency of the Biphasic >Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid-State Anomalous Phenomena With the >Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading Into a Material," >Mitchell R. Swartz, JET Energy Technology, Inc., P.O. Box 81135, >Wellesley Hills, MA 02181, [mica world.std.com], Fusion >Technology, 33, Jan., 1997, 63-74. This briefly describes experiments >with a closed, static calorimeter with a recombiner for electrolysis >from Pt anode to Ni cathode in light water. Reference #8 is Swartz, >"The Relationship Between Input Power and Enthalpic Behavior of Nickel >Cathodes During Light Water Electrolysis, submitted for publication to >Fusion Technology. > >The field of light water-nickel electrolysis reminds me of the wreckage >of Star Fleet, scattered through space, after the Borg attack. Swartz >has arrived at the scene like the Enterprise, almost the only survivor. >Can he prevail, when so many have failed-- months ago, I jotted with my >red ballpoint, "References 1 to 7-- all bad." Though I am neither a great fan of star trek or acupuncture to which Mr. Murray takes fond interest, I have reviewed the references #1-7, and Mr. Murray's comments are IMO more glib than supported by fact. Would like to know what Mr. Murray's credentials are to handwave dismiss seven independant investigations that passed peer review? Also, in addition to references 1-7, additional nickel excess heat has been confirmed by NASA and by two separate labs at MIT where the investigators have not published their work. =================================================== >Unusual care is taken to deal with artifacts. Appropriate for this day, >"A light green-colored nickel colloid (which settles over hours) was >observed to follow anodic polarization of the nickel electrodes. By >allowing anodic polarization to continue for days, this voluminous gel, >possibly consistent with nickel oxide and/or nickel hydroxide, was >collected. This colloid material is capable of interfering with >measurements because it may be able to store electrochemical energy and >may contribute additional conduction polarization and other effects..." >Green ichor? In my experiment? Kidding aside, this got me to >thinking-- or whatever it is that "pathological skeptics" do with their >minds-- how many kinds of gels like this are there? First, this material, putative nickel hydroxide only appeared with anodic polarization, and that was therefore NOT present in the experimental setups used. This was stated in the paper, and it is inaccurate for Mr. Murray to state otherwise. Second, there are several materials potentially generated. At the ILENR2 meeting, I showed photographs of auric (gold) hydroxides, and platinic materials (possibly similar hydroxides) which had plated on the cathode, from the anode. This was discussed briefly in the paper Swartz, M., 1996, "Possible Deuterium Production >From Light water excess enthalpy experiments using Nickel Cathodes", Journal of New Energy, 3, 68-80 (1996). Third, when the experiment is performed correctly, these materials are not significant, and do not appear. It is recommended that they be looked for, it was taught how to do it, and it was not stated that they were always present as Mr. Murray implies. ==================================================== >"The experiments were conducted in >the dark when possible. The enthalpy of visible and infrared >electromagnetic radiation has not been previously discussed, although it >may be significant. Therefore it was excluded from these studies." >Thanks, Mitch, I never thought of that! How big can this artifact be? We believe infrared irradiation, either incidental, or unappreciated during photography of the system, adds its own energy (heat) to the system. Our equipment was sensitive enough to detect it, and my calculations indicate it can be significant (e.g. during long videos with additional illumination if non-flowing water is used between the lights and cell) in some cases. Therefore it was elected to remove its input, just as it was elected to measure all sources of noise, and to measure the noise power, and also remove its influence. This was stated in the paper. Obviously many many cells have been examined visually as well. ================================================= >A control run with Pt anode and Pt cathode gave "recovered power >ratios...comparable to noise...1.19+-0.37." "Neither iron nor aluminum >[cathodes] demonstrated excess heat." >It is wonderful, and all too rare to find control runs. However, the >controls necessarily differ in both their chemical and their nuclear >properties. Artifacts can certainly vary according to the chemistry of >the cathode. So what is proven, after all? No blaim here-- it's a fact >that we all face, that these simple electrolytic systems are >surprisingly complex. What do we know, after nine years? We know that >we don't know. > Actually, the iron and aluminum were in alternate electrical paths in the same electrolyte. This was stated in the paper. Therefore, these were correct controls. BTW, we had tried them separately as well. We know nickel works, and iron does not. We know that platinum if exposed to nickel as the anode, can develop nickel cathodically plated out upon its surface which can apparently create some of the reaction, leading to platinum, in my experience, once used and exposed to such nickel deposition probably not being a good control unless the surface is cleaned of the plated nickel. This was also stated in the paper. ================================================== >Fig. 4 tries to support the conclusion that "power amplification >factor," Pout/Pin, drops from about 3.5 to about 1.5, as "applied >transsample potential" goes from 11 to 51 volts. But at .6 V, there are >ten points, ranging from about 1.1 to 3.5, from a "spiral nickel >cathode". I don't understand that. "Figure 4 is a graph showing the >output of the nickel cathodes and a control as a function of logarithmic >applied voltage." This relationship could result from a well-known >artifact: thermal stratification. At low voltages, there could be a >stable hot layer at the location of the thermister. At higher voltages, >bubbling would stir the cell and smooth out the measured temperature. >Who knows? Well, it's Halloween. The Shadow knows. Perhaps the Shadow (Mr. Murray) should have read further, or continued his "trick or treating". Despite, Mr. Murray's implication, we have measured with redundant systems, and at many points within the electrolytic cells. Furthermore, we have examined various thermometric systems to get the thermometry right before the calorimetry. This was stated in the paper. Therefore this internal thermal stratification is NOT an issue. Furthermore we measured the excess (or otherwise for the other materials) heat in a multiring system, and the subsequent rings also corrected for that issue. This was also stated in the paper. =========================================== MOST IMPORTANTLY the real issues are the following: 1. If Mr. Murray, or more likely a student or research of the field, would like to read further in the literature and apply some numbers, he/she might try issues of greater quantitative significance, such as discussed in Swartz, M., 1996, "Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air Surrounding a Calorimeter", Journal of New Energy, 2, 219-221 (1996). For example, the development of hydrogen over the cathode during electrolysis increases the thermal conductivity making the measured excess heat potentially a "lower limit" because the calorimetric thermal leakage increases with the generation of H2 or D2 in the pericathodic volume above the electrode. 2. Mr. Murray might examine the artifacts in the MIT PFC-II data, or the Harwell data, which covered up the confirmation of Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion. These artifacts were carefully examined independently by the US Navy (Dr. Melich), by myself, and others, and have been confirmed subsequently by others. 3. Would also point out that Dr. Melich, Dr. Miles, Dr. Noninski and myself in our SEPARATE studies, devoted weeks and months of time to the analyses (***) involving the errors in the Harwell, MIT PFC-II, and other calorimetric experiments that have been WRONGLY used to claim cold fusion does not exist. Attention is directed to the fact that these times of effort and degree of inspection and critique wrought appear to have involved orders of magnitude more care (including passage through peer review) than Mr. Murray (or a few of the other arm-chair "critics" of this field) has unfortunately elected to devote to some of his (their) not-fully-baked brick-toss low wattage, and sometimes disinformational, "critiques". (***) The references are available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site URL = http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Hope that clarifies at least some of these important matters, and directs those seriously interested where to obtain more information on the scientific and engineering issues. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 03:32:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA17278; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:29:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:29:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <345B3817.4538 keelynet.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 06:09:27 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> <345B25CE.4380@keelynet.com> <345B033F.6BA08BB3@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BqdWn3.0.uD4.nAnMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12227 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Greg et. al.! Similar layout, different roller....my TOMI definitely went over two ramps but that is all I built, hoping to make it continuous on a circular track...and therein lies the trap...though durnit, I still think the circular version could be made to work with some fiddling.... I just like to see credit given where it is due and I never see anything mentioned by anyone about the TOMI in this mailing list, though maybe it all happened before I subscribed. New people are unaware of 'prior art' and get all tangled up (and probably frustrated) with these arguments, simulations, theories and such....so easy to put together a TOMI and though I've not built a SMOT yet, looks simple enough... Seems like there would be case after case after case of people stating emphatically that they had duplicated the effect and what (if anything) they had to do to make it work with their components and setup. We had multiple positive duplcations of the TOMI, roughly 8 cases within a few weeks, including myself and Chuck's 12 year old daughter winning a science fair with it. Ok, maybe a different principle of TOMI vs SMOT, who knows for certain at this point, but I don't understand jumping into all the other versions without all kinds of other confirmations that the first one worked. If it doesn't, then discard it once and for all in favor of the next version or a new design. Anyway, I applaud you having shared what you've found so far and wish you the best of luck with it, I know you've gotten a lot of grief and I do wonder about some of the posts. To my view, it serves no purpose to flame anyone in either direction. I prefer a positive with positive approach, even if it has to take the form of constructive criticism on some details.....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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 05:21:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23430; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:18:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:18:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack centuryinter.net Message-Id: <345B1C4D.41F41A9C mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 07:10:54 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: <199710301107_MC2-25AC-FD26 compuserve.com> <8B24D12F89@hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"W4ITL.0.yj5.bmoMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12228 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jay Olson wrote: Martin Sevior wrote: "Jed, Although this is not the primary evidence, the secondary evidence for the speed of light being constant no matter what the motion of the observer is extremely strong. The consequence of constant c for all observers are the applicability for Lorentz transformations of reference frames, as embodied in Special Relativity. These transformations are accurate reflections of reality .... " I would appreciate comments from those in this thread on the following quotation: "As I continuely point out, the shift in the wavelength of the light of a galaxy or star is due to "both" its luminous intensity and its distance. To claim that blue stars are young and red stars are old is nonsense. If there were two stars next to each other and the same distance from us and the light of one was blue shifted and the light of the other was red shifted, then the one with blue shifted light is more luminous and older than the one with red shifted light. However, there is no way of telling from the shift in their light if they are the same distance from us. "You can not distinguish between distance and luminosity by the shift in the wavelength of light." Now, you might see why astronomers want to believe so badly that the red shift phenomena is a Doppler Effect. " Jack Smith, http://www.wp.com/tjs11 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 06:33:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28412; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:28:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:28:53 -0800 Message-ID: <345B2E7E.1FDA earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 07:28:30 -0600 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, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, rgeorge@hooked.net, wireless@rmii.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, ceti@msn.com, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, dennis@wazoo.com, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, droege fnal.gov, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, biberian@slkc.uswest.net, jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov Subject: Carr re Murray's Arata-Zhang critique Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"mVAyi.0.sx6.aopMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12229 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!news2.chicago.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-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.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: First Arata Errata: recombination Date: 31 Oct 1997 21:55:14 GMT Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Message-ID: <63dk42$7se$1 news.fsu.edu> References: <34518471.24F6 earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ibms48.scri.fsu.edu A few bits culled from this nice article by Rich Murray for any of the lurkers who have asked about the issues of significance of results and progress in CF. Quotes are from a report written by Arata and Zhang.... rmforall earthlink.net writes: > >"The data for cathode (a) shows that several hundred [MJ/cm3] of excess >energy has been created ... Wow!! Several hundred million joules! Stop the presses! But then we look back up above and see that the sample itself was about 0.3 cc by Murray's estimate, so the cell itself put out less than 100 MJ and dividing by the very small sample size has made the numbers look bigger. > ... over several thousand hours ... Ah, that's right. Joules is energy. I have to divide it by time (in seconds) to get watts. Several thousand times 3600 is maybe 10 million seconds, so the power output is maybe 10 watts (assuming we have guessed correctly at what "several" means and that it has been used consistently). Not so big now. We read on. >Figure 8(a) shows Cell power (excess energy) over 4750 hours, varying in >what may be one-day spikes of about 10 KJ/hr to about one-week spikes of >about 30 to a maximum down spike, unexplained, from about 100 to about >20 KJ/hr, at 3600 hours. The average in the last 20% is about 30 >KJ/hr. This is the same rate as 30 KW/hr, or 8 W. OK. A bit less than 10 (the "several"s were bigger in the denominator than we thought, but not by much) but about what we deduced. >On the next page, 6, >Fig. 6 mentions, "Our usual experimental range is around 120-150 watts >and "cell-power" is clearly negative with about minus one watt [for a Pt >control cathode] as shown in this diagram." So, this control run is >given a value on the graph of "~0.7" W, or .8 to .7% of the usual input >electrical power. "Clearly negative"! Likewise, 8 W is 7 to 5.5% of the >usual input power. And this is where persons concerned about experimental uncertainties raise their collective hands. You pump more than a hundred watts into a cell, making lots of things happen; you assume that the system you built to do recombination is working correctly so that all of the power you put in is accounted for; then you see less than 10 watts as your signal and quote it without any error bars. A small error in the overall accounting of those input watts will translate into a very large relative error in the reported number. This sensitivity is what leads Rich to ask many questions about the experiment and the uncertainties associated with these data, which you can read in his report. -- 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. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 06:42:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29712; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:39:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:39:14 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 04:35:50 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Light pulse experiment request Resent-Message-ID: <"S8u21.0.AG7.GypMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12230 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim - > Gnorts? > > I would like to know what the appellation > "gnort" means . Excuse my ignorance about this > particular piece of information. Bad luck, Jim. It's that awful lunar humor back to haunt you again. Say Neil Armstrong's name backwards, and you have the *real* first words ever spoken on the moon. The greeting has become popular with a few people here mostly due to the recently departed Chris Tinsley. < I was thinking about the "accumulation of something < at instantaneous velocity" Quote from faulty memory on my part. Here's the correct one, thanks to your repost: > But suppose light was instead the cumulative > effect of instantaneous forces at a distance Similar enough, eh? It's the part of the post that got my attention. > I take it then all of what appears in this forum is > nonsensical to you. I was referring to the Bearden-esque things on the net of course, which often do seem nonsensical. I mentioned his name as the source of the oddball thoughts that came to mind when I read the experiment. Even stranger, they do seem to at least partially fit the experiment as I described. > So what are you doing here , if I may ask? Avoiding the flamewars of Compuserve Science forum and S.P.F. while learning about and discussing the general subject matter here, and sometimes even participating in anomalous science. How about yourself? > Merry Christmas...text follows . Executable > graphic file attached. Macintosh user here. We don't believe in capital punishment for our files. Happy New Year! Thanks very much for the repost, Jim. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 08:12:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07495; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 08:08:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 08:08:50 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:08:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971101110654_-1409225242 emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Sevior on BLP? Resent-Message-ID: <"OR8U22.0.yq1.GGrMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12232 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin, Some time ago, you said re CF that you were especially intrigued by the progress at BlackLight Power. What is it about BLP's progress that most interests you? What do your colleagues think of BLP? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 08:51:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17001; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 08:47:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 08:47:49 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 08:47:41 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: water balls are "antibubbles" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IRdvP2.0.Y94.qqrMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12233 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/antibub/antibub1.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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 10:12:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA32704; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:05:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:05:07 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 13:04:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971101110658_136990566 mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Chip Ransom CF Cells? Resent-Message-ID: <"6y_g5.0.f-7.JzsMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12234 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott, In a post of Oct. 31, 1997, you said that someday you might get a cathode from Chip Ransom. Who's Chip Ransom? Has he been able to make an electrolytic cell that produces excess heat? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 11:24:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02056; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:55:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:55:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:55:39 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light pulse experiment request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"p2KD_.0.wV.s3rMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12231 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > > < I was thinking about the "accumulation of something > < at instantaneous velocity" > > Quote from faulty memory on my part. Here's the correct one, thanks to your > repost: > > > But suppose light was instead the cumulative > > effect of instantaneous forces at a distance > > Similar enough, eh? It's the part of the post that got my attention. The word "Instantaneous" is not the one I would have used in the description, but I didn't write it. I think "simultaneous" or "concurrent" events are possible irrespective of spacetime . I think what the experiment sought to prove was whether or not the speed of light was functionally dependent on intensity - your comments about the bitmasking and time reversed wave components do seem pertinent only if one is trying to communicate "FTL" - I really doubt that that is what this experiment is about. " Also in this experiment when the intensity of the laser flash was quadrupled, the delay before the rise time of the signal on the photodiode was halved etc.." > > > I take it then all of what appears in this forum is > > nonsensical to you. > > I was referring to the Bearden-esque things on the net of course, which > often do seem nonsensical. I mentioned his name as the source of the > oddball thoughts that came to mind when I read the experiment. Even > stranger, they do seem to at least partially fit the experiment as I > described. Whatever you say ... But comparing Sansbury to Bearden in this way does not appear justifiable by any of the means you have thus far described. > > > So what are you doing here , if I may ask? > > Avoiding the flamewars of Compuserve Science forum and S.P.F. while > learning about and discussing the general subject matter here, and > sometimes even participating in anomalous science. How about yourself? Frank Stenger recommended that I check this place out due to our mutual interest in high energy phenomena (lightning). I haven't seen much about that though ...but I have other interests as it appears you have noticed (the moon) and this speed of light thing . > > > Merry Christmas...text follows . Executable > > graphic file attached. > > Macintosh user here. We don't believe in capital punishment for our files. Macs don't have a dos emulator yet? We got a Mac emulator , it's called Windows...it doesn't work very well , overworks the HD ,is a memory hog ,etc ...but what can a guy do... Or are you scared of the big bad "Virus" thing ? Not that I blame you if that's the case , but most viruses are date-time update dependent so I've disabled that ability in my computer. Never had a problem and I've downloaded and played hundreds of freeware shareware stuff off the net. > > Happy New Year! Thanks very much for the repost, Jim. > You're welcome . Jim O. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 12:01:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08905; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:57:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:57:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:57:24 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo In-Reply-To: <345B1C4D.41F41A9C mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jAj4X3.0._A2.bcuMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12235 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > Jay Olson wrote: > > Martin Sevior wrote: > > "Jed, > > Although this is not the primary evidence, the secondary evidence for > the speed of light being constant no matter what the motion of the > observer is extremely strong. The consequence of constant c > for all observers are the applicability for Lorentz transformations > of reference frames, as embodied in Special Relativity. > These transformations are accurate reflections of > reality .... " > > I would appreciate comments from those in this thread on the > following quotation: > > "As I continuely point out, the shift in the > wavelength of the light of a galaxy or star is due to > "both" its luminous intensity and its > distance. To claim that blue stars are young and red > stars are old is nonsense. If there were two stars next > to each other and the same distance from us and the light > of one was blue shifted and the light of the other was red shifted, > then the one with blue shifted light is more luminous and older > than the one with red shifted light. However, there is no > way of telling from the shift in their light > if they are the same distance from us. > "You can not distinguish between distance > and luminosity by the shift in the wavelength of light." > Now, you might see why astronomers want to believe so > badly that the red shift phenomena is a Doppler Effect. " You need to look in the index of any good astromomy book under "Cephied Variable" stars, which can be resolved in nearby galaxies and distinguished from other types , thereby enabling a red shift measurement due to the Doppler Effect. Jim Ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 13:14:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14950; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 13:03:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 13:03:38 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:23:14 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Light pulse experiment request Resent-Message-ID: <"bStTU3.0.Xe3.XavMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12236 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim - > But comparing Sansbury to Bearden in this way > does not appear justifiable by any of the means > you have thus far described. ? - There was just the notion of the time-reversed component getting clipped which looked like a loose fit to the results of the experiment. Wasn't comparing anybody to anybody or even theory to theory, except on that one point. And I'm not sure at all if there's any correspondence between the light intensity factor in the Sansbury experiment and Bearden's time-reversed wave notion. And I didn't take the experiment as directly having to do with FTL, although the subject of instantaneous action at a distance did come up. So I had some comments on that too. Wasn't an argument against it in the sense he had proposed it, just an observation. > Frank Stenger recommended that I check this place > out due to our mutual interest in high energy > phenomena (lightning). It comes up from time to time. Post things on it and there might be some discussion. I'm sure most people here would find the subject interesting. What about Chip's Tesla coil engineering list, or the HV list? Is the HV list still running? > Or are you scared of the big bad "Virus" thing ? Huh? Virus? I just like using Macintosh for my work. Don't care for the other stuff, DOS/Windows, so I won't use it. I figure what with the web setting certain standards now, it makes sense to distribute something like a small application or running demo of some sort in java or other appropriate x-platform format. Not to criticize you for posting an .EXE or anything, I simply lack the motivation to bother with emulators, boards, or Win-tel computers in general. I suppose 9 out of 10 or so can run the .EXE anyway. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 14:25:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19035; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:19:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: alansch zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Comic Relief. Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 22:18:58 GMT Message-ID: <345baa23.3288359 mail.zip.com.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id OAA19011 Resent-Message-ID: <"wc8gr1.0.Kf4.ghwMq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12237 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, Vorts. On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:23:14 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: _> > Or are you scared of the big bad "Virus" thing ? _> _>Huh? Virus? I just like using Macintosh for my work. Don't care for the _>other stuff, DOS/Windows, so I won't use it. Windoze 95 - the world's largest virus. You've got to remember that a computer is like an air conditioned room. Do not open windows. Cheers all, Alan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 15:11:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03821; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:07:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:07:37 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:43:35 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light pulse experiment request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"K_dGF.0.Yx.uOxMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12238 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Jim - > > > But comparing Sansbury to Bearden in this way > > does not appear justifiable by any of the means > > you have thus far described. > > ? - There was just the notion of the time-reversed component getting > clipped which looked like a loose fit to the results of the experiment. Yeah, it does. I'm not sure I really understand how "FTL" communications would violate relativity though due to causality considerations. If you would like to talk about FTL I'll respond. I'm interested in that ,too. > Wasn't comparing anybody to anybody or even theory to theory, except on > that one point. And I'm not sure at all if there's any correspondence > between the light intensity factor in the Sansbury experiment and Bearden's > time-reversed wave notion. Bearden came up with time reversed wave motion? I didn't know that . You found something of his conceptually reasonable then. Congratulations. And I didn't take the experiment as directly > having to do with FTL, although the subject of instantaneous action at a > distance did come up. So I had some comments on that too. Wasn't an > argument against it in the sense he had proposed it, just an observation. > OK. > > Frank Stenger recommended that I check this place > > out due to our mutual interest in high energy > > phenomena (lightning). > > It comes up from time to time. Post things on it and there might be some > discussion. I'm sure most people here would find the subject interesting. I get most of what I need talking about it with Frank , who has a very nice rig for experiments , called the "Boltron". It's a 60,000 joule unit which can blow 200 kiloamp fuses. So I just lurk when it comes to hi V. > What about Chip's Tesla coil engineering list, or the HV list? Is the HV > list still running? Ya got me there , too ,pal - more references to stuff I don't know about. Believe me, what I don't know is wayyy more than what I do know - but when I don't know I try to ask the right questions. What are you talking about? > > > Or are you scared of the big bad "Virus" thing ? > > Huh? Virus? I just like using Macintosh for my work. Don't care for the > other stuff, DOS/Windows, so I won't use it. I figure what with the web > setting certain standards now, it makes sense to distribute something like > a small application or running demo of some sort in java or other > appropriate x-platform format. Not to criticize you for posting an .EXE or > anything, I simply lack the motivation to bother with emulators, boards, or > Win-tel computers in general. I suppose 9 out of 10 or so can run the .EXE > anyway. OK I understand, but I did the graphic that accompanies the description of the experiment ... pictures worth a thousand words they say. The truth is I HAD to make the graphic in order to make sure I understood Sansbury's description , and get him to verify it's accuracy. If you can do so ( and it appears you have) without a graphic then you've an excellent mind for transposing word descriptions to functional mechanics. It was slow going for me. Alright hotshot what about the FTL Relativity - Causality thing ? How does relativity preclude FTL signalling? Or do you think it does or what? Jim O. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 15:27:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA08432; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:25:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:25:46 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:22:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199711012322.PAA31816 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo Resent-Message-ID: <"6RtWF.0.f32.ufxMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12239 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > >On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > >> Jay Olson wrote: >> >> Martin Sevior wrote: >> I would appreciate comments from those in this thread on the >> following quotation: >> >> "As I continuely point out, the shift in the >> wavelength of the light of a galaxy or star is due to >> "both" its luminous intensity and its >> distance. To claim that blue stars are young and red >> stars are old is nonsense. If there were two stars next >> to each other and the same distance from us and the light >> of one was blue shifted and the light of the other was red shifted, >> then the one with blue shifted light is more luminous and older >> than the one with red shifted light. However, there is no >> way of telling from the shift in their light >> if they are the same distance from us. >> "You can not distinguish between distance >> and luminosity by the shift in the wavelength of light." >> Now, you might see why astronomers want to believe so >> badly that the red shift phenomena is a Doppler Effect. " Boy, that is quite a bunch of words. But I am confused as to the experience of the writer, is this an expert, or someone confused by Doppler shifting? ie, we can make direct triangulation measurements of the locations of a large number of stars in our own galaxy, document the intrinsic luminosities of those stars based on their behaviors and colors, and then we can use that information to calculate the distances to nearby galaxies. The same holds for supernovae, the most luminous galaxy in a cluster, the most luminous stars etc etc. So we have a wide variety of checks on distances to stars and to galaxies, and these reasonably well correlate. So, there is a difference between a star being "blue" or "red" due to the temperature of the surface of that star, as compared to being "blue" or "red" "shifted" in wavelength. One is a matter of the temperature and ionization states of the atoms in the stellar exterior we see, and the other has to do with those wavelengths being shifted. I am inclined to think that this is well understood by those making the above statement, and that leads to something of interest. first, I am unaware that there is an issue with blue shifting of stars on a luminosity basis, but I am aware of such a correlation with galactic size. And, I have read that the largest of stars, such as Wolf Rayet stars, show an intrinsic blue shift to the ions, but this could easily be due to their being blown outward toward us rather than some spacetime effect intrinsic to the star. However, my theory requires that aether be flowing out of stars, and the more luminous the greater the mass flow rate of aether. And so I must take the comments seriously and ask what evidence supports the comments. You see, if the stuff of the ocean of the universe is racing away from the star, then it will be intrinsically as though the star were racing away from us through spacetime. But in reality, the stuff of spacetime is racing outward away from the star. The Doppler shifting, however, ought to be indistinguishable. So, who was quoted above and what is the evidence supporting their comments. Sorry if this was posted previously, I only just now read this thread as I didn't know it had to do with stars, I thought you guys were into semiconductors on that one and know I cannot bash QM and its uncertainty. But when it comes to stellar physics, I have a thing or two to say due to the necessity of conservation of aether in fusion reactions. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 15:35:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA11865; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:31:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:31:58 -0800 Message-ID: <345BBBE2.61B15B84 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:01:46 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT OU proof References: <345B5A9B.DAE29340 verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UqJ0T.0.Fv2.ilxMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12240 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > (Private mail) Now public, with your kind permission, > Hi Greg, > > I think you don't need such defense about SMOT prove OU. Only needed third party verifications. And these are already here. As you stated from the beginning Roll Around is not the goal of the SMOT. This because SMOT is not designed originally for this o peration. Yes, Roll-arounds will be wonderful but it has a serious cost. (time+effort+money+..) The "OU Proof" was intended to show that the SMOT's magnetic field and Ferromagnetic ball's interactions are not conservative. That alone is a major anomaly. > Now, the first criteria of prove OU by comparing losses on each directions is required but not the sufficient argument for OU. I agree. > For example, as the ball have different acceleration rate on each direction, different angular moments are applied to the tracks and may cause different losses including sliding. Also the dB/dt at each position are not equals due to different speeds of the ball electrical losses due by induced currents are not equal. Also losses due to magnetic hysteresis of the ball are not equal. So the everything is asymmetric naturally by the asymmetric design of the setup. It is strongly possible that one or more t hese losses are smaller on the reverse direction, but the total is greater accordance with the result of the experiment suggested. I also agree, BUT the differences are major. >15:1! I can't see this being loss (frictional, sliding, eddy current) related, its too large a differential. If you watch the ball moving in each direction, the relative speeds, over most of the track, seem to be with-in 2:1. By the way, the 0.5mm incline on the "A" ball example is what it takes to overcome the track / ball frictional losses. Without the arrays in place, I can't get a solid 300mm roll (end to end) on a slope less than 1:600 (0.5mm lift, 300mm length). With the SMOT Mk2 arrays in place, the ball exits from the array moving faster than it went in. OU? TRY IT YOURSELF. > It also possible that the extra energy is gained on both directions but due to greater loss on reverse direction, roll-away on this direction could not be observed. Mathematically speaking: > > Optimized Gain(forward) + Optimized Losses(forward) >= 0 (Roll-away) > > Unoptimized Gain(backward) + unoptimized Losses(backward) < 0 > > Unoptimized Gain(forward) + Unoptimized Losses(forward) < 0 > > This should be standard SMOT equations And what you suggest as proof is > > Potential En.(0.5mm)+ Unoptimized Gain(forward) + Unoptimized Losses(forward)=0 > > Potential En.(7mm)+ Unoptimized Gain(backward) + Unoptimized Losses(backward)=0 > > So this equation does not suffice to show that > > Unoptimized Gain(forward)>0 > > A non-OU solution is > > Unoptimized Gain(forward)<=0 > > and > > Unoptimized Gain(backward)<=0 > > and > > Unoptimized Losses(backward) > Unoptimized Losses(forward) > 0 The "RollThrough" example was not intended to show OU. It was intended to show that the test set-up generates a major magnetic anomaly. > I did not yet analysed the second criteria that you gave. > > Please don't give new materials (claims) to fool which constantly try abuse you and we (the vortex people which are confident to your work and sincerity). The examples, and more to follow, are for you guys. They are NON Rollaround test set-ups to support further testing of SMOT devices. They are designed to provide real numbers, for those of you who like theory crunching. > (you can forward this mail privately as you wish) Thank you, I have. > Note: If you have difficulties to reading reading lines (needs line wrapping while reading) please inform me. Line wrap seems to work fine for me. > Regards, > > hamdi ucar HI Hamdi, Thanks for the input, I will post the "OU Proofs" on my site. I have two more which show how to determine the optimum exit point and another example of the non conservative nature of the SMOT magnetic array versus the exit angle from the exit point. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 16:10:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21613; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:00:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:00:57 -0800 Message-ID: <345BB4AE.75A5 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 17:01:02 -0600 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj sbii.sb2, pdx.edu@norway.it.earthlink.net, jdunn@ctc.org, rgeorge hooked.net, wireless@rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, halfox slkc.uswest.net, dennis@wazoo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, ine padrak.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, reeber@aro-emh1.army.mil, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, JNaudin@aol.com, jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu Subject: Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pJZ5A3.0.cH5.tAyMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12241 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 1, 1997 Dear all, Yesterday, I wrote re Swartz's report: The field of light water-nickel electrolysis reminds me of the wreckage of Star Fleet, scattered through space, after the Borg attack. Swartz has arrived at the scene like the Enterprise, almost the only survivor. Can he prevail, when so many have failed-- months ago, I jotted with my red ballpoint, "References 1 to 7-- all bad." Swartz responded with a fair question: Though I am neither a great fan of Star Trek or acupuncture to which Mr. Murray takes fond interest, I have reviewed the references #1-7, and Mr. Murray's comments are IMO more glib than supported by fact. Would like to know what Mr. Murray's credentials are to handwave dismiss seven independent investigations that passed peer review? Also, in addition to references 1-7, additional nickel excess heat has been confirmed by NASA and by two separate labs at MIT where the investigators have not published their work. Murray: I am clearly unqualified in terms of education, employment, and experience. So, my critiques can only stand on their intrinsic value. My basic strategy is to examine the myriad details in the reports, and also to gather ideas from other critics, not all of whom are hostile to cold fusion. A year ago, I was naively enthusiastic, and attended the Second International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Gradually, I have found that a strategy of always looking for artifacts is operationally very productive. I am still hoping to find a paradigm-popping breakthrough, and certainly have no lifelong allegiance to existing scientific views. I like the Chubb theory, but it's beginning to look to me like a solution without a problem. It is necessary in playing the scientific game to assume the mindset that criticism is not attack, but is invaluable support, is not rejection, but is true appreciation in the most practical form possible, in our common quest for useful, actual truth. Five of Swartz's references were included in a powerful theoretical and experimental criticism by Zvi Shkedi et all (1995) [abstracts below]. These five are, along my comments on some of them: #1. RL Mills & SP Kneisys (1991): Claims by Mills are tainted by a unique crank "Theory of Everything", always a fatal symptom. The well-known NASA replication by JM Niedra et al (Feb., 1996) admittedly did not allow for spurious excess heat from possible recombination. Mills, having funded his Blacklight Power with over ten million dollars, no longer seems to be pursuing electrolysis work. #2. VC Noninski (1991) #3. R Notoya, Y Noya, T Ohnishi (1993,1994) #6. RT Bush & RD Eagleton (1994): I quote from my recent post: Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo et al: SIMmer data stew for dubious brew October 19, 1997: R Bush and R Eagleton, "Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes," Trans. Fusion Technology, Dec., 1994, 26, p. 344-54, has a more adaquate pyrex closed cell with an internal platinum black recombiner, at 1.0 mA/cm2, but gives no data about the run history, except to say that the total excess heat for Cell 53 is (4.0 +- 0.8) X 10exp19 MeV. He does give four SIMS graphs: for mass 57 vs 56 we, after the obligatory doubling of the graphs via zerox, find pre-run values, about 60,000 to 300,000, ratio .2, and post-run, 200 to 6,000, ratio .03. So, the pre-run ratio is many times more anomalous than the post-run. Now, that's efficient research! No need to even run the electrolysis! This is a much more significant result than the claimed transmutation of rubidium to strontium, eh? Kidding aside, Bush and Eagleton deserve credit for publishing the only pre-run SIMS data I've heard about. #7 M. Srinivasan et al (1992, 1993) These last two references were not listed by Shkedi, for good reason: #5 T. Matsumoto (1990, 1993): Surely one of the most creative theorists in the field-- I shall never forget his photographs of "Mini-Black-Holes". #4 T Ohmori & M Enyo (1993): Again I will quote at length from my recent post: A number of remarkable electrolytic transmutation reports have been given by a group of researchers at Hokkaido University. I will examine these by focussing on a recent work by T Ohmori, M Enyo, T. Mizuno, Y Nodasaka, and H Minagawa, "Transmutation in the Electrolysis of Light Water-- Excess Energy and Iron Production in a Gold Electrode," Fusion Technology, March, 1997, 31, p. 210-218. It derives from earlier work, T Ohmori and M Enyo, "Excess Heat Evolution During Electrolysis of H2O With Nickel, Gold, Silver, and Tin Cathodes," Fusion Technology, Nov., 1993, 24, p. 293-295. I will call these "Transmutation" and "Excess". I spent some days picking over "Excess" in November, 1995, five years ago, finding so many flaws that I left a message on Ed Storms' answering machine suggesting that it might be a deliberate hoax. Even the abstract has a typo, confusing K2CO3 as K2SO4. Apparent excess heats were claimed from 0.2 to 26%. No attempts were made to determine the loading, if any, in the unusual cathode metals. With a low current density of 8.3 to 25 mA/cm2, the runs fall into the range thoroughly debunked by Zvi Shkedi et al, Bose Corp., "Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells, Fusion Technology, Nov., 1995, 28, p. 1720-31. They did not even bother to cite "Excess" in their 15 references. Shkedi ran four light-water Ni cells at 180 to 600 mA for up to 4 days a run with an average power accuracy of 0.6 mW. All released H2 and O2 were carefully recombined and returned to the cells. Assuming 100 % Faraday efficiency, as did most studies of this reaction, he found apparent excess power of 15 to 37 %, reduced to zero when the actual recombination efficiency was factored in. Shkedi also ran, but did not describe in detail, 154 palladium D2O cells, with the same null results. Confirming was a report by JE Jones et all at Brigham Young U., "Faradaic Efficiencies Less Than 100 % during Electrolysis of Water Can Account for Reports of Excess Heat in "Cold Fusion" Cells," J. Physical Chem., 1995, 99, p. 6973-79. They also did not cite "Excess" in their 20 references. They used low current densities of 1-2 mA/cm2. "Excess", as did other similar studies, seemed to find more excess heat with K2CO3 than with Na2CO3. Jones wrote on page 6978: "In agreement with a recent report (20) showing that different electrolytes produce differing bubble sizes in aqueous solution, our experiments show that the difference between NaCO3 and K2CO3 as electrolytes probably is due to differences in interfacial properties of the solutions at the electrodes. The H2 bubbles were smaller when K2CO3 was the electrolyte than when Na2CO3 was the electrolyte in the same cell. Smaller bubbles allow better mobility of gases in the electrolyte and contact between the electrolyte and the electrode surface, thus allowing more frequent reaction of dissolved gases. When detergent was aded to the Na2CO3 electrolyte, the bubbles became much smaller, did not adhere to the electrode, and resulted in about the same rate of apparent excess heat as was observed with the K2CO3 electrolyte." This shows how subtle and unexpected the artifacts can be in these deceptively simple experiments. "Transmutation", submitted Jan. 29,1996, blindly builds on this sandy foundation. Five fused quartz (SiO2) cells were run a week at 1 A between Pt mesh anode and Au cathodes, 5 or 10 cm2 area, with Na2So4, K2CO3, KOH, K2SO4, or H2SO4 electrolytes, a current density of 100-200 mA/cm2. Page 211, "The counter electrode was a 1 X 7 cm 80-mesh platinum net...The working and the counter electrodes were placed at the bottom of the cell to minimize the temperature gradient in the electrolyte solution by vigorously stirring with H2 and O2 bubbles evolved from these electrodes." Hardly a more ideal set-up for promoting recombination and reducing Faradaic efficiency could hardly be devised. Of course, they found apparent excess heats of 4 to 22%. Page 212, "Measurement of the current efficiency was made repeatedly at a given time during the electrolysis, the result of which was 100.6, 100.1, and 101.1%. This fact shows that there is no conceivable possibility of the recombination of H2 and O2 as another cause of the excess energy production." Interestingly, they found about the same results for Na2SO4 and K2CO3, I suppose, because of the "vigorously stirring". More exciting, they found, (abstract) "In every case, a notable amount of iron atoms in the range of 1.0 X 10exp16 to 1.8 X 10exp17 atom/cm2 (true area) are detected together with the generation of a certain amount of excess energy evolution." AES was with 3.0 keV electron beam energy at 2.5 A current. One of the 12 runs with Na2SO4 was graphed twice, showing one O, two Pt, and three Fe peaks. They estimated Fe atoms occupied 44% of the top surface, about 100 Au layers, exposed by 5 minutes of Ar+ ion bombardment time. An EPMA image, scale not given, shows the Fe was distributed uniformly over the entire electrode. They estimated the Fe on this electrode was ~17 micrograms. On page 214, "Figure 8 shows the relationship between the total amount of iron atoms and the mean Rex [excess heat] obtained in evaery electrode/electrolyte system. Although the data were rather scattered, there seemed to be a linear relationship between these two parametaers. This strongly supports the notion that iron atom production is related to excess energy evolution." This seems to me a good case of attempting to extract correlations from random fluctuations. One of the highest heat values has one of the lowest values of Fe atoms. The straight lines drawn through the points seem very arbitrary, and for the cathode areas 5 and 10 cm2, are given the same slope, although the input energy density is obviously half for the larger area, implying half the slope. Moreover, so much is left undone. Why not a simple chemical extraction and assey to determine the exact microgram amounts of Fe on each gold plate? Why not introduce controlled trace amounts of Fe into the electrolyte to study deposition patterns and the accuracy of the measurements? What is the precision and sensitivity of AES in this setting? What might be the estimated errors of all the numbers claimed? Why not collect evolved H2 and O2 and recombine them to settle the Faradaic efficiency issue? Now, we come to the Holy Grail of cold fusion transmutation research-- isotopic anomaly-- put in the singular, since only Fe-57, normally 2.1% is the most substantial claim, 14.5%, seemingly a 7-fold increase. The usual ratio of Fe-57 to Fe-56 is 0.023 . SIMS is used with a 12 keV, 100 nA O2+ primary beam. Page 214, "The SIMS measurement was made with an electrode after the electrolysis in the Na2So4 solution...spectra of Na+, Al+, Si+, K+, Ca+, Ti+, and Cr+...Fe+. This is probably due to the high sensitivity of SIMS for these elements. The spectrum of Cs+ is attributed to a trace of cesium that remained in the vacuum chamber itself." So, it is not clear if this data refers to the same electrode studied by AES. It is not said whether SIMS was done on other plates, and whether any such data was comparable. Also, we know from the EPMA image that the Fe distribution is in tiny spots. Since SIMS operates by vaporizing micron size areas, it is crucial to know how many spots were studied, how they were selected, and how varied were the resulting data sets, 1 to 200 amu. So, clearly, we are being served a generous portion of data stew. Page 216, "The isotopic content of magnesium, silicon, potassium, calcium, titanium, chromium, and iron...Table 3...As one can see, the isotopic contents of the elements other than iron are in agreement with these natural isotopic abundances within the limits of error. Therefore, these elements can be regarded as the impurities accumulated from the electrolyte solution." Well, in that case, why doesn't the Fe have the same source? They argue that the Fe produced is "at least one to two orders of magnitude" greater than all Fe sources in the solution and the electrodes. However, this production data is highly suspect, based on estimates from AES data, not based on direct chemical extraction and physical weighing, not checked by adding controlled Fe sources to the electrolyte, not qualified by error estimates, and with no pre-run SIMS scan of the cathode. Furthermore, a huge source of impurities, including Fe, is totally ignored, the SiO2 cells in which electrolysis operates for a week. Jed Rothwell in Infinite Energy #11, Nov-Dec., 1996, in a long, detailed review of McKubre's EPRI Final Report, page 64, in the box "Fifty Sigma Results" quotes McKubre's EPRI Perspective, "The conditions in the successful cells were not entirely under experimental control because the closed cells slowly leach silica and other materials from the anode and the cathode and its supports as well as from the cell walls..," and, from the box, "Overkill Example," "Other solid parts are Al2O3, SiO2, and PTFE [Teflon], which are considered in this analysis to be nonreactive." Nonreactive? So, indeed, in "Transmutations", the actual Fe present can readily be accounted for by obvious impurity sources. In a feeble way, the issue is mentioned, page 215, "The content of the particles with mass number 54 is also increased to some extent-- perhaps because of the mixing of Cr-54." Table III has a footnote about Ni-58 in Fe-58. The argument is pressed that the ratios of FeO for mass 73 and 72 confirm the ratio of mass 57 and 56, in Fig 11. "Although the plots are scattered, these two ratios can be seen on the whole to be in agreement. Therefore...not due to FeH+ formation. From this fact, one may safely say that "heavy iron" was produced and that its production was the result of some nuclear transmutation ocurring by the light water electrolysis." Whew! We just barely got by that one! Now, "Transmutations" does contain a veritable pot of data stew, Fig. 9, the entire SIMS spectrum of the uppermost layers of the gold after electrolysis in the Na2SO4 solution. Suitably doubled by zerox, it is a wonderful sight, a Himalayan vista, the main reason I selected this work for study. Prominent peaks, with notes: Na-23 100,000 intensity counts. Cs-133 10,000 (Ni-58)2OH? (SiO)3H? The Cincinatti Group's four ICP/MS scans by Robert Liversage offer no clues. >1,000 counts Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Cr, Fe-56, TiO. Could Fe-56 be (Si-28)2 or CaO? >100 counts Mg, "Fe-57", FeO, ZrO (106), Au, some others. Could Fe-57 be (Si-28)2H or CaOH? ~50 counts O2, Zr-90, Rh, In, Br, Kr, Pd, Xe, Gd ?? Why isn't there more S-32 from the Na2SO4? Given all the possibilites for diatomic molecules, hydrides, nitrides, and oxides, there is plenty of room to prove just about anything. That's why data stew is so seductively tasty. Hey, experts, since we have O2, why not Si2? That'd explain away a lot of Fe! "Transmutation" establishes to my mind the amount of attention we should pay to the other recent papers by this team on transmutation. Since the reports by Miley and the patents by CETI also refer to Ni-H2O systems, I will quote from my Ninth Miley Critique, October 23, 1997, correcting my mistakes about recombination: I apologize for offering up yet another tedious epistle in this series, named in order for my own convenience in keeping track of what I've done. Jed Rothwell recently described George Miley's results: "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis," (First Preprint) and "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis," (Second Preprint), fall, 1996, Fusion Studies Laboratory, U. of Illinois, 103 S. Goodwin Avenue, Illinois, 61801-2984, 217-333-3772, g-miley uiuc.edu. Recombination of O2 and H2 in the electrolyte, catalyzed by the large 32 cm2 area of 1,000 closely packed Ni coated 1 mm beads, would act to lower any output power. Such recombination is well established to have invalidated most claims of excess heat in nickel-light water cells, as reported by three detailed, thorough theoretical and experimental studies in 1995. I'll summarize Mily's description, adding questions. Miley makes it clear that calorimetry was not the main focus of these runs, so I am raising these questions mainly for pedagogic reasons, to indicate what should be included in careful attempts at replication and searching out possible artifacts. Since his team made a variety of types of beads, which all produced excess heat, it is difficult to claim that the quality of bead metal coating is the critical factor for success. No special source for high quality Pd or Ni was claimed. If high heat output can be reliably replicated for thin film systems, then that would comprise a significant advance in cold fusion research. Up to now, unsuccessful experiments are often dismissed with the claim that inferior sources of palladium were used. Hopefully, Miley's beads would be made available for replication efforts by independent researchers. In fact, low cost excess heat kits could quickly be made widely available at a low cost. Flow rate of 1-molar lithium sulfate electrolyte in light water: "~11 ml/min", ~.2 ml/sec. The beads occupy about .5 cm3. It would take about 5 seconds to move 1 cm3 of electrolyte through the cell. Digital flowmeter as source of impurities and electric potentials? How accurate? How constant? Any fluctuations? Any color changes? Bubbles? Composition after two weeks? Changes in trace D2O levels? Amount and nature of gases evolved? Any evidence for recombination of H2 and O2? Gunk deposited on inner walls of system? Amount and composition of solid debris in system? Weight change of 1000 1mm Ni plated beads? Color and surface changes on beads? Chemical assay of dissolved Ni (initially about 2 milligrams for Run #8, 650-A Ni film) from all beads to exactly determine any changes in composition? Amount of dissolved H2 and O2 over time? Total amount of electrolyte in system? Table 4a: 100 ml electrolyte. Composition of electrolyte reservoir? Entering electrolyte temperature: "approximately 60 degrees C" ""60-70 degrees C". How accurate? How constant? Run time: 310 hours. Temperature rise: "less than 0.5 degrees C". Complete graphed data of two-week run data? Accuracy? Any heat bursts? Any long-term drift? Type of thermisters? Quality of electronics? Electronic glitches? Precise location of thermisters, on top, outside tube, inside tube, inside center of flow, exact distance from cell? Any checks for different results from these locations? Possible source of electric potentials? Initial loading: Exact loading times? Graphs of initial voltage changes, until "equilibrium voltage level of 2-3 V...about an hour...A quantitative measurement of the loading was not attempted..."? Other measures to verify loading? Auxilliary heater: Power? Exact history of output? Possible source of trace impurities? Possible source of elecric potentials? "The pump and preheater consume an additional 5 W..." Pump: power, constancy, source of bubbles, source of impurities or electric potentials, mechanical energy imparted as heat to system? Voltages and currents: "~2-3 V, with several mA of current, giving an electrical input power of approximately 0.06 watt." How accurate, constant? Exact graph for two-week run? Any spikes? Long term drift? Resistance of cell, exact graph for two-week run? Amount of H2 and O2 that should be evolved if recombination is zero? Integrated electric input power for two-week run? Resistance of electrode leads, and their contribution to excess heat? Positive outputs: "in all cases" How many cases? Distribution of data? Was most heat output from steady output or spikes or bursts? Level of background fluctuation in data? "...only considered to be accurate to +-0.4 W." "...output of 0.5+-0.4 watts. Calibration corrections due to heat loses and flow-pattern variation indicated a positive excess heat." More details about heat losses and flow-pattern variation? Second Preprint mentions "Over a dozen experiments...Positive, but often very small, increases in temperature across the cell, ranging from 0.1 to 4 degrees C, were observed in all cases." Table 1, Summary of runs, gives values for two runs in round numbers, like "2 +-0.5 W", while four runs, with different composition and thicknesses of the metal films, have exactly the same excess power, "0.1 - 0.9 W". The electrolyte will after some time store up a level of dissolved O2 and H2. Is it possible that a level will be reached in which suddenly the cell starts to catalyze recombination with a vengance, generating excess heat from the stored-up O2 and H2 in the electrolyte? Rothwell's claim that Motorola researchers in 1995 found hours of "heat after death" production in their CETI-type cell after its input power was turned off sparked an idea in my mind today, during a wonderful group meditation this morning here in Santa Fe, "What if that heat output is from the recombination of stored O2 and He in the electrolyte? Can anyone give me the name of the laboratory, or the researchers, or any details about this report? I would also welcome being sent copies of more recent reports that discuss CETI cell power output in detail. CETI, Cravens, Miley, Little, Claytor,or Merriman could check out this scenario by setting up a cell with Pt electrodes to electrolyze a slightly acidifid H2O electrolyte with recombination prevented by enclosing the electrodes in open glass cylinders, until the electrolyte has built up various levels of dissolved H2 and O2, and then running that electrolyte through a CETI cell, with and without electric input power, to measure the output heat. Also, try a cell filled with tin shot for a control. Another possibility to be checked is that in a successful, high heat output run, there might be an electric potential leak into the electrolyte from the thermisters, auxiliary heater, pump, or digital flowmeter, causing a 10 to 100 V potential from the titanium end electrodes to the leak site, thus puting an unknown amount of electrical energy into the electrolyte, generating a high level of dissolved H2 and O2 and possibly other reactive chemicals, which would then react in the cell to generate spurious, substantial excess heat. Yet another possibility that has to be checked is that hot spots in the complex geometry of packed beads may produce segregated, stable streamlines of hot, low-density electrolyte, perhaps with altered composition and viscosity, within the cell that extend far enough from the cell to hit the output thermister, generating an excess heat signal that is higher than the actual average temperature of the whole flow at that point. Anyone who has stirred cream into coffee can appreciate how complex and stable the flow patterns can be. Only a focused intention to uncover such artifacts will discover them. The CETI patent, first filed Dec. 4, 1995, is presented in complete detail in Infinite Energy # 12, Jan.-Feb., 1997. With a flow rate of 640 ml/min, 10.7 ml/sec, 5.0 V, .48 A, 2.40 W input, the temperature rise is 5.4 degrees C, giving an excess heat of 10,079%, a hundred-fold gain. An identical control loop simultaneously ran a control cell filled with "solid spherically shaped tin shot of about twenty to forty mesh in diameter." It lost 0.3 degrees C, and so had heat loss 13.4 W. Thermocouples were positioned within inlet and outlet tubes. "Corrected" estimates for the run resulted in a claimed excess heat of 108,120%, a thousand-fold increase. The dimensions, volume, and number of beads in the three-cells-in-series design were not given. Only very summary data for a single run was given. The length of the run was not specified, nor the integrated power input, nor the detailed temperature graphs for the whole run. No measurements of evolved H2 and O2 are described. It is probable that the control beads, "tin shot", were coated with Sn, which is not as effective a catalyst of recombination as nickel. Were the electrolytic and the control thermocouples in exactly the same locations in their outlet tubes? Were this a substantial result, readily replicated, by now there would have been resounding reports of successful replications by many teams of this simple device with its incredible levels of output power. I imagine that the CETI network has become frustrated, puzzled, and disenchanted by their own experiment. The experiment seems simple, foolproof. Yet, high heat output has not been replicated by others. If I am wrong, and detailed written reports exist, I would appreciate having them sent to me, so I can offer a balanced appreciation. Are there features in the attempts at replication by Scott Little and by Barry Merriman that would prevent recombination and other artifacts from operating to generate apparent excess heat? The effect is simply not understood. No nuclear products have been found, such as D, He-3, or He-4. The natural response of a team caught in the process of collective folly is to hunker down, cease searching for artifacts, release incomplete descriptions, equivocate, bargain for time, apply spin control to negative reports, offer strictly in-house controlled demonstrations to unqualified appraisers, and keep the muzzle on those few outside scientists who are allowed to attempt replication of the patented cells, while finding enough funding to either establish the inital effect, or find a new, more productive experiment. This is probably the case with BlackLight Power, and may be starting to be the process with the Cincinnati Group. Little listed 13 claimed positive excess heat results with Ni-H2O, many by eminent laboratories. We see then that a multitude of interesting, convincing positive claims in the cold fusion field may be all invalidated. As my friend Sondra, an acapuncturist, told me tonight at Luby's Cafeteria, "It looks like in science, sometimes you prove you're right, and most of the time you prove you're wrong." I said, "That's real science, for sure!" It is needful to be very cautious indeed in evaluating claims in this field. I will close by quoting from Evan L. Ragland's Preprint of ICCF6 paper, from Infinite Energy, #10, Sept.-Oct., 1996, about his D2O with .1 M LiOH "triode" 80ml open cells with Pd or Ni cathodes. He does not here explain how he calculates input power, so recombination may play a significant role: "Patent...filed 05 June 1995...assembled and calibrated by Dr. Dennis Cravens...Tuesday 01 August...stabilized excess heat was calculated at 267%...02 August...restarted. Maximum excess heat measured was 40%...03 August...null results. Bipolar triode and fibrous nickel cathode tests were also inconclusive...November...inconclusive...14 December...200 degrees Fahrenheit...Efforts to repeat the anomaly went empty...23 December. The test was fraught with unexpected complications, miscalculations, and learning; however all new instrumentation worked precisely and excellent records were logged. The vexatious problem was absolute absence of any evidence of excess heat...13 March, again without evidence of excess heat...21 March...excess heat generation was observed...200% of input. Gain gradually increased to 500% with operation and better informed control. The reactor was in continuous operation until deliberately shut down on 23 August 1996." As is now well known, both Little and Tinsley, with the active and full cooperation of Ragland, failed to find any excess power with this system. Obviously, there were artifacts operating in 1995 and 1996, but what were they? If an unknown artifact produced months of up to 500% excess power in this fairly standard electrolysis setup, then the thoughtful armchair appraiser, which is after all, most of the scientific community, is reasonably going to conclude that artifacts are involved in all mysterious excess heat results for light and heavy water alike. Witness the recent thoughtful appraisal by Dr. Bennett Miller [Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov], an astrophysicist, after perusing hundreds of pages of research, submitted by Dr. Robert Bass [rbrtbass pahrump.com]. Miller was simply not persuaded. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmforall earthlink.net 505-986-9103 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 17:07:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04012; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:03:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:03:06 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:02:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711020102.TAA26165 dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"8Hjnt2.0.W-.95zMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12242 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 9/1/97 Jerry wrote in part: > >Hi Greg et. al.! > >Similar layout, different roller....my TOMI definitely went over two >ramps but that is all I built, hoping to make it continuous on a >circular track...and therein lies the trap...though durnit, I still >think the circular version could be made to work with some >fiddling.... > >I just like to see credit given where it is due and I never see >anything mentioned by anyone about the TOMI in this mailing list, >though maybe it all happened before I subscribed. > >New people are unaware of 'prior art' and get all tangled up (and >probably frustrated) with these arguments, simulations, theories and >such....so easy to put together a TOMI and though I've not built a >SMOT yet, looks simple enough... Yeah, the Tomi device is an amusing and no doubt similar toy to Mr. Watson's toys. Neither exhibit unconventional behavior and both are no where near o/u. Scott Little fully evaluated the Tomi about a year and a half ago. The apparent anomalous energy is imparted by the operator at the beginning event. Of course, no one has considered this possibity when conducting their extensive testing of smot, rmog, etc. Too busy jumping on Mr. Watson's o/u band wagon. %^) Seriously, Scott did some excellent work in the Tomi evaluation. Perhaps he could be persuaded to repost his Tomi findings. Even though Scott posted that he also was unsuccessful with his smot, perhaps Mr. Watson would provide a WORKING o/u model for Scott to evaluate. I hope it has not escaped everyone's attention that there are more and more people suggesting Mr. Watson submit one of his working o/u smots for independant verification of his claims. Please see Rick Monteverde's 10/31/97 post stating ". . . I do wish Greg would have sent out at least *one* well working SMOT even capable of just a simple rollaway, let alone a rollaround version. I find it amazing as you do, after all this time, that not one hand built prototype has made it out to some of the qualified people on this list like Mallove, Merriman, Little, or others." While there are some that find my posts _________, (supply you own adjective), they are designed to stimulate at least some rational beings to think about and question Mr. Watsons slick internet packaging and marketing schemes of his faulty technologies. Actually, some agree with my posts in toto, but there is a small cadre of smot&rmog o/u wannabes who are quite gullible. Unfortunately, they will hang on until this thing plays out, as it eventually is destined to do. Then they will move on and become wannabes of another cause. Absolutely no insult intended to anyone. Just the nature of some people So, Mr. Watson, will you submit at least *one* well working SMOT to some of the qualified people on this list like Mallove, Merriman, Little, or others for outside verification of all your claims. We all hope you will. Sincerely, RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 17:46:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11150; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:40:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:40:50 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:40:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711020140.TAA11736 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Chip Ransom CF Cells? Resent-Message-ID: <"u8n4s1.0.wj2.VezMq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12243 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:04 PM 11/1/97 -0500, Tstolper aol.com wrote: >Scott, > >In a post of Oct. 31, 1997, you said that someday you might get a cathode >from Chip Ransom. > >Who's Chip Ransom? Chip Ransom is with Nova Resources. Look at their ads, usually on the back cover of IE. I don't know him but I believe he is working with Ed Storms to develop Pd cathodes that really work. >Has he been able to make an electrolytic cell that >produces excess heat? As I read them, the Nova ads imply "yes"...actually I don't know. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 18:55:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27941; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:50:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:50:51 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: soliton Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 02:50:12 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <345bb376.1262647 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <199710311834.KAA26000 Au.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199710311834.KAA26000 Au.oro.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-qrv61.0.Qq6.Ag-Mq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12244 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:34:16 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >Now, notice that there ought to be some small ineffeciency in the emission >of aether toward one another as the emission spreads out into a cone and as >the two solitons gain in separation relative velocity and the interaction >becomes less effecient. Thus, we would expect that unless the interaction >was perfect, that there ought to be some small amount of apparrent loss in >total energy when you are finished, and naturally there is, and we call it a >neutrino. [snip] But Ross, the reaction D + D -> He3 + n doesn't involve neutrinos. These only come into play during reactions where a baryon changes (e.g. p -> n). 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 18:56:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27999; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:51:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:51:10 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 02:50:35 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <345eea75.15344426 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <19971031124242674.AAC127 default> In-Reply-To: <19971031124242674.AAC127 default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0Nti82.0.Or6.Sg-Mq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12245 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:37:01 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: [snip] >doesn't get it right all the time. Peter Glueck maintains that the effect >is essentially catalytic, and this has truth, but doesn't help much. All >that really says is that the effect occurs in regions of strong spatial or >temporal gradients where conventional analyses fail because of >computational complexities. It doesn't tell you how to manufacture these >regions, which can be done in the case of semiconductors. [snip] They are rhombohedral in form (IMO). The number of adjacent cells determines the heat producing properties. I.e. you need at least 2 adjacent cells, but preferably a few more. On the other hand, too many of them adjacent leads to transmutation only, without energy release. I.e. the ideal energy producer contains vast quantities of clusters of cells. Each cluster comprising from 2-10 cells. The primary nuclear product from such clusters will be He4. So reasonable results might be obtained using alloys in which a small percentage of large atoms is suspended in a matrix of much smaller atoms. The matrix should comprise a hydrogen absorbing metal. Whether or not one type of large atom would be enough I don't know. Basically I'm just looking at something that will skew a normal fcc or bcc structure. Furthermore, ideally the matrix metal should be soft (i.e. have a low melting point, and also of course, a low Debye temp.). (Though I'm not sure that these metals are much good at absorbing H or D. If not, then they might still lend themselves to surface reactions, so that finely divided powder or thin films (wire) might be usefully employed). While a low melting point & low Debye temp. are important when trying to detect a reaction at low temperatures (e.g. room temp. to boiling point of water), in the long run of course, one would wish to operate such reactors at much higher temperatures (1000C?), so that advantage could be taken of the higher Carnot efficiency available at those temps. Operating at these higher temps would allow the use of many other metals, that show virtually no effect at room temp. (e.g. Fe). 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 20:04:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06610; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:57:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:57:11 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:57:04 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711020357.VAA20946 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Debye temp Resent-Message-ID: <"Jv76J2.0.Cd1.Me_Mq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12246 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:50 AM 11/2/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Furthermore, ideally the matrix metal should be soft (i.e. have a low >melting point, and also of course, a low Debye temp.). What is the physical significance of the Debye temperature? What characteristics does a material exhibit when above/at/below its Debye temp? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 21:10:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23585; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:06:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:06:37 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Really Cold Fusion on The Jovian Planets? Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:04:24 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce74c$ca32f840$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"BmskU2.0.Km5.Rf0Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12248 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex With temperatures around 170 K and lots of tenuous hydrogen at a pressure of about 1.0E-4 Atmospheres plus 70 percent more Infrared coming from Jupiter than accounted for from Solar heat and similar Anomalous heat from the other "Jovian" Planets, not to mention the Giant Red Spot of Jupiter, could this be Cold Fusion at it's best? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 21:11:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22585; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:03:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:03:17 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:59:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199711020459.UAA21753 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: soliton Resent-Message-ID: <"ql_uS3.0.iW5.Jc0Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12247 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:34:16 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote: >[snip] >>Now, notice that there ought to be some small ineffeciency in the emission >>of aether toward one another as the emission spreads out into a cone and as >>the two solitons gain in separation relative velocity and the interaction >>becomes less effecient. Thus, we would expect that unless the interaction >>was perfect, that there ought to be some small amount of apparrent loss in >>total energy when you are finished, and naturally there is, and we call it a >>neutrino. >[snip] >But Ross, the reaction > >D + D -> He3 + n > >doesn't involve neutrinos. These only come into play during reactions >where a baryon changes (e.g. p -> n). Correct. I shouldn't have used that particular equation. In the DD reaction there is just a loss of mass and an appearance of energy. My mistake in mentioning two different things in the same thought. The neutrinos come in when you encounter the weak reaction and you not only lost or gained mass, but you re-configured the numbers of protons and neutrons, ergo the weak reaction. Such a reaction, in the model I am working on, is due to a conservation of momentum at the phase angle of the exchanged particles. Neutrinos, may or may not be true particles in my model. They could be a convergence or divergence of wave energy at that phase angle with the point of focus on the nucleon involved. Nonetheless, the "neutrinos" have wave energy that is at either 90 or 270 degrees phase angle, while a positron has its soliton wave configured to be in phase with what I arbitrarily label 0 degrees relative to the spacetime acoustic manifolds oscillations. Electrons thus being coupled to 180 degree phase angle wave energy. Thus, you have two kinds of neutrinos possible and this leads to two kinds of neutrons, one with an excess wave energy at 90 and one at 270 degrees phase angle. protons have an excess at 0, and anti protons at 180 degrees. All that is the result of is the donut like vortex of the nucleon is composed of 9 muon resonances, 2 at each of the 4 phase angles and 1 excess muon. Thus, the phase of that last muon results in the *net* charge of the assemblage of muons, or, composite particle. The 9 are grouped into three groups of three, which are what we call quarks. The twist is that I am forced to use four colors in place of the three currently used in QCD. But, as two of the colors I use are both neutral, we simply have not learned to distinguish them yet, IMO. An interesting point that goes into a thread Hamdi brought up a while ago is that when you look at the four dimensional interferogram surrounding such a 9 soliton composition, you find out that the wave interferences at larger distances from the muons themselves bifurcates into 18 sort of sectors. A simple description of them would be to imagine an apple (ergo the sort of donut shape) sliced into 18 sectors like the longitudinal lines on the earth. But that is an oversimplification because the real interferogram is dynamic in 4D. I use 3D geometry plus color to get at the 4D interferogram. You can see the regions where wave energy at 90 or 0 or 180 or whatever phase angles constructively or destructively combine, and that gives you a feeling for the temporal motions of the waves and their relations to one another. Along the axis, all of the wave energy tends to constructively interfere and you see black, while in the sectors you see some of the colors constructively interfere, and then one will stand out in this sector, and another in that. If this can be shown with some better software such as Mathematica, then perhaps we will find a reason behind why Thomas Lockyers summation needs to go to 18 levels and then stop. It could be that the reason is because that is how many phase sectors of wave energy converge into and drive the oscillations of, the solitons we call nucleons. Nonetheless, my point rests that our lack of conservation of mass in current theories is going to be the down fall of them because that notion is in error. The evidence is pouring out of every star and every galaxy we have ever observed, when you know what to look for. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 21:54:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA13837; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:50:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:50:31 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:11:22 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Light pulse experiment request Resent-Message-ID: <"i6mma1.0.6O3.ZI1Nq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12249 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim - > Bearden came up with time reversed wave > motion? I didn't know that . You found something of > his conceptually reasonable then. Congratulations. Well, I hadn't found very much there that I could use, but this one little tidbit of his sort of clicked in when I thought about the Sansbury experiment. I was half-joking about it, because I was surprised and amused that anything would show up in experiment that tended to look like it might confirm part of his EM theories. I'm interested in things like you've posted, but by no means am I one who understands relativity in anything but the simplest layman's terms. I don't know if FTL would violate casuality. I've read arguments that appeared convincing that it wouldn't, but I'm not qualified to really judge that within the larger scope of the subject. As to whether FTL is possible, well - maybe that's one of the reasons I lurk these lists. You never know if something new is going to show up. Oh, Chip's Tesla list is a Tesla coiler's list. They're mainly into tuning their coils to get big sparks, but the HV engineering along with it is good if you're into HV & large current power supplies, etc. I don't know much about what's up with the HV list, but maybe Bill Beaty knows something about it. I've heard it's out there on the net somewhere. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 22:14:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA02830; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:02:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:02:29 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711020602.AAA27466 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: <199711010735.BAA17097 natasha.eden.com> from Scott Little at "Nov 1, 97 01:35:01 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 00:02:21 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NpELy.0.4i.oT1Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12250 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > If the electrolyte is made from D2O instead of H2O, change the 1.48 to 1.54. And that is because: Heat of formation (energy required to form one mole of substance): ------------------------------------ H2+O2 ==> H2O -285,830 J/mole D2+O2 ==> D2O -294,600 J/mole Hence: 285,830 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.481J/ampere = 1.481 Volts 294,600 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.527J/ampere = 1.527 Volts It seems we disagree, Scott, by about 1/100th of a volt. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 22:32:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA07188; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:23:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:23:10 -0800 Message-ID: <345C1D2A.7E03 skypoint.com> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 00:26:50 -0600 From: John Logajan Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GzMpm1.0.Em1.Dn1Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12251 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > The first test set-up clearly shows that the interaction of the SMOT > Mk2 magnetic field and the steel ball is NOT conservative. The test given was that it required a 0.5mm elevation to send the ball through to rollaway in one direction and 7.0mm elevation to send the ball through to rollaway in the other direction. The fuzzy part of this test, and why it isn't valid as specified, is that you don't indicate the speed of rollaway -- a faster rollaway in one direction (presumably from the 7mm elevated case) would invalidate your conclusion of non-conservation, I believe. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 23:27:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA18570; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 23:24:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 23:24:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <345C2A46.31920A77 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:52:46 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Latest Reply to RWW References: <199711020102.TAA26165 dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wL71O.0.zX4.Pg2Nq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12252 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > > 9/1/97 > > Jerry wrote in part: > > > >Hi Greg et. al.! > > > >Similar layout, different roller....my TOMI definitely went over two > >ramps but that is all I built, hoping to make it continuous on a > >circular track...and therein lies the trap...though durnit, I still > >think the circular version could be made to work with some > >fiddling.... > > > >I just like to see credit given where it is due and I never see > >anything mentioned by anyone about the TOMI in this mailing list, > >though maybe it all happened before I subscribed. > > > >New people are unaware of 'prior art' and get all tangled up (and > >probably frustrated) with these arguments, simulations, theories and > >such....so easy to put together a TOMI and though I've not built a > >SMOT yet, looks simple enough... > > Yeah, the Tomi device is an amusing and no doubt similar toy to Mr. > Watson's toys. Neither exhibit unconventional behavior and both are no > where near o/u. Scott Little fully evaluated the Tomi about a year and > a half ago. The apparent anomalous energy is imparted by the operator > at the beginning event. Of course, no one has considered this > possibity when conducting their extensive testing of smot, rmog, etc. You really got that point very WRONG. > Too busy jumping on Mr. Watson's o/u band wagon. %^) Would suggest you read some of the SMOT posts. There is NO input energy. The ball is PULLED into the SMOT device. This point has been discussed at length here. Sleeping were we, Richard? > Seriously, Scott did some excellent work in the Tomi evaluation. > Perhaps he could be persuaded to repost his Tomi findings. > > Even though Scott posted that he also was unsuccessful with his smot, > perhaps Mr. Watson would provide a WORKING o/u model for Scott to > evaluate. Scott & Hal did get a 2 ramp link to work. Took a lot of time to get the first climb and drop to work as well. This result was posted here and in my SMOT results data base. Sleeping again Richard? > I hope it has not escaped everyone's attention that there > are more and more people suggesting Mr. Watson submit one of his > working o/u smots for independant verification of his claims. Please > see Rick Monteverde's 10/31/97 post stating ". . . I do wish Greg > would have sent out at least *one* well working SMOT even capable of > just a simple rollaway, let alone a rollaround version. I find it > amazing as you do, after all this time, that not one hand built > prototype has made it out to some of the qualified people on this list > like Mallove, Merriman, Little, or others." Check the results list, I believe there are 4 "Rollaways" reported. Rick himself posted that he had good results linking additional ramps, with no apparent slowdown on the ball's progress. There is a photo on the SMOT main page of Rick's 7 ramp link. Suggest you check the list of people who will get SMOT's. Think that you will find ALL of the above. > While there are some that find my posts _________, (supply you own > adjective), they are designed to stimulate at least some rational > beings to think about and question Mr. Watsons slick internet packaging > and marketing schemes of his faulty technologies. Slick internet packing and marketing schemes? Well lets see, at last count, I have pre-sold 26 SMOT kits. If thats a big success, you must live in a very small town or swim in a very small pond. Or are you just really trying hard to have a go at me. Some time ago, I made my intentions to seek profit from my devices very public. I made NO secret of that. I even called for expressions of interest when I form the Dmec company to market this technology. Its on the public record. Sleeping again? By the way Richard, where do you live? My address and details are there for all to see. > Actually, some agree > with my posts in toto, but there is a small cadre of smot&rmog o/u > wannabes who are quite gullible. Unfortunately, they will hang on > until this thing plays out, as it eventually is destined to do. Then > they will move on and become wannabes of another cause. Absolutely no > insult intended to anyone. Just the nature of some people. Who gives YOU the right to judge others? Its when you do that, that I really start to get steamed. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS LIKE THAT. Didn't your mother tell you "If you can't say something nice, say nothing at ALL". You have every right to judge my designs. PLEASE build one and comment on whether it works or not. Richard, I repeat, YOU have NO right to judge others!!!!!!!!!!! > So, Mr. Watson, will you submit at least *one* well working SMOT to > some of the qualified people on this list like Mallove, Merriman, > Little, or others for outside verification of all your claims. We all > hope you will. I have worked very hard the last 7 months to get SOLID results from the SMOT ramps. Ask anyone who has built a SMOT about how sensitive they are. Before I release the SMOT Mk4 for shipping, I plan to send a unit from Adelaide to Perth, have a friend test it, have them ship it to Sydney to another friend who will retest the unit and then sent it back to me in Adelaide. Should take about 4-5 days. The present SMOT Mk4 design should pass that test. Ask any SMOT ramp builder if they believe their ramps would survive that sort of treatment and work in the hands of 2 strangers. The answer from EVERY builders will be a SOLID NO. What's the point in shipping touchy / sensitive units half way around the planet and having them obey Murphy's laws when they arrive? NONE. Richard, sorry to say, but the SMOT is real. Its even becoming reliable. AS I said before, "Check the list". > Sincerely, > > RWW Richard, You really should do your homework when you set out on your slash & burn jaunts. Not very professional. The entry energy question of the SMOT's has been discussed at length on Freenrg & Vortex. Several times I believe. I believe the general opinion was that the entry energy was zero or very close thereof. The fact that I have offered to send SMOT's to the individuals you mentioned for verification and testing also seems to have escaped your notice. Now thats just plain sloppy, Richard. I expect better of a professional debunker. What will your clients think? -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 1 23:52:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA23441; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 23:34:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 23:34:31 -0800 Message-ID: <345C2CA9.33AF0005 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 18:02:57 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> <345C1D2A.7E03@skypoint.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZGXIW.0.5k5.5q2Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12253 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > The first test set-up clearly shows that the interaction of the SMOT > > Mk2 magnetic field and the steel ball is NOT conservative. > > The test given was that it required a 0.5mm elevation to send the ball > through to rollaway in one direction and 7.0mm elevation to send the > ball through to rollaway in the other direction. > > The fuzzy part of this test, and why it isn't valid as specified, is > that you don't indicate the speed of rollaway -- a faster rollaway > in one direction (presumably from the 7mm elevated case) would > invalidate your conclusion of non-conservation, I believe. > Hi John, Sorry for the confusion, The incline height was that required to just get a weak release / rollaway in at least 7 out of 10 attempts. In used a 0.5mm increment in the tests. Therefore the rollaway release was as close to the same as I could make it. Reducing the magnet to magnet spacing by half would result in almost 4 times the incline height to get a release from the array. That data has been posted on my SMOT page for awhile. > -- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 04:06:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA23203; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:00:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:00:13 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Low Temperature Microcavitation ,Hydrino Formation and CF Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:57:34 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce786$825d0760$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"AZ8y82.0.Tg5.Cj6Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12255 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In Hiller's Single Bubble Sonoluminescence experiment (see http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~hiller/sl/makingSL.html) he notes that "the colder the water the better the results". The lower water temperature means lower vapor pressure in the bubble (4 mm Hg at 0 deg C) and necessarily a longer collision Mean Free Path for the vapor molecules. Relating this to Mills' better results in Hydrino formation at 2 mm Hg gives one pause to wonder if low temperature-pressure (longer M.F.P.) is producing the most o-u effects? That leaves a bit of a dilemma for measuring and extracting the energy, doesn't it? Kind of like n -Tau in Hot Fusion. :-) I brought up the possibility of CF on the Cold Outer Planets where the cold-tenuous-hydrogenous outer atmospheres of these planets are interesting at altitudes where the pressures are around one mm Hg. The inference is that the Infrared insolation from the Sun Might be effecting the Hydrino formation by Light Lepton pair production in the micron range, and these would have a higher production cross section at lower pressures where the collision M.F.P. is large compared to the "wavelength" of the progenitor photons or the LLs themselves. Otherwise they just pop into existence, annihilate and disappear as longer wavelength photons. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 04:08:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23142; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 03:59:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 03:59:41 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971102065801.0069c388 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 06:58:01 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard In-Reply-To: <345eea75.15344426 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <19971031124242674.AAC127 default> <19971031124242674.AAC127 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xC9Cj1.0.Rf5.hi6Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12254 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:50 AM 11/2/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk < wrote: >On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:37:01 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: >>doesn't get it right all the time. Peter Glueck maintains that the effect >>is essentially catalytic, and this has truth, but doesn't help much. All >>that really says is that the effect occurs in regions of strong spatial or >>temporal gradients where conventional analyses fail because of >>computational complexities. It doesn't tell you how to manufacture these >>regions, which can be done in the case of semiconductors. >[snip] Robin van Spaandonk: >They are rhombohedral in form (IMO). The number of adjacent cells >determines the heat producing properties. I.e. you need at least 2 >adjacent cells, but preferably a few more. Agreed that proper metallurgical preparation is one sine qua non of these reactions. However, what is the basis of fact for stating: "They are rhombohedral in form"? Are not hydrided palladium and nickel both face centered cubic (fcc)? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 04:46:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26446; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:39:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:39:18 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 05:37:59 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce78c$273bcf00$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"BJP2r.0.7T6.rH7Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12256 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sunday, November 02, 1997 5:01 AM Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard Interesting path for thought. Now if we could only get Bill Beaty to moderate this list so as to rid it of the damn off-topic noise. I can see why Russ George gave up in disgust and left. :-( Regards, Frederick > >At 02:50 AM 11/2/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:37:01 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: >>>doesn't get it right all the time. Peter Glueck maintains that the effect >>>is essentially catalytic, and this has truth, but doesn't help much. All >>>that really says is that the effect occurs in regions of strong spatial or >>>temporal gradients where conventional analyses fail because of >>>computational complexities. It doesn't tell you how to manufacture these >>>regions, which can be done in the case of semiconductors. >>[snip] > >Robin van Spaandonk: >>They are rhombohedral in form (IMO). The number of adjacent cells >>determines the heat producing properties. I.e. you need at least 2 >>adjacent cells, but preferably a few more. > > > >Agreed that proper metallurgical preparation is >one sine qua non of these reactions. > > >However, what is the basis of fact for stating: >"They are rhombohedral in form"? > >Are not hydrided palladium and nickel both face centered >cubic (fcc)? > >Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 05:41:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA26651; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 05:35:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 05:35:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 08:29:40 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Time reversed ...Light pulse experiment request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"37isn1.0.LW6.R68Nq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12257 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Rick and Vo., I study the history and ethics of science... I am in love with the stories. I used to speak with Tom Beardon monthly, before internet. I feel Tom is probably a nice enough person. The notes below are about science, not about tom, per se. See notes in text below: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Jim - > > > Bearden came up with time reversed wave > > motion? I didn't know that . You found something of > > his conceptually reasonable then. Congratulations. > The "time reversed" wave T B speaks of is not time reversed, he did not come up with it, he did not concieve it. It is called a phase conjugate wave. It can be realized with some non linear optical materials and coherent or laser light. The conjugation in some cases is 180 degrees. Nothing is reversed in time. It is very cool. It is a real world effect and can be woven into a lot of valid work.... any idea can be woven into other work if you try hard enough and if you have the right audience. > Well, I hadn't found very much there that I could use, but this one little > tidbit of his sort of clicked in when I thought about the Sansbury > experiment. I was half-joking about it, because I was surprised and amused > that anything would show up in experiment that tended to look like it might > confirm part of his EM theories. > > I'm interested in things like you've posted, but by no means am I one who > understands relativity in anything but the simplest layman's terms. I don't > know if FTL would violate casuality. I've read arguments that appeared > convincing that it wouldn't, but I'm not qualified to really judge that > within the larger scope of the subject. As to whether FTL is possible, well > - maybe that's one of the reasons I lurk these lists. You never know if > something new is going to show up. > > Oh, Chip's Tesla list is a Tesla coiler's list. They're mainly into tuning > their coils to get big sparks, but the HV engineering along with it is good > if you're into HV & large current power supplies, etc. I don't know much > about what's up with the HV list, but maybe Bill Beaty knows something > about it. I've heard it's out there on the net somewhere. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 05:57:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA03863; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 05:53:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 05:53:43 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971102085040.00cc20d4 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 08:50:40 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard Cc: "Frederick J. Sparber" In-Reply-To: <01bce78c$273bcf00$LocalHost default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"jrAZ22.0.Cy.cN8Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12258 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:37 AM 11/2/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >Interesting path for thought. Now if we could only get Bill Beaty to >moderate this list so as to rid it of the damn off-topic noise. >I can see why Russ George gave up in disgust and left. :-( > >Regards, Frederick > Agree with more science, NOT with moderation. Also: thought Russ George left to work with Prof.Arata in Japan from which he may be back by now. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 06:15:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA06491; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:13:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:13:56 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 08:13:50 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711021413.IAA08484 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"0DBEB.0.Lb1.Zg8Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12259 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:02 AM 11/2/97 -0600, Logajan wrote: >285,830 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.481J/ampere = 1.481 Volts >294,600 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.527J/ampere = 1.527 Volts > >It seems we disagree, Scott, by about 1/100th of a volt. John, it has to be in the heat of formation values. Mine could well be the incorrect ones. Where did yours come from? I'll check out my sources Monday and then we can try to determine which ones are "more correct". Also, don't you mean "J/coulomb" in the above...not "J/ampere"? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 06:33:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09465; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:30:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:30:27 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 08:30:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711021430.IAA09276 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: "antibubbles", Vortex population Resent-Message-ID: <"usvJp3.0.hJ2.0w8Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12260 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:47 AM 11/1/97 -0800, BillB wrote: > >See http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/antibub/antibub1.html Great write up, Bill. I'll be trying some antibubbles later today. BTW, What is the current population of Vortex? Are there any records from which you could learn the population vs time function? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 08:45:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06826; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 08:42:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 08:42:08 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:40:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711021640.LAA20989 mrin47.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"a_ms71.0.Yg1.VrANq" mx1> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12261 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: money! The stock market crashed.. I pulled out some of my assets before the crash. I didn't pull out enough. How did I know? Bob Vargo told me do it the week before the crash. He is a friend of mine who studies the market all of the time. He has gotten it right 80% of the time. He is saying some scary things about the market now. Ask him yourself at rvargo1062 aol.com Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 09:14:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11179; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:08:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:08:28 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:54:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971102115154_-1542777571 emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, billb@eskimo.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, ross pacificnet.net, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, RMCarrell@aol.com, tkepple@third-wave.com, fstenger interlaced.net, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, zap@dnai.com, reed zenergy.com, tkepple@twd.net, JEFFJ@ep.state.az.us, jewel@sgi.net, paulo oblivion.net, herman@antioch-college.edu, Lentin@imaginet.fr, barry math.ucla.edu, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, ceti.msn.com@aol.com, bssimon helix.ucsd.edu, denislee@nji.com, david.noever@msfc.nasa.gov Subject: Robert Vargo and the Stock market Resent-Message-ID: <"QDsTm3.0.Uk2.BEBNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12262 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have a freind Bob Vargo who is semi retired and studies the stock market and the economy all day every day, it's his life. He done this since his teens. A few years ago he told me to purchase Iomega and Intel. Both of these have gone up by a factor of 5 since he gave me this advice. I did not listen. Bob told me to puchase Mot at 49. I listened this time and almost doubled my money. He advised me to sell Mot this summer. I'm glad I took this advice. This April he told me to buy. I listened and got some great buys. In Aug he told me to lighten up on my equities. About a mouth ago he told me to, "Go totally into cash now!" I took this advice with a grain of salt and liquidated about 10% of my stock funds. Thank my luckey stars..I did that before the crash. I should have did all of my no loads as he suggested but its my money. I deserve the right to loose it. To bad I can't now go back into time and do it all. Now Mr Vargo has called again and said, "Sell everything Monday! Things are worse that you want to know." I replied, "The market is down 10%, I never sell low." He replied, "That's nothing to what is going to happen." Vargo has been right so many times..but I'm not going to do it... He has got me a bit worried. Write to him and you will worry to. Bob at rvargo1062 aol.com Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 10:23:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22688; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:19:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:19:58 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:20:17 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! In-Reply-To: <199711021640.LAA20989 mrin47.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Wn1v32.0.PY5.DHCNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12263 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > money! > > The stock market crashed.. I pulled out some of my assets before the crash. > I didn't pull out enough. How did I know? Bob Vargo told me do it the week > before the crash. He is a friend of mine who studies the market all of the > time. He has gotten it right 80% of the time. He is saying some scary things > about the market now. > > Ask him yourself at rvargo1062 aol.com > > Frank Znidarsic > Hmmm...something to think about. I wonder if rvargo is onto something . Some of us have to go on gut feelings not so much as forcast theories. My kid , a 25 yr old EE suddenly cashed out ,paying off his student loan, car etc. This was b4 the so called crash and I don't know how it affected his position at all. But he's solvent now and that's a heck of a good start anytime. just a thought, that's all before we declare "Unidentified Subject" as off topic. ~~~~~~ wavin' to everyone Jim O. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 10:59:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA31349; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:55:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:55:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:54:56 -0800 Message-Id: <199711021854.KAA21083 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: MM experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"bop-21.0.ef7.9oCNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12264 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I can well understand your not wanting to be distracted chasing other's >aether work. Get yours done and in coherent order, then step back for >perspective if you care to, or let others do such. It is not so much that I wouldn't enjoy discussing these notions with someone who really understood them, but that in the first place, I have found no one who (IMO) properly (or just consistently) accounts for both gravitation and sub atomic behaviors such as fusion. When you read their notions, there is one place or another where they make huge leaps of faith saying that such and such is like this, but provide no discourse to back it up. What you read are huge amounts of rationale as to why the approach of the mainstream is off course, and a smaller amount of discourse on what the structure of their theory is. If you notice, my discourse is aimed at trying to help those of you with interest to understand the structures I am working with, and not aimed at shooting bullets at the establishment. Second, I have over the past three years worked out the details in geometric form, as to what must be happening at all manner of scales from cosmological to the Planck scale, far below the nuclear. At those fringes, I still am learning a lot. And in between, there still some rough edges. But, I have learned that there are two domains where anamolous behaviors can reliably be anticipated. Both domains result from the flow of aether. One is flow away from an object, and the other is flow into an object. Basically, this results in really just one behavior, a curvature of spacetime due to aether motion. >From that, it is simple to come to grips with what sort of anamolous behavior one should anticipate. Though for the most part, in vortex, these behaviors are not manifest because no one is producing huge quantities of aether emission inside of a confined space such that the aether flow is important. The simple fact is, if you work with a soliton based universe, then you eliminate the separation between spacetime, and paticles, because both are just different geometries of acoustic vibrations in a single substantive ocean. So you must now study "forces" as the ways in which the acoustic waves from one soliton are communicated to another soliton. And with that you come up with 4 very simple manners in which solitons can interact. Phase opposition induces attraction, and phase coherence induces repulsion. Thomson (Kelvin) and Bjerknes established this mathematically in the 1870's in formal papers. What they did not do was to superpose another acoustic structure (spacetime) on top of the individual oscillations to force them to remain in a phase coherent condition, despite relative acceleration. Thus, they successfully explained EM and derived Maxwell's equations, but they failed to anticipate sub atomic structure, and they failed to account for gravitation. You will not yet understand how the spacetime acoustic manifold becomes ripped apart as you converge into the interior of a solitons acoustic structure. But I can say that both spacetime and particles are in essence, different geometries of aether acoustic wave structures. So, as you get in really close to the origin of oscillations of a "particle" or soliton or standing wave as makes best sense to you, then the intensity of soliton wave energy as compared to the intensity of spacetime wave energy shifts to the point that inside of some radius, the soliton wave energy dominates as an underdamped, local resonance in that aether. Ergo, the nuclear regime. That regime is where you have direct, soliton to soliton interaction, whereas when they are further apart, each soliton is emitting waves out into the surrounding spacetime and then some of that wave energy interacts at a later time with another soliton. The reduction in **effeciency** between direct interaction, and spacetime interceeding in their interactions, is what results in the reduction in effeciency of communication of the wave energy coherent to the two solitons. Thus, the drop in amplitude of the nuclear strong force, to that of the Electric force. The weak force is a phase angle momentum interaction and is complicated to describe in words. hang on for the book and the images for that one. but, the gravitational force is really simple. So simple that Le Sage realized this to be a viable description of gravitation in Newton's day. Solitons, at the innermost Planck scale of their oscillations, filter out wave energy that is out of phase and frequency match with local spacetime oscillations. Filtering the phase errors leads to the electric force described above. In the strong force, the solitons are locked into a coherent structure of resonances. And this leaves just one more kind of interaction to consider. Frequency interferences. Gravitation is a very simple result of the incidence of wave energy arriving from above, of our matter oscillations filtering out a tiny percentage of those waves which are frequency shifted relative to our local spacetime, and the resulting thrust of that filtering. Notice something you can say immediately from this notion. G, must be a measure not of how hard one object pulls on another, but rather, of how much stuff there is out in the distant universe, frequency shifted due to the Hubble expansion. ie, G is a manner of weighing the mass of the universe, and not a manner of understanding an interaction of attraction between two local objects. Therefore, it is no wonder that the universe is so nearly flat when we measure the amount of mass out there! It is flat not because G tells us that the mass is pulling everything back in, but rather that is a measure of how much stuff is out there emitting wave energy compressing things locally, throughout the volume of the universe. The logic is exactly upside down, but when you invert your logic, it finally makes sense. But the beauty goes beyond that. When you realize that fusion and mass loss leads to aether emission from standing wave structures to to geometric re-arrangement, then you come to realize that there must be a corresponding anamolous spacetime curvature in any location where you can find aether flowing. Aether flows out of; stars after ignition, on main sequence, and in on off bursts during the final periods of the stellar evolution, out of galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. The flow velocity is slowing external to galaxies, thus you wind up with a reduction in the outward curvature, and wind up with the dark matter problem. Aether flows in to; Endothermic reactions, (that one leads to the formation of black holes after a star winds up with an iron core because the continued fusion to heavier elements cools the star, and accelerates the aether flow inward, ultimately crushing the star if it is large enough), black holes. Aehter does not flow into or out of; The Earth or any other region of spacetime where there is no mass to energy, or energy to mass reactions going on. So if you integrate around a closed volume of spacetime, you will have no net aether accumulation inside of a region unless there is some motion relative to other objects or there is some reactions going on. A gravitational field is due to an aether density gradient, and the earth has this. So if you move the control volume up or down, the amount of aether inside varies due to the aether density variation. Anyway, I am rambling and need to head off to read some reports on quasar abundances around NGC520 and NGC450. (quasars, I think, are white holes that are blobs of a bh core that shot out away from another bh and were stripped of their surrounding aether inflow. Thus, they are boiling aether, very much like what happened during the big bang. I guess what I can also say regarding other people, is that I have come so far on my own, that I don't want to mix up any credit due to other people as it becomes hard a year later to recall that I discovered that point, or I read it in someone elses paper. So by sticking to my own, and explaining my own theory to those of you out there, you guys challenge me with questions I must figure out how to answer. And I must answer them first in a manner I can understand, and then second I must figure out how to allow you to grasp the geometries I work with. Both tasks are hard, but the latter more so. That is why I am writing the book. So that I can put into images, the images in my head. With that, I think that most people come to understand what I am saying. I find that people I can talk to in person come to grasp these ideas far faster than those I talk to over the net. So this is really a proving ground for my presentation of the ideas. Because if I find analogies that work in words alone, then they will work very well when accompanied by images. I am trying to win a Nobel for this one, I will make no pretense about it. Though if I succeed, it will be a radical accomplishment because I am not going to give them a bunch of equations. I am going to tell them a story from which others will subsequently be capable of deriving equations. The norm would be for those people to get the prize. So time will tell. The thing I do have going for myself is that all of you guys continue to pound me with questions, and some listen to the answers and pose additional questions. Those allow me to find the weaknesses in my explanations (not my theory :-) The other thing I have going for me is that there is a tremendous volume of dis-harmonious observations out there in astro-physics. And that is precisely where I anticipate the problems to lie. So by learning all I can about those observations, and about my theory, I find better and better evidence of the validity of my notions. We now even have observations of ions in the solar corona which are apparently being **inertially** accelerated, independent of charge to mass ratios of the ions. Now one can work out magnetic acceleration schemes till the cows come home. But when you step back and look at what we see, it finally becomes absurd to think that magnetics are responsible and leaving the ions all at the same velocity dispersions, independent of their masses, charges, and charge to mass ratios. OTOH, it makes perfect sense to find these things if you have aether blasting out of the surface of the sun and inducing localized spacetime turbulences. In this latter case, the heating is coupling to mass, not charge, and so you expect similar velocity dispersions. Well, thanks for the comments and feedback. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 11:02:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00506; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:59:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:59:01 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:58:04 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: "Frederick J. Sparber" , John Schnurer Subject: Re: Well... WHAT are they?? these ... plasmoids?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"zbfhD1.0.n7.orCNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12265 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > A ball? how big? Why are they plas-moid? Are they plasma .. > plasma-like? I am asking a question here... anyone have a clean > description? gnorts m'rAlieN ! A plasmoid is a sustained arc discharge of any shape. A spherical plasmoid should be at least 70 percent spherical , I would say. Jim Ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 11:40:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09372; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:34:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:34:05 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711021933.NAA15090 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof In-Reply-To: <345C2CA9.33AF0005 microtronics.com.au> from Greg Watson at "Nov 2, 97 06:02:57 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:33:56 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iL43x3.0.EI2.iMDNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12267 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > > The first test set-up clearly shows that the interaction of the SMOT > > > Mk2 magnetic field and the steel ball is NOT conservative. > > > > The fuzzy part of this test, and why it isn't valid as specified, is > > that you don't indicate the speed of rollaway -- a faster rollaway > > in one direction (presumably from the 7mm elevated case) would > > invalidate your conclusion of non-conservation, I believe. > > The incline height was that required to just get a weak release / > rollaway in at least 7 out of 10 attempts. In used a 0.5mm increment > in the tests. > > Therefore the rollaway release was as close to the same as I could > make it. I'm afraid that doesn't really quantify it very well -- considering the claim that it purports to demonstrate. But that was only one objection to your demonstration. Another is that both tests required negative slope angles. Any difference in rollaway performance (equalized by adjusting the slope) could merely indicate an asymetrical resistance/dissipative function -- which would not violate conservation laws. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 11:46:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11938; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:42:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:42:45 -0800 (PST) From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711021942.NAA15381 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: Robert Vargo and the Stock market In-Reply-To: <971102115154_-1542777571 emout05.mail.aol.com> from "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" at "Nov 2, 97 11:54:06 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:42:41 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"017_m2.0.Qw2.pUDNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12268 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Znidarsic wrote: > Vargo has been right so many times.. The interesting thing about stock markets is that any repeatability will be detected and exploited in a way that will nullify it. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 11:52:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12221; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:47:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:47:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:47:11 -0800 Message-Id: <199711021947.LAA24393 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Everyone on Vortex please read, poll re Book Resent-Message-ID: <"58viJ3.0.o-2.MZDNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12269 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: When I get the text all written, and the illustrations all put together, I will need to go to a publisher with some sort of marketing research showing them that it is a good idea to publish my book despite the ideas being so far out there, aether ocean universe, particles as solitons, spacetime as an acoustic structure of standing wave energy remnant of the big bang, etc. How many of you on vortex would be interested in purchasing my book? (I describe the sections below) Please email me directly so that you don't bog down vor with simple, "yeah I want one", or "No I wouldn't buy that rubish" replies. But if you read this at all, please respond either way so that I get an accurate test market percentage of respondents. I will post the number of responses I receive, along with the number that would want the book, and the number that would not want the book if they reply too after a week or so. Please respond either way so that I can get a ratio of yeah's to nay's. Reply to; tessien oro.net I expect the book to be a very professional production with excellent full color graphics, illustrations, and the most recent astrophysical images possible from Hubble, VLA, VLBI, SOHO, GONG, SOI, COBE, etc., see Hawking's book for a quality comparison as that is what I am discussing here. And based on normal production costs, I expect the book will cost a similar amount, which is around $30.00 (his cost me $37.50 US) It will be about 300 pages, Have a technical flavor of Hawking's "The illustrated Breif History of Time" which uses lots of good images photos and illustrations to get his ideas across. ********************************************************************** The main sections of my book so far are; I Mysteries in our Universe this lays out a large number of the spectroscopic and other strange things physicists cannot account for in our universe. It includes technical discussion of coronal heating, sun spot cycle, AGN's, Quasars, dark matter, butterfly pattern, lack of mass conservation in fusion reactions, and will include lots of images from Hubble, VLBI, etc. It will present studies by Arp and others who show there is strong evidence for non velocity red shifting in galaxy and quasar associations, and it will show lots of beautiful images of things like thousand light year long intense jets shooting out of a plethory of AGN and quasar nuclei. This section will present around 30 "Real" mysteries, void of my notions, with detailed discussion as to why they are mysteries and fail to be explained by QM and GR suppositions. (Tacitly, this lays the ground work for the realization that black holes consist not of a singularity, but rather of an inertially confined inner core, and it details the evidence that if you fail to maintain confinement of that core, then it will breach confinement and shoot outward to create quasars and red shifted galaxies where the aether condensate is boiling. But I do not mention any of this in the book in this section. I meerly present the mystery highlighting the reasons the mysteries fail to be explained.) II Scientific Theories, Fundamental Notions, and Revolutions In this section I discuss the process of Seeking Fundamental theories, Anticipated difference between a particle universe and a wave mechanical universe based on solitons as I have been describing to you. but this goes mainly into the philosophy of deciding on the sets of fundamentals from which one will attempt to derive a formal mathematical theory, and shows the large numbers of fundamental assumptions required in today's QM and GR theories. The final chapter of this section makes a stab at showing that todays theories are in a state of confusion that is similar to that of the Ptolemaic system prior to Coppernicus. In other words, we can get excellent precision in our predictive capabilities using both GR and QM, but in the case of QM in particular, this comes at the price of continually refining certain "fundamental constants", and tweaking the list of "fundamental particles" every time a new one is discovered. And tweaking whether quantum numbers are to be conserved or not, based on the latest experiments that reveal that now we cannot conserve that one all the time because of these new experiments that violate parity etc. This is precisely the state that the Ptolemaic system was in; it gave excellent results, but was increasingly abhorent as to any logical understanding of why one should be required to make all those tweaks to get the answer. This section lays the ground work explaining that a wave mechanical universe is more logical, and has fewer fundamental assumptions. I identify what these assumptions must be. III Pictorial Evolution of an Aether Ocean Universe In this section, I show you what I think the entire evolution of the universe was like beginning at the instant of the big bang. This is a series of about 20 to 30 images, with few words and lots of imagery to show you the motion of the aether and aether droplets directly. I show how you can form black holes, galaxies, fusion, etc etc. I show how spacetime comes out of the phase and frequency coupling of the soliton oscillations. And in the end, I show how you wind up with a huge flow of aether into an ultra massive black hole core. And then I show how that inflow inertial confinement finally fails to confine the intensely pressurized aether core, and that core breaches confinement and explodes outward boiling from the condesnate to the vapor again as it expands. That boiling leading to the condensate breaking up into smaller and smaller droplets, until finally you wind up with a droplet fog that all phase and frequency locks together and voila, spacetime is formed as are matter particles as the Planck scale droplets trapped in the acosutic nodes of spacetime. At that point, you are referred to return to the first image and begin the process all over again because that is the big bang. So IOW, the entire evolution becomes circular, and the universe we live in becomes reduced to in essence, one of many localized oceans in a very much larger Omniverse, which is the title of the book. I figure the illustrations will save me about 30 * 1,000 words. IV Working with an aether ocean universe In this section, I lay out the details of how one is constrained if one attempts to work with aether solitons as particles, and acoustic standing waves as spacetime. This gets into the nitty gritty of what I have been describing here on vortex. However, with the ability to show you the phase interferograms of the wave interactions, I will be more easily able to explain what I mean by the weak interaction, and the difference between the strong and electric interactions. Most people will not be interested in this section, but those of you here on Vor will. This is because this section will explain in detail some important notions about fusion and fission. And I am debating how far I will go with the work I have done on my own cold fusion approach. I will, however, explain a new way of understanding coulomb barrier penetration as you guys are calling the process, though that is not a good description of the manner in which I am working with it. Nonetheless, I will describe what turbulence in spacetime has to do with cold fission of heavy nuclei in Pd electrodes. And what it has to do with the directions of propogation of electrons and photons in the two slit experiment as just a couple of the topics to be covered. V Potential Valuable Concepts. In this section, I boil down section IV into the essence of the differences between considering the universe to be empty space with particles, vs an ocean with solitons. VI Mysteries Explained Using Aether In this section, I list all of the 20 to 30 mysteries presented in the first section of the book, and explain them in light of aether acoustics. A lot of these will deal with anamolous GR spacetime curvature due to the flow of aether into or out of a region of the universe. the reason is because there are many mysteries out there that are so obvious once you adopt this manner of thinking that when I put them all down, everyone with an open mind will be able to make the connection. VII The Future; In this section, I will explore some of the more radical notions and devices I believe will manifest in our future. These include what we would today call "anti gravity" devices, cold fusion devices, FTL devices etc. But the first and last are IMO, really nothing more complex than aether turbines and as such no more mysterious than is a helicopter to us today. And the second device simply describes how we are on the brink of an energy revolution, which is well perceived here on vor but not as well understood out in the general population. I will also discuss thoughts and memories as geometries of wave structures, and thus holographic wave structures. As such, this leads to the interesting notion that telepathy may well be something that we evolve to acquire as a new sense. However, the primary thrust of the book is directed toward presenting you with my theories in a context you can understand much more easily than in words here on vor. So it is not a metaphysical book at all, but rather a compilation of things taht are mysteries, and new manners of thinking of our univesre which I believe offer a manner of explaining those mysteries. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 12:05:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12636; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:02:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:02:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:01:55 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711022001.OAA23141 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: One hand To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"vl3Vk3.0.L53.VnDNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12270 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 9/2/97 JL wrote in part: snip >Now it is my personal belief that he will never get these things >working (for the obvious reason) and that is why I haven't sent for >a kit. snip Query: John in your opinion what is the "obvious reason" Mr. Watson will never get these things working? RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 12:07:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15728; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:03:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:03:45 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711022003.OAA16135 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: <199711021413.IAA08484 natasha.eden.com> from Scott Little at "Nov 2, 97 08:13:50 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:03:39 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iu51a1.0.gr3.VoDNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12271 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >285,830 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.481J/ampere = 1.481 Volts > >294,600 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.527J/ampere = 1.527 Volts > > > >It seems we disagree, Scott, by about 1/100th of a volt. > > John, it has to be in the heat of formation values. Mine could well be the > incorrect ones. Where did yours come from? I'll check out my sources > Monday and then we can try to determine which ones are "more correct". The 66th CRC gives -70.411 delta Hf kcal/mol 25C for D2+O2==>D2O liquid. Multiply by 4184 to get J/mol. > Also, don't you mean "J/coulomb" in the above...not "J/ampere"? Yes and no. Yes, J/coulomb is correct, but I was trying to say more. Since a coulomb per second is an ampere, and since a joule is a watt-second, volts has the same numeric value as joules when the coulomb is delivered over one second of time, i.e. at one amp. So a few steps were glossed over to get to the numerical result. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 12:09:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17058; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:07:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:07:50 -0800 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: Ross Tessien Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 13:03:32 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <199710311834.KAA26000 Au.oro.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [040] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ProTech Subject: Re: soliton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"rJ0Tq1.0.LA4.JsDNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12272 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 31-Oct-97, Ross Tessien wrote: ____Lots of snips____ >The ocean of aether is an acoustic structure. Spacetime is >an acoustic structure. Solitons which we call particles are acoustic >structures. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that if you look >at the motions of smaller and smaller solitonic structures that the >amplitude of the spacetime acosutic motions, relative to the structures >you are considering, is becoming larger. Spacetime turbulence is >becoming important. >Our only confusion is due to the fact that we think of "Spacetime" as a >"Metric", rather than as an acoustic structure. The former is a >mathematical, ideal creation. The latter is a turbulent, fluid >mechanical, complicated structure. it is plain that if we use the >notion of a metric for spacetime when it is really a fluid mechanical >turbulent acoustsic structure, that we will have statistical errors >in our predictions in the paths and velocities of particles through >the metric. But if we model spacetime as a fluid mechanical >structure in phase and frequency lock with solitons, then we expect the >trajectories to be turbulent to a degree. Ross, Could you define what you mean by "acoustic structure". It seems to be at the heart of your work but probably means different things to different people. Solitons are wave stuctures that have some particle like properties. Solitons arise in certain sitituations from non-linearities in wave velocity and dispersion within a propagation medium. It seems to me to be a giant leap to postulate that everything is a soliton type structure. Maybe I just have trouble with the complexity that such an idea engenders. Solitons made of solitons in a sea of solitons? In any case your theory is interesting to think about. ___Ron From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 12:11:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04009; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:10:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:10:00 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:01:25 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: John Schnurer , vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: NOISE ....Re: Scott Little's double standard In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971102085040.00cc20d4 world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"nlPCZ.0.Z-.70DNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12266 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Humor: A tangential note on electronic noise: Problems with electronic noise can be eliminated: "Never let the signal get more than a few millivolts above or below ground. No signal. No noise. No problem. JHS On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > At 05:37 AM 11/2/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > > >Interesting path for thought. Now if we could only get Bill Beaty to > >moderate this list so as to rid it of the damn off-topic noise. > >I can see why Russ George gave up in disgust and left. :-( > > > >Regards, Frederick > > > > Agree with more science, NOT with moderation. > > Also: thought Russ George left to work with Prof.Arata in Japan > from which he may be back by now. > > Mitchell Swartz > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 12:16:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA18998; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:14:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:14:55 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:11:06 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Time reversed ...Light pulse experiment request Resent-Message-ID: <"SVnS92.0.le4.-yDNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12273 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > The "time reversed" wave T B speaks of is not time > reversed, he did not come up with it, he did not > concieve it. I never had much doubt that the whole thing as I applied it was wrong somehow, but I did find it amusing that it seemed to fit. I'm certain that I saw "time-reversed phase-conjugate wave" somewhere in the descriptions of Bearden's claims. Perhaps it wasn't something by Bearden himself, but Bedini or someone else referring to Bearden. I tend not to think too rigorously when I read those things. Then again, I tend not to think too rigorously when I put my car keys down either, so it's no wonder I seldom know where I've left them. (already wishing I'd never brought this up) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 12:16:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19075; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:15:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:15:12 -0800 Message-ID: <345D6265.2F4F bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 21:35:17 -0800 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: MM experiment References: <199711021854.KAA21083 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4laPi.0.sf4.EzDNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12274 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] > A gravitational field is due to an aether density gradient, and the earth > has this. So if you move the control volume up or down, the amount of > aether inside varies due to the aether density variation. [snip] > OTOH, it makes perfect sense to find these things if you have aether > blasting out of the surface of the sun and inducing localized spacetime > turbulences. In this latter case, the heating is coupling to mass, not > charge, and so you expect similar velocity dispersions. [snip] Questions: What is the direction of this density gradient? Are the turbulences of which you speak between the sun's gradient and the aether outflow? If so, should they not be measurable and predictable thus providing a way to test your concept? I must also say that I am enjoying your posts and find your theory (of that which I can follow) intuitively pleasing. Have you discussed how quantum spin symmetry relates to your aetherial soliton concept? (If so, just point me in the right direction and I'll find it.) (In honor of the late Vort Tinsley, I believe the first observation of a soliton wave was a Brit observing one propagating up the Thames in the last century, according to an IEEE "Spectrum" article. Interesting in that one of the first commercial applications is likely to be non-regenerative, fiber optic communications between the colonies and the UK.) Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 13:17:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA32559; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:13:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:13:53 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:13:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Time reversed ...Light pulse experiment request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"s46T13.0.fy7.GqENq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12275 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > > (already wishing I'd never brought this up) > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Hahahahaha ....Happy Holloween! Jim Ostrowski > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 13:45:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09329; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:39:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:39:41 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 21:39:08 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3461f95e.19161623 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <345AD447.4677@skypoint.com> In-Reply-To: <345AD447.4677 skypoint.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tFtIr.0.gH2.RCFNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12276 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 01:03:35 -0600, John Logajan wrote: [snip] >Also, 285,800 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.481J/ampere = 1.481 Volts minimum required >to dissociate H2O. [snip] Minor correction: The above "1.481J/ampere" should read 1.481J/Coulomb = 1.481 Volts ... 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 14:12:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA15986; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:08:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:08:19 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <345C1D2A.7E03 skypoint.com> References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:04:24 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Calling on RWW: proof of SMOT claims Resent-Message-ID: <"WRBij1.0.Zv3.GdFNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12277 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard - We see claims on Vortex for cold fusion. Many people still doubt these claims. The more poorly formulated objections will state that the CF excess heat and transmutation claims are false on the basis that there isn't any current accepted theory for nuclear reactions to occur in a way that's consistent with observations in CF experiments. That's as if to imply that human knowledge is now perfectly complete, and nature damn well better comply with it. Much more reasonable and potentially valid forms of objection are the traditional scientific ones: propose specifically where a given experiment has failed to take into account some potentially important factor, or a measurement error has been made, or perhaps the experiment itself or conclusions drawn from it simply fail to logically address the matter. You wrote something to the effect that the rollaway and rollaround claims of those who have actually performed SMOT experiments are not valid. As a reminder, you have now published *your* claim on the internet. Would it be out of line to ask you to now back up your claim with something specific? You have so far published no objection to the positive SMOT results based on *any* form of objection I mentioned in the first paragraph above, as far as I have been able to tell. You have instead simply stated rather aggressively that you don't believe the results, and have leveled personal insult and innuendo against the participants in the SMOT claims. I've stated what I'd like to see from Greg in addition to the information he's published, and I think you and I are in basic agreement on that. But now here's what I'd also like to see from your side: # What is the scientific reasoning for your objection to the possibility that a SMOT can perform a "level rollaway", or perhaps more generally, that a magnetic anomaly exists with them as per Greg Watson's claim? * What are your case by case objections to the published positive experiments, based on the specific descriptions of those experiments? In light of the claims and remarks you've been making lately, I think a logical and valid answer to those two questions are now fairly mandatory if you are to maintain *your* credibility. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 14:16:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16798; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:11:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:11:03 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <345C2A46.31920A77 microtronics.com.au> References: <199711020102.TAA26165 dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:07:09 -1000 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Latest Reply to RWW Cc: Vortex-L Resent-Message-ID: <"_xYB73.0.A64.qfFNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12278 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > Rick himself posted that he had good results > linking additional ramps, with no apparent > slowdown on the ball's progress. There is a photo > on the SMOT main page of Rick's 7 ramp link. Good results in the sense that it was an intriguing learning experience. But I saw no sign of overunity performance. Minor correction: the ball does slow down during the run through my long ramp, although I don't really see why that's significant. It speeds up through roughly the first half, and then slows down through the rest. This is the case when it's run level as well as inclined. In no case did I ever achieve a rollaway with it or any other rig I built. In the case where no level-or-better rollaway occurs, it's still compelling to see the ball scoot quickly through some distance on linked or long ramps. It would seem that quite a bit of friction has been overcome. But the degree to which the ball has become trapped in the final field - the energy that would be required to pull it free at that point, is the indication of the energy spent in the process of 'overcoming' that friction so impressively. The energy state of the ball at the end is very different (lower) than the state it was in when it started. Any determination of an OU energy state under that circumstance would require accurate measurements, and no such measurements have been made, AFAIK. It's not OU when something tumbles down a hillside, noisily crashing through rocks and bushes along the way. Same thing if the slope is made of magnetism rather than the more intuitive and familiar gravity slope of a hillside. The analogy to gravity doesn't work point for point, either. It's as if a ball rolls down one side of a rough surfaced bowl and all the way up to the rim of the other side, but there we find that the ball has become strangely sticky and resistant to being pulled up and out over the rim. Now when you actually *do* get a real rollaway, the objection posed here completely invalidated. That's why I see it as rather convincing proof of OU if done correctly. But I contend that conclusions drawn about non-conservation while a ball ends up trapped in the field at the end are probably not valid. Since all my experiments ended up that way, I can make no OU claim. Apparently Greg's milage varied. I hope he ships those new carburetors soon. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 14:37:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23368; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:29:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:29:39 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971102180411.0087a040 cnct.com> X-Sender: knagel cnct.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 18:04:15 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Keith Nagel Subject: Re: Time reversed ...Light pulse experiment request Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_878529855==_" Resent-Message-ID: <"2YaGL1.0.vi5.HxFNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12279 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --=====================_878529855==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greetings one and all: A remarkable experiment; I used to do work for a gentleman who was obsessive on this topic; we did a great deal of work along these lines in the radio range where the wavelengths are long enough that the group velocity could be adequately distinguished from the phase velocity. Can't say as I ever did try active snubbing of the detector, although in practice it represents no difficulty. My understanding of this is that the overall energy dissipated in the photodiode is a function of the time the pockles cell shutter is open; the counterintuitive part being that the energy changes with shutter closure time before the light speed delayed arrival of the pulse. Yes? So the measurement does not show direct superluminal signalling, rather an indirect effect which is resolved only after arrival of the energy bearing pulse. Superluminal hindsight :-) Odviously, one would like to see the actual voltage across the 50ohm sense resistor on the diode, has this been published? Excuse my ignorance, but who is Sansbury? Also, what is the degree of isolation between C and H for paths outside CBADEFH? Keith PS : Your com file made my NT3.51 station a bit woozy, in the interest of cross platform compatibility I am taking the liberty of reposting Jims diagram as a GIF image. --=====================_878529855==_ Content-Type: image/gif; name="PCE.GIF"; x-mac-type="47494666"; x-mac-creator="4A565752" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="PCE.GIF" R0lGODdhdQIsAfcAAAAAAAAAVQAAqgAA/wAkAAAkVQAkqgAk/wBJAABJVQBJqgBJ/wBtAABtVQBt qgBt/wCSAACSVQCSqgCS/wC2AAC2VQC2qgC2/wDbAADbVQDbqgDb/wD/AAD/VQD/qgD//yQAACQA VSQAqiQA/yQkACQkVSQkqiQk/yRJACRJVSRJqiRJ/yRtACRtVSRtqiRt/ySSACSSVSSSqiSS/yS2 ACS2VSS2qiS2/yTbACTbVSTbqiTb/yT/ACT/VST/qiT//0kAAEkAVUkAqkkA/0kkAEkkVUkkqkkk /0lJAElJVUlJqklJ/0ltAEltVUltqklt/0mSAEmSVUmSqkmS/0m2AEm2VUm2qkm2/0nbAEnbVUnb qknb/0n/AEn/VUn/qkn//20AAG0AVW0Aqm0A/20kAG0kVW0kqm0k/21JAG1JVW1Jqm1J/21tAG1t VW1tqm1t/22SAG2SVW2Sqm2S/222AG22VW22qm22/23bAG3bVW3bqm3b/23/AG3/VW3/qm3//5IA AJIAVZIAqpIA/5IkAJIkVZIkqpIk/5JJAJJJVZJJqpJJ/5JtAJJtVZJtqpJt/5KSAJKSVZKSqpKS /5K2AJK2VZK2qpK2/5LbAJLbVZLbqpLb/5L/AJL/VZL/qpL//7YAALYAVbYAqrYA/7YkALYkVbYk qrYk/7ZJALZJVbZJqrZJ/7ZtALZtVbZtqrZt/7aSALaSVbaSqraS/7a2ALa2Vba2qra2/7bbALbb Vbbbqrbb/7b/ALb/Vbb/qrb//9sAANsAVdsAqtsA/9skANskVdskqtsk/9tJANtJVdtJqttJ/9tt ANttVdttqttt/9uSANuSVduSqtuS/9u2ANu2Vdu2qtu2/9vbANvbVdvbqtvb/9v/ANv/Vdv/qtv/ //8AAP8AVf8Aqv8A//8kAP8kVf8kqv8k//9JAP9JVf9Jqv9J//9tAP9tVf9tqv9t//+SAP+SVf+S qv+S//+2AP+2Vf+2qv+2///bAP/bVf/bqv/b////AP//Vf//qv///ywAAAAAdQIsAQAI/wABCBxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjypxJs6bN mzhz6tzJs6fPn0CDCh1KtKjRo0iTKl3KtKnTp1CjSp1KtarVq1izat3KtavNf2DBeh1LtmzQsA/D oj27Nqraf2bjyp0bsy3Dt3DZipWaV2BfuoADC+bY969Cw4Z3/k3MdPHgx5Ajpx3I+CBioI7dFqws ubNnupfvbv7J+Wnoz6hTxz19eLTP0k5Zq55NG6tshHgx23Zdu7dvzQRh+32r++rt38iTE8UrHMBx nM2XPldOvXpO5g2nf91N2br379d5t/8OXtwvX/Lg06t/qb07+tfvTatdT78+yvbD5+uNXpS4/f8A eoSfc/5hZleACCao4IIMNujggyfxB+GE9DGnn2UW7oVhhhx26OGHIIYoYoaEUWhigx0mlCJuI7bo 4oswhljiiTQiyNmNKuYImYSi1eijfTjipqNlkfE43o9IqhckkUI2+ZiRQyYppXVLGlSleIJB6eSU XCZ3ZXxYghmYlkx2aaZvX7pXppVFakTmmXCuFmWYarK5o5tx5qlamuZtSSdoeOopaGd8OjenmIC9 ieigjM5V6KNtYqRoo5Se5+eihl6aaEaTVuppU5Bq2ueTnH5qalmhrvmno6We6ipXqdr/qeqYkr5q q1axrtopVZPueuuvPOWKqa+WWkQssMhuJ2qms9aZZa3JRgvqoc4OG2lFi+W117badjvctwSCy624 3oZr7rjnlovuuuq2S+676cLLrrzuxmvvvPfWi++++vZL77/5AsyvwP4GbPDABxd8YHDt3tjwtRRl S/DECVOM8MUKZ2yxxhV3jPHGIHvM8ccih0zyySOnTK7DK6v48J3G6oiutDTfJGy1OAMac5Mz1+yz TDePKutgb5LZ889IlxQ0s0M/iy225SYt9UhLFypX0R0dPfXWEVMrtK4QS3Ss1lyXPdmyS1/9tNJR m+1209aiHTZEx7oM7tt458w02Muq/911S+vmLXXVXrP6N0uBC4404X3LOVHdgW6rOLKMN6uz2NCJ OzmwlcO96ePFkb15np2v6jfmpME7OqOlY3o63Y21vfqUrev9+tlKiT67j7V/TSvqfMm++4S97/17 RJDXpPvwDBaf/LTId7U88xVy6DKJLMao/fbcyxg9rMJT/9+KG1p4fffop49+b4mLL+XzirfvPpLw M1/v/Pifen/+/HMefv8A1NP0AkhAAf6vgLWpTP0AOEAEokaBDjRJAyP4OdNRcCMTvODtfKdBtmmu g6QCYUrkJ8LLldAl+zshrlQIkxSy0DgvvM4BY7gfbdEQOjO84Wv0s0AduimHPpwJcf96GERJAbGI LZwPEZGYtSMy8Xzqc5HJVFYyAi2xZhl8opWiCKMpelFkV9waCbXoOuQpsSphnNoYycjBiJ2RV0FU V42wc5fcGMVX/kmjsmw3PznSiI4LAeRyMMhDsgyIgapTEJT0KJKxWRCOfCygCwO0SOhh8JFTyUwc negl0DUma56TTiAjecIs/qaSn5xRGY8Cm8KwkWF3q86FsrOwQapylf0JZC21aMrPzLKOGmIlKEOZ lFbu8pWwNBf7PCnKW+LSNKQkYy+PB7tUXtJykDQeMuv4wbllx5KBclwbt8mibsLse828pji1Sc7v TTOTdhylNcNplVZisp0y46Rx4nn/pNwNE4b9ZCc+jRjLaDlSJ11s3EAlqE9PHVSGUlToQhHX0KGQ b4vYs+g/UcjFjgpyolArqHwyilHz2VKdHPWoSoMJUsJUFKGFs5piNgo4KIooQi39yDszJzeJ8hSl Nc1ei3CqS2MWyFhHLefOVlKgpMpTOWuEaU+xGayi/pKY9ylcQJ+Ju+tZ9Zh0c+oWL8JIK2pIrFqd TVTDM1WszvQw/KQqUeXa1lYNqTSQw09ZyToaiTlkryu01x6JKVOp9uiwKExrXaF1163adZzRHKyh /PrNCiWSJsWramURG1S6YvOhqiosM/uUVMQUcpbBpGMezUqZq8ZHLK7kT7faglYv/72UpnHz7E+f ytvOutWnj22aaIFH2l+adi1wQW228nha2rq2TrDtjmzzc9bn2lakKsnsWzmrWKV197dAxZLDWErW 1b62NakdVnL76hgJndGGAjVrdMlzSKje9nCE/a7N/srfFuqXq4wN7flcWsjz5ii9epuvdNsb1ujC F69D7Os97YvdkGjXsL39r4U1DFncMqy2eRWws3KDV4y2tsAlde9kE8xeFHe4PjvNMIuBK9nvAnac qNRtV1NM3shWU7xgIvFWneviD/f4wMy6UnLN62PwxNixOOawEPvLXaZKebg7BnIsQyxcA0u3n+Rl THOUrEyBXkaBtUWRH0fLNx3X2P+nNzYzmwG8WRGXmctaFtqZwZwYMdcZyAgWMJqtq2ZzojO/NFYe lWWc3StLGcpfK4wmnXni1Fr6jSmmLnKLXGmjVhes8p3tkeOcmjVDOm3bFSqo44xlRKV5M64t8XsC TWlNf9jICob1ppmLXFV/tdNfFTUEu2TqmBr7pKo+cpNB0mqcvRrXbm4tnJ5Nu0RemK3htXKyvadr ZWcavGM9E7XfZ+1jRxuzHm70tkFUPtnGOqeSOSa7WFbFmTXbptyrC77Z/W1a1pLU8FaMsudtt3pH 7d7r1p6+E+6hdqfl3QH3ZpQTbblhnzs2+/6Qw/8K8YiH8LOPXpTFwV0sHnMb2hz//zdcCf1RpEqa yKBmba0xJMJrV1mbaDYk22IObKzGtds8T3nPQw1M0MK15uYmOZT9TPOx9HDc8qXqdJLnSqbB13aT DjCjEWjzw2ry6rd2ei7nhPDNgh3s8c06Xxd9wa4/9escDHrJzxLQsvd2vfRtM317jZ6mXqi0QCeg 20fJ0iX7jtD1TLXppq5TCec9t3uXXN//TvkDHdfb1Bs8es+Mdpl7BeCLxTWEMX/oFUcerGJm8OP7 NmnQ6y/pE/a3ifcGdeBg2+dpRnzp8b5gljfdPHvWauspqPmVz/7yrtf27Revd0JGePVVZvrKCg/0 rNd+dMUXarf1fH1oIrvLFPc3/6aBn2WcJxPwog+y7oeX/fJt3+rdx/j380xroPI+Uyr+svulb3Xx yLp/7Rd4Pfdy65dJY+cnkkZnbHd/nQdm7DR+0BVkrpN8gxKAKGdrSfZzgaVRNpVMmkZ6f7ZktGVG kidPpfVpRHaBAAh7CggtJvV5ijeBR3VpBXh3Ufdi7zdmGHhinfZyKsg/FuhJLyg9MbhsZeYW8RdH LGiEfEVSsFKEOBhu8FSDTxSEmOOEW0GBkOdxY2I9DDdeKxWGI1IXYuhRXPgkXthuGviBZdiGQwg4 bhhFZ7gn6VYrWJhVc9hBRndJdzhX3kGFBKZ8FDWDSsVC9vRMwiZ3jXdOj6OIgf+obnBIiL+nQocY TYkIghvGiIeWRlWHh74Fa0SihZRjg2a3hhIkcXXGiUy4VIhTcI5niKTodaboXZpYfp5IfpWHgjbk ext3gzcogv83Kw8mc+uFibayh3nGW7NIEqJYTOwhYblIgLuIer62g6vFi5cyjKd1hFhUh5G2aMtI Nd8BWJwHfaa3YFsoJPw3WWrXg/S3ZeHSgAbljaEWHciXWH/4jHtnjvfHjukYioLWjh/4jncWj1H4 KsgoevYogK2YjykFgd8YfDPGYxhoR0bzWkL2ePIoPpUYhX3miPRoFlpCjhkJaK84cRT5i0xGXMsF gXi3kZkXixkGiCGJKmtzkPT/dI7VR3s8qSnH0Y8HyRpBEnwwaT8y6VggOXOGM1phJJE76ZRyBn4n GVlCKTOOV5Tsd5TUkpTZZkJiw5WsqJP5xHcJZpG8pos46Xcqx5PD6DNJKFeHlHOfKEtgeZPk1yMr aWZmyUPRmJZ9aSdEiZOf8pZuFZeFKIhYRJN5mHLGeHNa14JdmSyEuZhQFJlrd3GWSZlcMjZuOGc5 qVOTVJZfhDKjSUXNqJmr+IVySFxKSUiXpSumGZulaTKoGSzEgkcd92NCkWO1OW236Xw9xpt0x5r2 VZd22X/bZJyQ2YsteJoCMo6KqXUCyUTKmZoM2ZxZ4Zx3tJwhVWGvFJ1Kd5m6/4lG48idbiRtCwWe sSeetmh7srSedniO6dVcaMmOjTk5kymYYcl21kmLpQdV8NmE8tlevfaXwMhA6tmf7bl0mvWfnWSe qHN2HuiP+oeOCipG+blEwqmfiMmfD3qhZyOh6Al8qmehHIo34eiYz0mc8TVlLIoc9ZWTw+c5UImg k6mhc6adxwmgELp7XuZqU2mjCYqjxKmj+EUd05mJEehsguZACQqiKkp2BuiQJxqWM0onNQqA1dmi rSmlc1ec9ymjFVlxnKal3OiZzEaCJdgTG2pbW+qjv0imZCl4hveYSsqYWIluL9qb5Hame7qiD4cW Rsqhg8qnnxOmmImmlVmobf9qqMTWK34ofi8yfbN5L4rqqO8DqafYYAnFLaTpMZeKqfSjqf6Jp1zq jKLqm3aappwKlN4Hnd7Wco2oe4hqVXNZIu0RnMxYgBRYq6SknjySl6/6h6iXokVHer46YA2Zprm6 jqAZdL2qKGNWl8FapuD0npH0m6sEWoz0PGgnHM4KqKeKQ+y5JhfJmoX6p2iyrc4ErhvVrZmoV4na Vek6okdqrjsaglNKJerqo1V5gblXjQc6pn/pi9cIc302YjsYaQWrlrEKjXZRf8JGovW5rOEXfgnr nkjar+PZj9ZXsHIqOQbqeQ4rjRRrsrwRGug3dCU7dE2qXBIYpyALiRd7cRn/CxX1mjoOCjVFdqUx 2yzlWKEkCqRLaqJiSZD/ynxQSWa0Zn1sWaL+BWkcS6May6PjWV49+6MK65PsxY8FOTROO5915x5J O4Fs2Xx1qmcSGLR3uXAhF55xV7UfGnPamoz3SHR3BVt5CYxrmn5F27bXebPfSrTuyHnYCLhSmYht lJ/7mbK+2qg5G6UJxINb55llq5LYKKh7i7eDFrFrW42HR7b+F1rP13vUaI5IK6wLS7NlApaQi7NO Nmvhmq+UlXbjqrbr6Kq5q7WuCpjquLVxu7UliVgwmbCdiEtl5a6r2Khy+6EZOK9Ua68lln+IG5FA O7oKq4MPmGTY273FBZFR/1K8bHK8v3qr3ruzlTusVEJ5ChlclZaBLYmyK+epfTuxDziD9dm54quC C4OwTJd7fwe6DDunPzhCkpqvknutzPaku8m+PdgpnQu/AEurfEnA9qu/yzWAAlt3yvWR0vi/LBfA zEl71sq4CHyd6Cu16rvAb3pHkds8DEyEm5rCK/ysySodL7wgJvyEM3y1+9pIMZyqblqGoRobHzIA 8xuHXCTEWdiZU4vDHoLEGafE+cbEEJLDICHFPHvDjWTFVwwYWuxGLVyTcBohqpu++ErDqAlwABfG s8rFdyqm93HGKpzGPmyobDwTbvyVY9ylbNaUQZrAAdqjIJXHMrHHRayP7f9qwKgryOaJxRzpojGB yE9ssXIcqb3bsqurJoX3XPbbm4Y8ye6raDQFyI1ssDPLyXcLmEH8nZIME5SsxooMnH0cbCf7jX+L f5KIy8N7uzkVyrA8ynpKYK0sqdNYv7w7kLmsuDHaUsD8ErF8x698yT0svT2ptl67zE9bzNI0zS4R zQvqtvbHyKAotMhpvT+6tHgLyt7cEuDsocM8zreYvd6rztqcpex8wh2WpCnxzn/2ZuxpyiaZzlPp s2LZu7WJNSrMzyjhz45sycEl0DF7gvK7lxVr0ZC8OReJIxz9wO4szO0c0OQ80cZ10WdZ0SeNx0/T 0b/Lhh+9qiHtxZR0ONL/V9M24dBoPMsyrUg03bo+XRM4Xcc6vdM2Mqk/i8sPzG8fEdRvW6pEXdQR BbxIzYZK7RFMXbPV/NTTxqRVOsgNcdXQy4xaLSjkOyq78jxgDbcjLSBw3KrNfKwuNdaww9IgjRFp 7dVZ/YhmbFxN1MJtnaoIjdCVHBF3TchxLK7V7K14rdZP3ZEwbdd1Lc6LOM+Kbdi+LNeOXa4bUdhQ OtmsStn2isqna5L0ebkZHXFoHdlRe9hiLbsMGbBdNrADq81ybb4Zwdld7dSIvXOWh16tGpEEStCW XduyTBG4fdmsu9u7ytdIFqjIPJ8++9bE/ZmbrdpDHWCqyLspPRlsS6HY/8x9092h1f3Ykv1Y2b3M 281f3Z225wx/4Z3c463Z8UxP5/3d17yFDFiMBdrbRobc7y3ft23d+HhL9d3ePymlEiPbnjfAgv3f yq0Rx32aeVXLx4rSFYx5Dnu0eml3Dj7YEBHhUIi1ehRPJfvJoPtenzVwHZ7X8w3QG0tyxrri5L3a u1WeML7DMi7UA17jOe4/Uf2QVFzVPe7jQ5VEQX5yQ57kSr7kic1UyfqRUsjkc/TX4jjcQrejYXba Uh48OsrQk42MWv7fSO5P8NHZVAbmW04aQk7mbGrm+iraznW9E+y/BIuwaU40Ouvf0mmNfifnLBuN F0yy3Hzn6WSbVN6x5v+3lXZcvYlutB5L6BVk6PDayMHI1eiMpV1rzmEO6QLutiPuGnTc6Mkcp7FN oIMe3n14gHqufJ8+eQSM6WAL6mW63uvM6QkHTkbq5YAKQZUevFNtztZrrbYuw7l9i62+vb0u6ge+ uwo+7OuU64stxnO+a5ema9P+wWM6ws6OKxT+2cU+q9du4pZHgxZO7fKI49vewIdObOnucpq56R7X 7e0+7/Re7/Z+7/hu6ySZ3l6V2zEO4/nuIPt+4eB6ViL+uOEc8Ja149D1f3k6tlWu8DzN8ODdWKv+ 654t8TNN8dzLtAD5sK5esUeoyTIr7xqfhdcdWwj+8ZX+yfj72iN76ifIz8ORyHcbuWd8iX8deLbh 64D76OYzj/JA3pYen/M3v7nBmPSZ/u1Br3PoxntMq3o3r8ozu8r2reFNP7lPz70IWJBt+dPrvLKr G7ZZb7WWzN4Oj85TL7rE6/OXXvbryvBofySD+/WxfqpJatANDveeIatUk8qzx/NrT7YNW/X5y/en 9O8/ZOdFRc863/VwXu7HpcGIX/mWf/mYn/mav/mc3/me//mgH/qiP/qkX/qmf/qon/qqv/qs3/qu //qwH/uyP/u0X/s5ERAAOw== --=====================_878529855==_-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 14:39:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24741; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:35:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:35:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:34:59 -0800 Message-Id: <199711022234.OAA04261 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re; Soliton Resent-Message-ID: <"hTa9e.0.U26.V0GNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12280 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On 31-Oct-97, Ross Tessien wrote: > >____Lots of snips____ > >>The ocean of aether is an acoustic structure. Spacetime is >>an acoustic structure. Solitons which we call particles are acoustic >>structures. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that if you look >>at the motions of smaller and smaller solitonic structures that the >>amplitude of the spacetime acosutic motions, relative to the structures >>you are considering, is becoming larger. Spacetime turbulence is >>becoming important. > > >>Our only confusion is due to the fact that we think of "Spacetime" as a >>"Metric", rather than as an acoustic structure. The former is a >>mathematical, ideal creation. The latter is a turbulent, fluid >>mechanical, complicated structure. it is plain that if we use the >>notion of a metric for spacetime when it is really a fluid mechanical >>turbulent acoustsic structure, that we will have statistical errors >>in our predictions in the paths and velocities of particles through >>the metric. But if we model spacetime as a fluid mechanical >>structure in phase and frequency lock with solitons, then we expect the >>trajectories to be turbulent to a degree. > >Ross, >Could you define what you mean by "acoustic structure". It seems to be >at the heart of your work but probably means different things to >different people. > >Solitons are wave stuctures that have some particle like properties. >Solitons arise in certain sitituations from non-linearities in wave >velocity and dispersion within a propagation medium. It seems to me to >be a giant leap to postulate that everything is a soliton type >structure. > >Maybe I just have trouble with the complexity that such an idea >engenders. Solitons made of solitons in a sea of solitons? > >In any case your theory is interesting to think about. > >___Ron > Well, let me try. I have described this many times before as being like a structure of black and white cubes, sort of like a chess board taken into three D. That way, you have a framework to begin from. Tile the entire universe with that structure, such that the cubes are at the Planck scale, E-35 meters. That is "Flat" spacetime. The structure is dynamic, and you will need to smooth out the corners into a more of a structure of connected spherical structures with tenticles such that all of the black nodes and all of the white nodes are connected to adjacent black and white nodes. Maybe think of sort of a stomach that is compressible with a tube heading in (throat) and tube heading out (intestines) but add one tube for each of the eight corners of the cube so that each cube is connected to each adjacent cube of the same color, and then you should see they don't need to have hard corners or edges but can all be smoothed in a fluid mechanical system. If you vibrate a pot of water, you can form a bunch of nodes on the surface, and with the right shape pan and right frequency of vibration energy, you could form a grid of nodes that has an x,y geometry to them, but they too would not truly be squares, and rather would be smoothed into sort of dots. That is the sort of thing I am describing, though it is harder to describe in 3D plus the dynamics of it which brings in 4D as I describe next. That entire structure is oscillating. As all the black nodes expand, the white ones are compressed, then the white nodes expand, and the black ones become compressed and back and forth. That motion is, spacetime. The spacings from node to node are what we call "space". The period of oscillations are what we call "time". That IS the acoustic structure, "spacetime". why we cannot separate motions through space, or motions through time is harder to describe, but basically, all we can measure are the numbers of oscillations of the nodal manifold relative to our instruments. ie, atomic clocks, biological and mechanical motions etc., all of which are driven by the acoustic motions of the spacetime to which they are coupled. And so one cannot know if one has moved across the ocean of aether and passed n number of space nodes and thus measured a passage of distance, or if n number of oscillations of time have passed by the location of the observer. So all we can count are the summation of translation through space, and through time, as a whole. Ergo SR and all of the time dilation discussion when you are moving through the nodes really fast and not measuring as many time oscillations relative to space nodal oscillations. but most important in your questions are about the density gradients and the potential for measuring them. A gravitational field has an aether density gradient associated with it. The aether is more dense as you head into the gravitational potential well. The density gradient is maintained via the reflection of incident wave energy that is out of frequency match with local spacetime oscillations. That wave energy is in essence, in today's jargon, "Red shifted QVF arriving from distant regions of the universe moving away from us and so the QVF are Doppler shifted relative to our local spacetime.". the seat of the interference rests in the particles in that region of the universe, ie in the gravitating bodies. But the seat of the energy resides in the wave motions of matter that were manifest billions of years ago in distant parts of the universe, and which are arriving here, now, red shifted and frequency interfering with our soliton wave motions. Thus, matter filters out that incident energy just like a band pass filter. That filtering is what leads to the density gradient. And you can follow that density gradient right on into the interior of the sub atomic particles themselves, where at the Planck scale the aether density is so great that it collapses into a more dense state I call condensate. The energy density is about E111 eV / m^3 to induce that change of state. Now as I have said, Thomson and Bjerknes showed that two standing wave structures will give you the EM fields and Maxwell's equations. But the problem is, in their derivations they made no attempt to explain why the two particles, in the form of solitons or standing waves as they modeled them, would remain phase coherent rather than phase shifting relative to one another. In other words, if I simply place two spherical standing waves in a medium, they indeed attract or repulse when their phase relation is 180 or 0 degrees respectively. However, the act of accelerating toward one another alters the time delay for the waves leaving one to reach the other. And that alters their relative phase angles. So, what would really happen is that the electron and positrons that Kelvin modeled would accelerate toward one another slightly, but then the phase shift would result in their reaching 90 degrees relative phase at which they would no longer accelerate one another. Then, coasting past that relation they would come into phase agreement approaching zero relative phase angle and so they would repulse. In breif, the two would oscillate back and forth alternately attracting and repulsing one another and winding up with no net acceleration. You see, hidden in Thomson's work was the tacit assumption that the two standing waves would remain at a predetermined phase relationship. But for that to be the case necessarily requires that there be some additional acoustic structure to which the standing waves are BOTH coupled. That structure is, spacetime. Now, as for solitons in solitons in a sea of solitons......... Imagine that I have a huge ball of liquid hydrogen ten miles in diameter (ie, not gravitationally bound). And I take this ball out into deep space far from any perturbing influences. Then, all at once I release some magical confinement mechanism and allow that H to boil. What will happen? Well, the entire thing will begin to boil throughout, and the liquid will break into bubbles and droplets as this process continues. The outward explsion will be inertially confined just like in a laser inertial confinement fusion plasma, and that precludes the thing from instantaneously dispersing. So, I get to a point in that boiling where I have a bunch of droplets sort of like a fine mist or fog. But why? Well, the reason is because those droplets were confined in the acoustic nodes set up by that boiling process. And so the longer I study the phenomena the smaller and smaller the amount of H confined in the individual droplets. Now, if the acoustic nodes manage to all phase and frequency lock together as we know that super fluids do, then an interesting thing happens. The acoustic structure itself can manage to maintain confinement of the individual droplets. And so the entire ball of expanding H can for a period of time, maintain all of the droplets even though the space between droplets is increasing. This is because of the momentum stored in the acoustic energy of the entire structure permeating the expanding vapor. To maintain this acoustic structure, however, there is going to need to be a continuous input of acoustic energy, phase and frequency timed to the local oscillations of the structure. And so we find that either all of the droplets individually need to continue to boil to smaller and smaller sizes, or, the droplets need to group themselves into more effecient geometric structures that can emit some of their bound aether, oops, I mean H. So, by "fusing", the individual droplets can emit some of their confined H (aether) to the outside expanding ball (universe) in phase and frequency match with those oscillations. This buoys up the ambient pressure of the universe, and it provides a continuing source of vibrational energy. The reason you need this is because without it the solitons would disperse following large numbers of interactions that would refract their wave energy. So, spacetime is a source of wave energy that powers the solitons. for another take on this, review the web sites that describe "Oscillons" and you can find images of them and descriptions of their motions. They are 1D +t oscillations, where the table provides a primitive 1+1 D version of spacetime. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 15:18:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06210; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:13:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:13:58 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 23:08:19 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <345cfd03.1032867 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <19971031124242674.AAC127 default> <19971031124242674.AAC127@default> <3.0.1.32.19971102065801.0069c388@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971102065801.0069c388 world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6UiY3.0.yW1.qaGNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12281 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 06:58:01 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > However, what is the basis of fact for stating: > >"They are rhombohedral in form"? This is my opinion (as previously stated), and is based on the observation that in a rhombohedral lattice each atom has only two _nearest_ neighbours, and all three of them lie on a straight line. Furthermore all of these straight lines run parallel. This is important, because at temperatures above the Debye temperature, the phonon state with the highest vibrational frequency becomes ever more heavily populated, as the temperature increases. Now you may well ask "so what?". Well, the highest vibrational frequency is correlated to the shortest possible wavelength. And this in turn is determined by the distance between nearest neighbours. And we have just seen above that for a rhombohedral lattice these "distances" are all parallel. Hence, at high temperatures, in a rhombohedral lattice, an ever increasing number of atoms are vibrating in parallel, rather than at "random" angles to one another. When atoms vibrate at the same frequency, in phase, with the same amplitude, and parallel with one another, then *in their own frame of reference*, they are motionless, or have zero relative kinetic energy. Now if you look at the Breit-Wigner formula for thermal neutron absorption cross section, you will notice that the cross section essentially increases to infinity, as the relative kinetic energy goes to zero. IOW we enter a pure quantum domain, where the likelihood of tunnelling becomes infinite. Put differently perhaps, we achieve a mixed nuclear state involving all such nuclei. This is the "nuclear soup" that I mention on my web page. It is my conjecture, that this increase in cross section is equally valid for protons or other nuclei as it is for neutrons. See also my web page. > > > Are not hydrided palladium and nickel both face centered > >cubic (fcc)? [snip] The pure metal certainly is fcc, however I'm not so sure that is still valid for the heavily hydrided form (I have no evidence either way). Note however that experiments done with extremely pure Pd didn't succeed, while those that succeed best are done with JM type A Pd, which has purportedly undergone some special treatment by the supplier. IMO it is possible that that special treatment involves alloying the Pd with a small percentage of some other metal. If so, then the atoms of the "other metal" would tend to distort the normal fcc structure. I would add that the "size" of nuclei has always been determined in the past by bombarding them with fast particles. This however ensures that one remains fairly strongly in the classical domain. IOW, you get what you look for. Use fast particles, expect to find a small nucleus. Use slow particles, expect to find an "enlarged" nucleus. Use motionless particles, expect to find an infinitely large nucleus (thin soup ?:). And last of all, note that it is precisely because of this principle that moderators are employed in nuclear power reactors. What I am essentially suggesting is that certain reactions can essentially be moderated, by introducing order, rather than via the current haphazard method of slowing particles down through random collisions with "moderator" atoms. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 15:19:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06480; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:15:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:15:44 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Debye temp Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 23:15:18 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <345e0886.3980072 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <199711020357.VAA20946 natasha.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199711020357.VAA20946 natasha.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"opqcG2.0.8b1.TcGNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12282 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:57:04 -0600 (CST), Scott Little wrote: >At 02:50 AM 11/2/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>Furthermore, ideally the matrix metal should be soft (i.e. have a low >>melting point, and also of course, a low Debye temp.). > >What is the physical significance of the Debye temperature? What >characteristics does a material exhibit when above/at/below its Debye temp? [snip] Above the Debye temp. the specific heat of the substance is pretty much a constant (i.e. no longer dependant on temperature). See my other post for a more detailed explanation. The Debye temp. is not critical, but is a good indicator of how easy it is to attain CF with the material at any given temp. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 15:33:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05984; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:29:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:29:30 -0800 Message-ID: <345D0CD0.2ED7997B microtronics.com.au> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 09:59:20 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof References: <199711021933.NAA15090 mirage.skypoint.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Emdb_3.0.ET1.NpGNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12283 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > > The first test set-up clearly shows that the interaction of the SMOT > > > > Mk2 magnetic field and the steel ball is NOT conservative. > > > > > > The fuzzy part of this test, and why it isn't valid as specified, is > > > that you don't indicate the speed of rollaway -- a faster rollaway > > > in one direction (presumably from the 7mm elevated case) would > > > invalidate your conclusion of non-conservation, I believe. > > > > The incline height was that required to just get a weak release / > > rollaway in at least 7 out of 10 attempts. In used a 0.5mm increment > > in the tests. > > > > Therefore the rollaway release was as close to the same as I could > > make it. > > I'm afraid that doesn't really quantify it very well -- considering the > claim that it purports to demonstrate. > > But that was only one objection to your demonstration. Another is that > both tests required negative slope angles. Any difference in rollaway > performance (equalized by adjusting the slope) could merely indicate > an asymetrical resistance/dissipative function -- which would not violate > conservation laws. Hi John, Its the >15:1 losses thats the area of interest. I don't really know whats going on inside the ball, but I can't accept that losses are 15 greater in one direction as opposed to the other. Eddy current losses should be equal as they are related to the flux density. Frictional and sliding losses should be greater for ball A as it experiences the greatest accelerational forces (it enters the array through a very high flux gradient and exits through a very slow, linear declining gradient). Ball B enters he array in the normal SMOT way, through a slowly increasing linear flux gradient, then encounters a very steep decreasing flux gradient. This steep exit gradient causes the ball to react as if it had hit a wall. Very little time or distance for frictional losses. As I see it, ball A should encounter more sliding / frictional losses as its acceleration and final velocity are higher (due to the steeply increasing flux graduation at its array entrance) than ball B. If you watch the two balls move through the array, this is very easy to observe. But its ball B which happens to need more entry energy (about 15 times more) to escape from the array. Don't you see that as strange? Not OU. Just an very interesting ferromagnetic anomaly. As we decrease the spacing between the magnetic arrays, the losses increase by the square of the flux density. Isn't ferromagnetic attraction related to the square of the flux density? Don't you see the tie-in? See : http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smotlosses.html for the losses versus magnet array spacing test I did quite some time ago. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 15:48:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09869; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:45:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:45:50 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:49:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: MM experiment Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199711021854.KAA21083 Au.oro.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <284C2F0D6C hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"mPK6E1.0.2Q2.i2HNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12284 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > The thing I do have going for myself is that all of you guys continue to > pound me with questions, and some listen to the answers and pose additional > questions. Those allow me to find the weaknesses in my explanations (not my > theory :-) > Ross Tessien Gnorts Ross! I've got another couple of questions to pound you with. :) You mentioned earlier that gravity was a result of filtering out background oscillations in aether, kind of like two ships pushed (I know you like the word "pushed" rather than "pulled") together in the ocean due only to the "background waves." Well, this is essentially the same explaination that conventional physics gives to the Casimir effect. Two conducting plates don't allow the same amount of background wave intensity between them as outside of them. This creates a force pushing them together. However, the Casimir effect is proportional to 1/r^4 instead of 1/r^2, like gravity. How does your aether theory explain the Casimir effect? The other question is this. Quantum mechanics allows for short time periods a particle to, in effect, become many particles as long as they come back together very quickly. For example, a pion can briefly exist as a neutron and antiproton. I take it that this would violate conservation of aether. Can your theory explain this? I know that you answered a similar question regarding the rules for particle pair production, but here I especially want to take into account conservation of aether and why, if there is an aether flow into these new particles, they cannot exist for longer periods of time. Thanks, JAY OLSON From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 16:04:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14079; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:00:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:00:32 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Scott Little's double standard Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:58:19 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce7eb$32a5f8c0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Wjt7U1.0.uR3.UGHNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12286 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > They are rhombohedral in form (IMO). The number of adjacent > cells determines the heat producing properties. I.e. you need > at least 2 adjacent cells, preferably a few more. Perhaps it's the pits, Robin. :-) The "wear" over time of the cathode will be inadvertent due to the formation of the "metalate" compounds like MxNi_yOz or Mx Pd_yOz where M is the Alkali metal. These pits can allow the bubble formation and low pressures that I have been beating the drum about. The Ceti Beads voids do this because of the packing spaces of the beads, Interesting connection to "nucleation sites" for bubble formation on the bottom of a pan of water in the "nucleate boiling" regime, isn't it? You're not get much hair off this toad as to the physics of this. I worked with a post grad that did a doctoral thesis on this back in the early 60's. It ain't simple, I didn't know that cracks were that complicated. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 16:06:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13012; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:58:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:58:52 -0800 Message-ID: <345D3914.3025 keelynet.com> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 18:38:12 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Calling on RWW: proof of SMOT claims References: <345AFEEC.DAE94B06 microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xzmbe2.0.9B3.wEHNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12285 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! Could everyone just cool it on all this arguing about the SMOTs. If you doubt the claims, it is so simple to resolve, just build it, nothing else will convince a doubter except for 'the real thing' witnessed in a kit or built by his/her own hand. It really gets old opening up mail and finding an unending series of attacks and comments that offer no new or useful information.... Thanks.... -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 16:32:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19656; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:27:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:27:55 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:26:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711030026.SAA22890 dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Latest Reply to RWW To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"lou3z2.0.zo4.9gHNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12288 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: rwall ix.netcom.com From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Hmmm Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:39:41 -0600 (CST) 9/2/97 Mr. Watson wrote: snip >Would suggest you read some of the SMOT posts. There is NO input >energy. The ball is PULLED into the SMOT device. This point has been >discussed at length here. Perhaps discussed and denied by you, but never scientifically validated by anyone. >The entry energy question of the SMOT's has been discussed at length >on Freenrg & Vortex. Several times I believe. I believe the general >opinion was that the entry energy was zero or very close thereof. Opinions count for naught in this business. Hard scientific data is needed. There were many opinions about the Tomi until Scott Little proved them invalid with his excellent evaluation. >Scott & Hal did get a 2 ramp link to work. Took a lot of time to get >the first climb and drop to work as well. *Calling Scott* Scott would you please repost your Tomi evaluation for the benefit of all. *Calling Hal and Scott* Mr. Watson has stated, "The fact that I have offered to send SMOT's to the individuals you mentioned for verification and testing also seems to have escaped your notice." Rick Monteverde referenced Mallove, Merriman, Little, or others in his post. Sorry but, Mr. Watson has invoked your names, claiming that you have proven his smot o/u behavior. Seems to be dragging you into confirming his o/u claims. Do you represent your smot experiments as "demonstrating countinous roll around or whatever you consider o/u". If so, please submit a video or any and all valid data to that effect, so all the world may be notified. We do not question the authenticity of your video. Lastly, Mr Watson states very clearly the fact that he has offered to send you a working model of his smot for verification and testing. Has he in fact done so and, if so, have you tested it? >Rick himself posted that he had good results linking additional ramps, >with no apparent slowdown on the ball's progress. There is a photo on >the SMOT main page of Rick's 7 ramp link. Sorry Rick. But Mr. Watson is now invoking you name as an o/u verifier of his smot. The drill is the same as for Hal and Scott. Any proof of o/u behavior. If so, would you please provide proof? Video accepted as authentic. >Some time ago, I made my intentions to seek profit from my devices >very public. I made NO secret of that. I even called for expressions >of interest when I form the Dmec company to market this technology. >Its on the public record. Caveat emptor. >By the way Richard, where do you live? My address and details are >there for all to see. Not relevant. >Who gives YOU the right to judge others? Its when you do that, that I >really start to get steamed. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS LIKE >THAT. Just tell us the truth, Mr. Watson. No one quarels with your right to dream and experiment to your hearts content. You may have any opinion you choose. There is a bright line as to how science is to be conducted though. The Scientific Method, despite its blemishes and kludginess, is still very functional and essential in determining the truth. Now you endeavor to foist off on the internet a short circuited, adultered method of scientific discourse. You skillfully use the net to advance you agenda to the disadvantage of an unsuspecting, gullible and uninformed public. Not only I, but all others have the right to demand the truth. This is the right to judge others. >You have every right to judge my designs. PLEASE build one and >comment on whether it works or not. Please review the Scientific Method. It is the responsibility of the originator to construct a hypothesis and test it thoroughly. ALL experimental evidence must support the hypothesis before the originator may finally advance a theory. It is NOT others responsibility to prove the claims of the originator. The burden of proof is entirely on the inventor to prove his claims without doubt. >Before I release the SMOT Mk4 for shipping, I plan to send a unit from >Adelaide to Perth, have a friend test it, have them ship it to Sydney >to another friend who will retest the unit and then sent it back to me >in Adelaide. Should take about 4-5 days. The present SMOT Mk4 design >should pass that test. Testing by "friends"? No outside verification? Again, another contrived scheme to control information and outside verification of your device. You are now disavowing your promise in this post to send working o/u smots out for verification. Remember your words, "The fact that I have offered to send SMOT's to the individuals you mentioned for verification and testing also seems to have escaped your notice." >Ask any SMOT ramp builder if they believe their ramps would survive >that sort of treatment and work in the hands of 2 strangers. The >answer from EVERY builders will be a SOLID NO. >What's the point in shipping touchy / sensitive units half way around >the planet and having them obey Murphy's laws when they arrive? NONE. Everyone familiar with this discussion, will attest that you have informed us that smot mk4 is a commercial device, built, tested and verified by you. And, that it is a fool proof design so that ANYONE can just snap it together out of the box and it will run straight away in o/u mode with only a little polishing. Sounds pretty hardy to me. Now you inform us it is fragile, touchy/sensitive and subject to Murphy's Law. Hmmm. Which is it? Just the truth, Mr. Watson. >I expect better of a professional debunker. What will your clients >think? Clients? Hmmm. "Paranoia strikes deep. And, into your heart it may creep." Bob Dillon Lastly, Rich Murray has recently publically published on this list regarding another topic, but the content is right on target for this discussion. I think all will agree it has a very similar analogy with this discussion. I credit Rich and pass it along. "The natural response of a team caught in the process of collective folly is to hunker down, cease searching for artifacts, release incomplete descriptions, equivocate, bargain fortime, apply spin control to negative reports, offer strictly in-house controlled demonstrations to unqualified appraisers, and keep the muzzle on those few outside scientists who are allowed to attempt replication of the patented cells, while finding enough funding to either establish the inital effect, or find a new, more productive experiment. This is probably the case with BlackLight Power, and may be starting to be the process with the Cincinnati Group." RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 16:36:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA15245; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:33:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:33:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103083448.006dd6f4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:34:48 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: Well... WHAT are they?? these ... plasmoids?? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"c0MAJ2.0.7k3._kHNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12289 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:58 2/11/97 -0800, Jim Ostrowski wrote: > >On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > >> A ball? how big? Why are they plas-moid? Are they plasma .. >> plasma-like? I am asking a question here... anyone have a clean >> description? > >A plasmoid is a sustained arc discharge of any shape. A spherical plasmoid >should be at least 70 percent spherical , I would say. > I'm sure Edward Lewis mostly means self-sustaining type of plasma balls such as ball-lightning by his use of the word (I'm surprised you didn't mention that Jim - didn't you know that CF was produced by teeny-weeny BL buzzing around ;-)) He also includes everything from atoms to galaxies as plasmoid or BL phenomena if I remember rightly!!!! You used to be able to find some of his junk on INE website. To the best of my knowledge Lewis only ever posts to newsgroups/lists - he never reads anyones questions or comments. So if you want an answer from him (and he is the only one who knows what he is talking about) you will have to email him directly. Good luck ! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 16:41:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22015; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:38:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:38:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971102193503.00ccb7f0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:35:03 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Latest Reply to RWW In-Reply-To: <199711030026.SAA22890 dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"NrCv43.0.tN5.npHNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12290 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We need accuracy here, folks. At 06:26 PM 11/2/97 -0600, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: >"Paranoia strikes deep. >And, into your heart it may creep." Bob Dillon > Methinks this is Buffalo Springfield, and not Mr. Dylan. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 17:09:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29245; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:04:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:04:57 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:04:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711030104.TAA24335 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Calling on RWW: proof of SMOT claims To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"BBX123.0.t87.uCINq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12291 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: JD wrote: >It really gets old opening up mail and finding an unending series of >attacks and comments that offer no new or useful information.... This is easy to fix. Don't open it. Hit the delete key. RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 17:11:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA30205; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:10:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:10:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:01:40 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Method of release: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GF4TB1.0.lN7.pHINq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12292 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., The method of release of the steel ball bearing in the ramp: The ramp is the modified aluminum track I built that was based on the general design of Greg Watson. The track extended without bend beyond the magnets by 3 inches. At 3 inches there was no significant pull up hill from the magnet array. At 0.5 inches there was pull in an up hill direction. This design differs from Greg's ... there is NO bend, it is up hill all the way. A barrier of wood or aluminum is used. The magnets pull against the barrier and the ball is held in place. The barrier is removed by withdrawing it backwards and up ... which pulls AGAINST the magnetic attaction. Once clear the ball rolls up the ramp. In another test set the ball is restrained by a single cotton thread across the middle of the ball. The thread is burned through with cigarette.... the ball rolls up. I will entertain other suggestions. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 17:37:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA01865; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:32:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:32:07 -0800 Sender: jack centuryinter.net Message-Id: <345D195A.4E636BF7 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:22:50 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: <199711012322.PAA31816 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SMaMD1.0.0T.LcINq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12293 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > > Ross Tessien wrote: > > "You see, if the stuff of the ocean of the > universe is racing away from the star, then it will be > intrinsically as though the star were racing away from us > through spacetime. But in reality, the stuff of > spacetime is racing outward away from the star. > The Doppler shifting, however, ought to be indistinguishable." > > My source wrote: > > "Yes, you can say that the light from the Sun moving towards > us makes it look like the Sun is moving away from us. > If we took another star precisely the same as the Sun and placed > it further away, its light would be even more red shifted. > > The light from the Sun is formed into waves by encountering > the radiation of Earth, which entails a wave fusing part of the > radiation that it encounters and then dissipating and then > forming a new wave. As the density of the radiation of the > Earth is less than that of the Sun, the wavelength of the > radiation of the Sun increases as it approaches the Earth. > If the radiation of the Earth were greater than that of the Sun, > then the light from the Sun would decrease in > wavelength (be blue shifted)." Hi Ross, I would appreciate your comments, again, on the above quotation. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 18:09:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA09761; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:05:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:05:36 -0800 Message-Id: <345D2276.D699B0B2 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 04:01:42 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: SMOT OU Proof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WJPPX2.0.JO2.l5JNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12294 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Greg, In my earlier attempt on Mk2 style test with similar setup as descibed below did not gave interesting results, probably due to incompatible magnet type and sizes. I propose a modified test for further investigate the 1:15 anomaly. I prefer that you do it as it simple as the SMOT OU Proof (1) test. Setup is: a\o \_____MMMMM_______________________________ b c "a-b" is the accelerating ramp as "a" is 10 or 30 mm higher than "b". "b-c" is about 50 cm to 100 cm long track slightly uphill as "c" is 10 or 30 mm higher than "b" Experiment is consisting of three tests and measurements(x1,x2,x3): 1) without magnet stack 2) magnet stack placed on forward direction 3) magnet stack placed on backward direction On every test ball is released carefully from point a and it reach its farthest point (x) between b and c. Ball's initial speed(Vi) should chosen high enough that variation of speed (Vv) while passing magnet stack should less than 1/3 or 1/10 of its initial speed. ( Vi > 3 * Vv) The purpose of this high initial speed is to obtain similar losses on forward and backward tests. This also help to minimize sliding effect. I do not expect dramatic difference between tests. On my earlier tests, ball always reach it longest path when no magnets are present. If you try this setup and obtain significant differences between tests, we can consider strongly the gain factor. Even if you obtain minor differences from forward and backward tests, we can conclude that OU is not exhibited when no 90-degree-ramp-drop is not implemented. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 18:40:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA17492; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:35:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:35:10 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Wet Cathode Electrolysis Reactions (was Scott Little's double standard) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:32:35 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce800$be996820$0991410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Bm8LO3.0.AH4.TXJNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12295 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin: If you accept that the highly water-soluble "metallates" MxNi_yOz and MxPd_y Oz form over time and pit the cathode, then form the cations Mx+ and the anions Ni_yOz - and Pd_yOz -, I would suppose that you could write them off as contributing to the charge flow and possibly some plating of the anode by the anions. >From here one would concentrate on the reactions at the cathode: 1, M+ + e - = M 2, M + H2O = M+ + OH - + H (gas) 3, H + H = H2 (gas) the bubble former 4, The OH - anion leaves Now the questions: 1, Where is the most likely place for the cathode metal to "donate" the electron to the M+ ion? 2, Where is the most likely place for the hydrogen gas bubble to form? 3, What pressures would the bubbles attain? 4, Are these effects essentially the same as Microcavitation- Sonoluminescence phenomena? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 18:42:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19380; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:40:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:40:40 -0800 X-Sender: ewall-rsg postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Re: Robert Vargo and the Stock market Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:40:02 +0000 Message-ID: <19971103023954.AAC13296 HOME> Resent-Message-ID: <"smWk1.0.Xk4.ccJNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12296 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:42 PM 11/2/97 +0000, you wrote: >Frank Znidarsic wrote: >> Vargo has been right so many times.. > >The interesting thing about stock markets is that any repeatability >will be detected and exploited in a way that will nullify it. > >-- > - John Logajan So, the trick would be to be on the leading edge of correct detection, before the efficient market hypothesis eats your lunch. Somebody has to be there, right? And some people seem to be consistently there. The problem is that so many claim to be there to sell advice, which is one sure and east way to make money from the stock market. Ed Wall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 18:46:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20571; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:45:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:45:20 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:44:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711030244.UAA04436 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Latest Reply to RWW To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"dLnVH1.0.K15._gJNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12297 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > > > We need accuracy here, folks. > > >At 06:26 PM 11/2/97 -0600, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > >>"Paranoia strikes deep. >>And, into your heart it may creep." Bob Dillon >> > > Methinks this is Buffalo Springfield, and not Mr. Dylan. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) Mitchell, What is the name of the Buffalo Springfield song containing this short verse and who wrote it. Your right about the spelling of Dylan. Bob took the name of one of his favorite poets - Dylan Thomas. RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 18:55:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21847; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:51:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:51:23 -0800 From: Geosas aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:50:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971102204208_646358168 emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: CF calorimetric errors due to dissolved H2 and O2 Resent-Message-ID: <"OUWlV3.0.AL5.emJNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12298 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Somebody suggested that dissolved H2 and O2 in CF electrolytic cells could recombine and cause calorimetric errors. According to my Rubber Bible, the solubility of H2 in water is about 2 cc/100cc, = 4.5E-05 moles, and of O2 in water about 5cc/100cc = 11 moles. The oxygen will be in surplus so only 4.5E-05 moles of H2O will be formed per 100 cc of electrolyte. The heat of formation of H2O is about 55 calories = 230 joules per mole, so the heat produced at around 25 deg C will be only some 0.01 joules for 100cc of electrolyte. This is equivalent to 10 volts and 1 amp (10 watts) for 1 millisecond. The H2 solubility will probably be rather less due to other dissolved substances in the electrolyte. Whichever way you work it out, errors from this source will be negligible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 19:00:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23314; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:58:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:58:10 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: CF calorimetric errors due to dissolved H2 and O2 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:56:08 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce804$092d2cc0$0991410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"DCj_z.0.Ai5.0tJNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12300 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Geosas aol.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Sunday, November 02, 1997 7:53 PM Subject: CF calorimetric errors due to dissolved H2 and O2 I totally agree. Regards, Frederick >Somebody suggested that dissolved H2 and O2 in CF electrolytic >cells could recombine and cause calorimetric errors. > >According to my Rubber Bible, the solubility of H2 in water is about >2 cc/100cc, = 4.5E-05 moles, and of O2 in water about 5cc/100cc >= 11 moles. > >The oxygen will be in surplus so only 4.5E-05 moles of H2O will be >formed per 100 cc of electrolyte. The heat of formation of H2O is about >55 calories = 230 joules per mole, so the heat produced at around 25 >deg C will be only some 0.01 joules for 100cc of electrolyte. This is >equivalent to 10 volts and 1 amp (10 watts) for 1 millisecond. > >The H2 solubility will probably be rather less due to other dissolved >substances in the electrolyte. Whichever way you work it out, errors >from this source will be negligible. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 19:02:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25522; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:56:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:56:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:56:35 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Latest Reply to RWW In-Reply-To: <199711030244.UAA04436 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"TorNX3.0.gE6.XrJNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12299 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > You wrote: > > > > > > We need accuracy here, folks. > > > > > >At 06:26 PM 11/2/97 -0600, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > > > >>"Paranoia strikes deep. > >>And, into your heart it may creep." Bob Dillon > >> > > > > Methinks this is Buffalo Springfield, and not Mr. Dylan. Correct , sort of. The line actually goes "Paranoia strikes deep, into your LIFE it WILL creep" > > > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > > Mitchell, > > What is the name of the Buffalo Springfield song containing this > short verse and who wrote it. Steve Stills , I'm pretty sure... Your right about the spelling of Dylan. > Bob took the name of one of his favorite poets - Dylan Thomas. "For What it's Worth" circa 1967 My Graduation night (high school) this was playing on the car radio as we cruised Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz , CA. My friends and I staged a very dramatic street fight (all in fun) for the benefit of fellow cruisers. Those were the days... Jim Ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 19:13:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26069; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:09:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:09:18 -0800 Message-ID: <345D65B6.2A75 keelynet.com> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 21:48:38 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Calling on RWW: proof of SMOT claims References: <199711030104.TAA24335 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pAXfl3.0.CN6.S1KNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12301 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > > JD wrote: > > >It really gets old opening up mail and finding an unending series of > >attacks and comments that offer no new or useful information.... > > This is easy to fix. Don't open it. Hit the delete key. > > RWW I subscribed to Vortex because I thought it would provide information of use, not your diatribes....build the SMOT yourself and let others decide for themselves. Maybe Bill will wake up and throw you off the list, what a relief that will be. -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 19:18:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA27682; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:16:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:16:42 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:13:24 -0800 Message-Id: <199711030313.TAA25772 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: MM experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"NJcbE1.0.Nm6.P8KNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12302 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greetings; >I've got another couple of questions to pound you with. :) You >mentioned earlier that gravity was a result of filtering out >background oscillations in aether, kind of like two ships pushed (I >know you like the word "pushed" rather than "pulled") together in the >ocean due only to the "background waves." Yes exactly. Well, this is essentially >the same explaination that conventional physics gives to the Casimir >effect. Two conducting plates don't allow the same amount of >background wave intensity between them as outside of them. This >creates a force pushing them together. However, the Casimir effect >is proportional to 1/r^4 instead of 1/r^2, like gravity. How does >your aether theory explain the Casimir effect? Note that your considering that the Casimir effect is a push compressing the two plates is correct, but not the normal understanding. Most people believe it to be an attraction force pulling the two plates together. I of course consider that notion as silly as thinking that a vacuum behind a suction cup is pulling the cup to the surface. The air pressure on the outside is of course responsible and it is a compression due to external pressure that is causing the phenomena. As for the relation of the force, I have not tried to study that relation closely so have not worked out the details. But you are dealing with the energy density of the wavelengths that you are excluding internally. And so you are excluding shorter wavelengths of energy and correspondingly greater energy density waves. I looked into that a couple years ago and didn't see anything wierd in what was going on. The normal explanation I think worked fine, the only difference is that I would give the waves you are excluding structure and geometry, rather than saying they are "virtual". They are the background turbulence of the spacetime acoustic manifold, aka QVF. > The other question is this. Quantum mechanics allows for short >time periods a particle to, in effect, become many particles as long >as they come back together very quickly. Ever seen a white cap out on the open ocean? When a couple of waves smack into one another, you can form for a short time an intense wave motion locally. Those are what result in "virtual photons" and "virtual particles". So you are dealing with a single wave of a certain structure splitting into two different wave structures such that all of the vibrational momentum is conserved. Nothing wierd to me. I haven't worked out the geometry of the pions yet though so won't try to go into that. For example, a pion can >briefly exist as a neutron and antiproton. I take it that this would >violate conservation of aether. Can your theory explain this? I see no violation of conservation of aether in the above. Even if the masses are different for the different configurations, so long as there is enough wave momenta in the local region of spacetime then you can get such things to manifest. Have you ever been in a boat, driven it in circles and then watched the amplification of the waves near the center of the boats circle? Or have you seen how the wakes from two crossing boats will rip across a lake? The mound of water is a little like a particle in a sense, though I should try to push that analogy too far because the three dimensional waves are more complex than that. Remember that you are in this theory working with an ocean, not empty space. So you have a lot of aether to work with, the question becomes, where did the wave energy come from to induce the formation of those virtual particles. The answer may be from across distant space or from nearby. for example, I have wondered whether or not a sort of rip wave like the two boat wakes crossing, if that were to manifest in space and then it ran into a densification of the aether near a particle in the earths atmosphere, I have wondered if that could trigger that rip to manifest into real particles like a gamma ray smacking a proton and triggering the formation of a positron electron pair. Except that a huge rip could lead to some of the radically intense particle formation events we monitor via the shower of particles they form. I >know that you answered a similar question regarding the rules for >particle pair production, but here I especially want to take into >account conservation of aether and why, if there is an aether flow >into these new particles, they cannot exist for longer periods of >time. Because if you formed them from random convergences of aether wave energy, then you simultaneously amplified the aether density over here, and rarefied it over there. So the particles are going to be destroyed when the ambient conditions are restored and the dynamic situation has passed. To form new particles out of the quantum vacuum, or aether ocean, you must deplete the local pressure, and then the particles will vaporize. Actually, before I go, that is the key to FTL travel. You shoot some highly energetic particles out of the nose of a spacecraft traveling at near c. Those particles slam into the surrounding aether that is not moving with the ships vortex (think of the aether around the ship as slipping through the ambient ocean sort of like a smoke ring vortex, and ahead of the ship the aether must be accelerated forward and become part of the vortex). If you dump enough energy into the aether ahead of the ship, in principle you could induce all of the aether to condense into essentially virtual particles. Thus, you are condensing the aether ocean ahead of your craft. That will lead to the particles expanding radially normal to the crafts direction of advance just like the smoke ring vortex does in air. But when that excess aether density and particles attain maximum radial extent they will encounter the rarefaction to the rear of the craft. That rarefaction will lead to the instant vaporization of the virtual particles, and the resulting increase in pressure will lead to the aether being accelerated into the rear of the craft. So by focusing that motion back into the rear of the accelerator, you can again launch the aether waves and particle through the accelerator and out the front of the craft. So a lot of the energy of the system is in a sort of superconductive loop, and the craft will only need to make up the dispersive losses. No, I have not designed a device that could in principle accomplish the task, but it is intriguing. And now that they have shown that you indeed can slam two gamma rays into one another and wind up with forming particles in the absence of any particles for the gamma rays to interact with, it has been proven that you can condense aether if you simple focus enough wave energy into a tiny enough volume of spacetime. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 19:41:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00790; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:38:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:38:03 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:37:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711030337.VAA29794 dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Calling on RWW: proof of SMOT claims To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"hdoet.0.FC.PSKNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12303 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: JD wrote: >Maybe Bill will wake up and throw you off the list, what a relief that >will be. >-- > Jerry W. Decker =================================================================== I don't believe Bill is into censorship in any form. He made this very clear in his opposition to censorship when Congress passed censorship laws restricting the internet. There is always more than one side to an issue. Just because you cannot understand other opinions does not make them any less valid. Now you would make it into a popularity forum? For shame Mr. Decker. I have raised multiple inconsistencies in Mr. Watson's claims. These issues raised go to the heart of nonscientifically proven claims. This is serious stuff and most members on this list take it as such. Many are really confused by the inconsistencies presented and second opinions are necessary to maintain some semblance of balance. It's simple, if it offends your sensitivities then don't read, it just delete it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 19:47:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03319; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:45:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:45:19 -0800 Message-ID: <345D4882.6658E689 microtronics.com.au> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 14:14:02 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Rmog Mk3 Design up Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5wXeV1.0.fp.EZKNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12304 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: HI All, I have posted the design of the Rmog Mk3. This design is currently in construction / development / testing. Will post full details and PHOTOS when I am finished testing. I believe the design will be able to be retro fitted to the 3 existing Rmod Mk1 units I know about. Please wait for me to finish my testing before you start modifying your existing units. What say you, Rmog Mk1 builders? My home page's "Go to XXXXXXX Update" is working again. I am planning to upgrade my lab to full colour still, scope & video capability soon. I have asked Stefan and Jean-Louis for suggestions on how they do their excellent work. Anyone else have suggestions / recommendations? I am all ears. (And eyes) -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 20:23:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14511; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:18:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:18:59 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Hydrinos and Bubble Collapse Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:15:56 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce80f$2ed51040$0991410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"H5jlo.0.eY3.o2LNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12305 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex If the Hydrino is formed in Cavitation-Microcavitation and Sonoluminescence phenomena, the energy from the EUV could push the temperature up to several thousand deg K. With an equilibrium pressure at atmospheric the equation N = 2.69E19* P*To/Po*T molecules/cm^3 at 5,000 K would give about 2.69E19* To/T = 300/5,000 = 1.6E18 molecules/cm^3. When this hot bubble cools and collapses the velocity should be enormous like the collapse of a lightning channel. Perhaps not as loud but, possibly detectable with a "hydrophone" of sorts? A ceramic disk capacitor of a few nanofarads or so that is properly waterproofed makes a half decent hydrophone if the right electronics are employed. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 20:34:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18370; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:32:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:32:02 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:26:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer , Greg Watson Subject: Video Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8E48z1.0.xU4.0FLNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12306 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo. and Greg, When you get your video thing up..... or you could ask Jean ... TRY: Put straight ramp and keep bearing from rolling by thread across middle on two 'stiff legs' then have Jean burn through the thread with cigarette. Make sure you use ramp with no bend in it. That should defuse the 'are you pushing on it' issue. J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 20:51:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21133; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:42:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:42:31 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:42:24 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711030442.WAA11175 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: SMOT Fighting Resent-Message-ID: <"czjRN.0.6A5.sOLNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12307 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Boy you guys sure know how to burn up the bandwidth! For all practical purposes the lengthy posts between Wall and Watson can be summed up as follows: Wall: I don't believe the SMOT is o-u! Watson: It is!...I promise. Our own SMOT efforts showed no indication of o-u behaviour. We ordered a SMOT kit. I'd rather not read another word about SMOTs until the kit arrives. The SMOT is quite unlike the TOMI device but, since you asked, I'll put our TOMI evaluation up on our web page. I'll announce when it's up. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 21:58:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA14927; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:56:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:56:00 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: X-Ray Induced Single Bubble Sonoluminescence. Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:53:39 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce81c$d587b3e0$0991410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"gtgUz2.0.6f3.jTMNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12308 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Using a thin-walled metal tube containing water as the anode in a makeshift x-ray set-up, might cause single bubble sonoluminescence in the tube. The thought is that if the tube is hit with a concentrated beam of electrons at 10 to 25 kV there will be an acoustic pulse along with a thermal pulse coming off the inside wall of the tube and into the water. If this creates a luminescent bubble, it may be visible if one is peering down into the tube. Please note that the tube will be at ground potential. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 2 22:51:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA15527; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:47:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:47:54 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:51:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: MM experiment Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199711030313.TAA25772 Au.oro.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <2F56647FBA hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"GoPGY2.0.Xo3.PENNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12309 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hiya Ross, > Greetings; > > >I've got another couple of questions to pound you with. :) You > >mentioned earlier that gravity was a result of filtering out > >background oscillations in aether, kind of like two ships pushed (I > >know you like the word "pushed" rather than "pulled") together in the > >ocean due only to the "background waves." > > Yes exactly. > > >Well, this is essentially > >the same explaination that conventional physics gives to the Casimir > >effect. Two conducting plates don't allow the same amount of > >background wave intensity between them as outside of them. This > >creates a force pushing them together. However, the Casimir effect > >is proportional to 1/r^4 instead of 1/r^2, like gravity. How does > >your aether theory explain the Casimir effect? > > Note that your considering that the Casimir effect is a push compressing the > two plates is correct, but not the normal understanding. Most people > believe it to be an attraction force pulling the two plates together. I of > course consider that notion as silly as thinking that a vacuum behind a > suction cup is pulling the cup to the surface. The air pressure on the > outside is of course responsible and it is a compression due to external > pressure that is causing the phenomena. The Casimir effect was explained to me using the "two ships in the ocean" analogy by my physics prof. I thought this was the way everyone thought of it. Oh well... > As for the relation of the force, I have not tried to study that relation > closely so have not worked out the details. But you are dealing with the > energy density of the wavelengths that you are excluding internally. And so > you are excluding shorter wavelengths of energy and correspondingly greater > energy density waves. I looked into that a couple years ago and didn't see > anything wierd in what was going on. The normal explanation I think worked > fine, the only difference is that I would give the waves you are excluding > structure and geometry, rather than saying they are "virtual". They are the > background turbulence of the spacetime acoustic manifold, aka QVF. But I thought that this was the same explaination you gave for gravitation! Two massive particles (or solitons, whichever you prefer) attract each other because they exclude (or "filter") certain frequencies of background wave motion between them, causing a "push" toward each other. How can this be the explaination for both the Casimir effect and gravitation if they obey a totally different distance relation? Help!!! :-) JAY OLSON From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 02:10:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA21981; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:06:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:06:54 -0800 Sender: jack centuryinter.net Message-Id: <345D9265.4D3CC690 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 03:59:17 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8z_hO2.0.MN5.z8QNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12310 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > "You need to look in the index of any > good astromomy book under "Cephied Variable" stars, > which can be resolved in nearby galaxies and > distinguished from other types, > thereby enabling a red shift > measurement due to the Doppler Effect." My source writes: "The Illustrated Reference Book of the Universe states that "if a (Cephied star's) real power and brightness are known, then its distance can be worked out." But, how can its distance be worked out when all you have is an incorrect theory of nuclear fusion (stars as isolated systems) and a measure of its luminosity relative to that of other stars?" Hi Jim, I would appreciate your comments on the above quotation. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 02:29:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA25251; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:26:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:26:17 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:24:19 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sevior on BLP? In-Reply-To: <971101110654_-1409225242 emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"i-HY82.0.TA6.7RQNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12311 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 Tstolper aol.com wrote: > Martin, > > Some time ago, you said re CF that you were especially intrigued by the > progress at BlackLight Power. > > What is it about BLP's progress that most interests you? > > What do your colleagues think of BLP? > Hi Tom, I've stopped telling my colleagues about CF news. Each progressive announcment of an advance is followed by silence. I thought 2 years ago that the field would be blown open, instead it has carried on as before. As Jed has pointed out, only highly qualified Electro Chemists can hope to obtain positive results and even then it is chancy. My own specialities are not remotely in this line and I do not have the time (apparently many years of study) to learn how to do them. That being the case, there is nothing I can contribute and no point in informing my colleagues of hypothetical advances claimed by people who require real money to sell you a kit. I don't personally have the money spend on this and I cannot spend money earmarked for other research on this either. Basically it is not my or my colleagues field. What intrigued me about BLP is that they succeeded in raising 10 million dollars to investigate there effect with a very slight dilution of the main stock holders position. I thought that this was a sign that the effect is very robust. I would still like Mainstream investigation of effects in CF. I think that the Los Alamos Tritium really deserve a full replication attempt. It will only happen after it is published in mainstream Journal though. I know people qualified to make the effort. I would not try to sell them on it unless there is a mainstream paper describing the effect. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 03:11:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA00619; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 03:05:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 03:05:20 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:03:17 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: A quick way to REALLY test Greg's claims? -Was latest reply to R.R.Wall In-Reply-To: <199711030026.SAA22890 dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"pnHNm.0.W9.k_QNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12312 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > > >Would suggest you read some of the SMOT posts. There is NO input > >energy. The ball is PULLED into the SMOT device. This point has been > >discussed at length here. > > Perhaps discussed and denied by you, but never scientifically validated > by anyone. > I'm a qualified Scientist with a genuine Ph.D. to my name and the job of helping others achieve the same lofty satus :-) I've played with SMOT's. They're great fun and I've learnt a bit about magnetism from them. There are plenty of configurations where the ball is pulled into the SMOT then carried up the slope and deposited on the other side. I used a ruler in front of the SMOT to hold the ball in place. After lifting the ruler, the ball rolled up the slope. Without the magnets, the ball did not move. Greg's suggestion of observation of unusual effects with a MARK II SMOT is very good. Unfortunately all my SMOT stuff is in Vancouver and I'm in Geneva now, otherwise I would try it myself. I'll paraphrase and flesh out a protocol. 1. Make up two sets of rails side by side with the provision for positioning a SMOT MARK II array on either ramp. 2. Allow the rails to be tilted and attached to some level sections downstream of the sloping section. Call theses rail A and rail B. 3. Place a ball on each of the sections and observe the roll away distance for each rail. Then repeat steps 4,5,6 and 7 until a statistically significant sample of observations has been established. 4. Place a Mark II array on rail A, measure the new roll away distance. 5. Measure the roll away distance on rail B again. 6. Place the MARK II array on rail B and measure the roll away distance there. 7. Measure the roll away distance on rail A again. 8. Goto 4. Note: The distance between the SMOT magnets should be increased to allow a roll through on the established gradient. I believe that Greg claims the rail with the MARK II SMOT will have a greater roll away distance than the SMOTless rail. This should be relatively easy to measure. Is that right Greg Watson? It appears to me that this would quickly show whether there is anything to Greg's claims. If there is any energy gain to be had by traversing a SMOT, this should show it. I think that Rick Monteverde could do this experiment quite quickly. What say you Rick and Greg? Cheers, Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 03:28:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA04460; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 03:27:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 03:27:22 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:27:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: one more time In-Reply-To: <971030124009.ZM5812 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"g3NBR3.0.b51.PKRNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12313 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Steck and Schnurer, The point is that these phospholipid vesicles are damn near perfect and the walls are incredibly thin (nm). On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, John E. Steck wrote: > > The argument is that at equilibrium, the collection will form a > > suspension of the vesicles separated by a 'free water volume'. > > Surface wetting of at least one molecule could be expected between atomically > perfect adjacent container surfaces and atomically pure H2O due to hydrodynamic > equalibrium and surface tension across the membrane. Container surface > imperfections, however, could cause a pooling of molecules in pockets of least > resistance, potentially allowing surface peaks to touch. Add chemical > potentials, porous container volumes, and/or gravity and you introduce density > issues that are almost certain to compromise a true suspension. > Relevant to thick walled imperfect vesicles, no? Free water volume: simply, if I have many many vesicles with an aqeous hygroscopic soln inside, there must be water outside of them that has diffused from the inside. What is the eqm. distribution of the water? (3 marks) > The thermodynamic 2nd law paradox is.......? Think about this one, and well get there. As to other thermodynamic debates, I have contributed. I am want to shut up if I'm uncertain. Sorry it must be the transatlantic differences in English. I didn't mean to imply anything or sound bad. Excuse my arrogances, I've been reading too much Rand - it's the bold Objectivist, Romantic style. Sooosorry. > > > Silence will be taken as igronance as I have been banging on about this > > paradox for months, and I'll just go ahead and do it anyway Hank Reardon > > style. > > Get up on the wrong side of the bed today, eh? More flys caught with honey > than vinegar Remi. > More fleshy bits caught in flies. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 05:43:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17569; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:30:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:30:06 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103082702.00ca6000 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:27:02 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Sevior on BLP? In-Reply-To: References: <971101110654_-1409225242 emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"aslKO3.0.MI4.U7TNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12314 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:24 AM 11/3/97 +0100, Martin wrote: > > >On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 Tstolper aol.com wrote: > >> Martin, >> >> Some time ago, you said re CF that you were especially intrigued by the >> progress at BlackLight Power. >> >> What is it about BLP's progress that most interests you? >> >> What do your colleagues think of BLP? >> > >Hi Tom, > I've stopped telling my colleagues about CF news. Each progressive >announcment of an advance is followed by silence. I thought 2 years ago that >the field would be blown open, instead it has carried on as before. > By "announcement", is that based on the literature? e.g. Fusion Technology, various physics journals, etc. OR on announcements on spf and ABC news? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 06:35:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28922; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:29:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:29:47 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Four possible calorimeter artifacts Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:32:24 -0500 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: <19971103133806375.AAB106 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"Wo3SG3.0.n37.P_TNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12316 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I've sent one discussion of Rich's points to him, but this is a somewhat expanded version for all of you. Rich has taken various investigators to task for oversights and I have done the same for Rich's review of the A&Z paper. He has conceded a significant error in misreading A&Z's Fig 5, showing the cell configuration, not realizing that the cooling water circulates through a separate helical coil immersed in the electrolyte. He then posts a collection of possible problems with calorimitry, possibly culled from criticisms of other experiments. What is needed from him, and is wanting, is evaluation of these items with respect to the A&Z experiment. ---------- > 1. thermister: Simple malfunction? Sensitive to temperature, pressure,> chemicals? > Electronic glitches? Picking up signals from AC power lines > and local RF? Were these possibilities checked out only before the > experimental runs, during, or after, once or many times? With respect > to the Arata-Zhang cell, when was the control Pt-Pt run done, and for > how long? The experiments ran for over four years. First, Rich again is unobservant and his comments largely irrelevant. A&Z used thermocouples, which are clearly marked as such in Fig. 5. Thermocouples consist of dissimilar metals welded together, have very low electrical impedance, are usually encapsulated. The junctions generate millivolts and the instruments measure the generated current. Engineered recording instruments will have noise pickup problems handled. Rich's flurry of questions suggest that 1) A&Z are incompetent amateurs and 2) that Rich does not have the real world experimental experience to answer the questions for himself. With respect to A&Z, the total experimental time was perhaps four years, but the run in question was 198 days. The length of the Pt-Pt control experiment is not particularly relevant, it was long enough to show the variability in the heat measurements; the test runs were longer to integrate the 4He production the production of substantial energy. > 2. electrolyte or coolant flow: If the flow happens to be reduced 10% > without being noticed, the result will be a spike or persistent 10% > temperature rise, neh? Bubbles, suds, trapped gas pockets, gunk, > metallic plating, ceramic deposits, loose parts? All can cause > intermittent or persistent blocks of flow, with resulting artifacts of > temperature and power output rises, spikes, and drops. Who knows what > evil lurks deep in heart of opaque flow systems? Only the skeptic > suspects. Only the thorough investigator knows. Also, variation in the > pump due to deposits, bubbles, wear and tear, and electric power changes > has to be considered. A detailed, precise, continuous record of flow is > needed to establish valid claims of excess power in flow systems. Again, a lack of thought and observation. He has lumped together electrolyte and coolant concerns as if they were the same, even though he has admitted that he did not observe that in the A&Z cell the coolant is separate. The coolant is clean water, not likely to contain gunk, and circulates through the cell in helical tubing, probably of glass. The possibility of problems or artifacts with this system is so low that A&Z probably considered it not relevant to the report. > 3. heterogenous flow: Persistent, segregated hot and cold flow streams > within the piping, like cream patterns in stirred coffee, so that a hot > source within the cell can cause a temperture rise in the outlet > thermister, typically mounted on the outside of the pipe, that is more > than the actual average temperature of the flow. A 10-20% spurious rise > could invalidate much cold fusion calorimetry. Since a cooling pipe is > immersed in the warmer electrolyte, wouldn't there be a tendency for > only the outer layer of the flow to be be warmed and to carry this > signal to the outlet thermister? Water is an excellent medium for heat > transport, neh? Precautions have to be taken to definitively ensure > actual thorough mixing before the outlet thermister. A related > possibility is the Ranque-Hilsch tube effect: vortexes become hot on the > outside and cold on the inside. Are vortexes developing in the flow? > Changes in viscosity due to the chemical witch's brew developing > gradually in the flow may also help produce these artifacts. Again, lumping concerns cited for the Patterson cell with the very different A&Z cell, and a lack of observation. The *thermocouples* are immersed in the cooling fluid, not on the outside of the pipe. Water is great for heat transport, so in the journey through the helical spiral, there is opportunity for mixing within the stream and conduction from the surrounding warm electrolyte. The hot spot in the cell is the cathode centered in the cooling coil. Presumably, a plume of warm fluid will rise from the cathode (not touching the coil) and diffuse outward over the whole coil on its descent warming all parts of the circulating coolant. The notion that temperature stratification will occur in the coolant tubing strains credulity. Same for vortexes. There is no chemical witch's brew in the coolant, nor in the cell, except within the Pd-black inside the sealed cathode capsule. > 4. Mike Carrel asked how could there be electrolyte deposits in the top > of a cell from evaporation, if the system is closed with 100% humidity. > Bubbles popping at the surface would scatter droplets onto the top > surfaces, and gradually deposits would form. Are such observed, rarely > or commonly? If the deposits short out electrical wires, unmeasured > ohmic heating could generate excess energy in the cell. So all possible > electric sources near the system have to be considered, instruments, > pump, heaters, etc. A leak in the system could cause a trail of > electrolyte to connect with a distant electrical source. Again, lack of thought. It's thermocouples, not thermistors. Bubbles can spatter, leaving films of moisture, but the thermocouples, even if not sheathed, are essentially short circuits and readings will not be affected. Two thermocouples are in the cell, two in the cooling water. The electrical impedance of the large areas of the anode and cathode, immersed in the electrolyte, are much lower than any shunt to be produced by a film of moisture. As for the moisture, there is no reason to suppose boiling since the coolant is at 20 C. There will be some bubbling and escape of gases to be recombined by the catalyst into pure water, not a good conductor. Rich's exercise is just a dust-devil of conjecture which does not apply to the A&Z paper. What he has not done is to show that the excess energy curves of Fig. 8 are invalid. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 06:36:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28494; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:28:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:28:59 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:28:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711031428.IAA18902 dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Continuing work on Muon catalyzed Cold Fusion To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"0nbkM1.0.hy6.d-TNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12315 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: November 3, 1997 Archimides Plutonium (AP) has served a useful service in quoting a part of 'The New Scientist' article of August 16, 1997 pages 34-37 on the SPF. This is on work being done at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (in England) by a team of scientists trying to increase the rate of Muon catalyzed cold fusion reactions. Doubtless many of us has taken to virtually ignoring AP's posts but this one contains a quote and not his words so I am fowarding his quote from the 'New Scientist'. Muon catalyzed 'cold' fusion is the the area for common agreement that a fusion process takes place below 'hot' fusion temperatures. The work reported on is to see if muon fusion can be upgraded to a practical level. There is progress --- and I would say, promises more future progress in other areas in the search for the fusion process. -AK- --- quoting in parts NEW SCIENTIST, 16AUG97, pp34-37 --- Sticking Point Relentless search for cold fusion among muons Cold fusion is alive and doing well in, ...... English countryside. In a small lead-lined room at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) ..... Inside, against all the odds, atomic nuclei are fusing at the rate of half a million times a second and at a temperature close to absolute zero. "This," says Kanetada Nagamine "is real cold fusion". Nagamine is the head of the Japanese team which is using this exotic chemistry set to create outlandish atoms in which the electrons have been replaced with elementary particles called muons. Muonic atoms behave very differently from ordinary ones. They are several hundred times smaller and form into tiny molecules. Inside these molecules, atomic nuclei are squeezed so tightly that they fuse, ..... Brute force But there's a catch. The strong force is strictly short range and works only over distances of a million-billionth (10^-15) of a metre, or 1 fermi, roughly the size of a hydrogen nucleus. That's about one fifty-thousandth of the radius of a hydrogen atom. And there is another force at work which acts over much larger distances. Because nuclei are positively charged, they repel each other. Though this repulsion is weaker than the strong force at short distances, it dominates over larger distances. Before the nuclei can fuse, this force, known as electrostatic repulsion, must be overcome. One way to do this is to heat a gas of nuclei to extreme temperatures so that they collide with enough force to overcome electrostatic repulsion. the temperatures involved are hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius, several times hotter than the Sun. At these temperatures the walls of any reaction vessel would be vaporised, so powerful magnetic fields are used to confine and compress the gas. Another approach uses intense lasers to heat and implode tiny pellets of deuterium-tritium fuel to create immense temperatures and pressures for a fraction of a second. Nagamine and his group are doing something radically different. They rely on muons -- elementary particles which are more than 200 times heavier than electrons but have the same electric charge, so it is possible to dupe atoms into accepting them in place of electrons. The result is the exotic form of matter known as a muonic atom. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, all particles can be thought of as waves with a wavelength that depends on their mass. Because muons are heavier than electrons they have a shorter wavelength. This shorter wavelength wraps much more tightly around the nuclear core so that muons tend to orbit some 200 times closer to the nucleus than electrons do. The result is "a very tight, and a very small atom", says Nagamine. Muonic atoms have a chemistry all their own. Just as hydrogen atoms prefer to combine into pairs to make hydrogen molecules, a muonic tritium atom can combine with an ordinary deuterium atom to form an unstable deuterium-tritium-muonic molecule containing both electrons and muons, and written as (dt_u). Because muonic atoms are small, so are their molecules. The nuclei in an ordinary hydrogen atom are more than 100,000 fermi apart. But in (dt_u), the nuclei are only 500 fermi apart. At this distance, quantum mechanical fluctuations in their position ensure that the nuclei come close enough to combine. The result is fusion-- creating an alpha particle and a neutron while liberating the muon, which is then free to induce another fusion event. In effect, muons act as catalysts for fusion reactions. This is just as well. The energy released in each fusion is much less than it takes to create the muon in the first place. Breakeven can only be achieved if the muon goes on to catalyse 300 fusion events. But the clock is ticking because unlike electrons, muons are unstable. After a couple of microseconds they transform into electrons, and the magic is lost. So each muon has only a couple of microseconds to take part in 300 fusion events. This is why scientists have always believed that muonic catalysed fusion could not be a viable energy source. Chain Reaction The idea of muon-induced fusion was first conceived by the Russian and British physicists Andrei Sakharov and Charles Frank in the 1950s. In 1957, David Jackson ... realised that muons can take part in a chain reaction in which they act as a catalyst. That same year, Luis Alvarez ad his team at Berkeley became the first to detect muon-induced fusion. The fusion reaction itself is very fast-- all over in a fleeting billionth of a second. But it is the creation of the (dt_u) molecule itself which holds things up. Early Russian experiments appeared to show that this process is so slow that a muon has no chance of catalysing the necessary number of fusion events before it decays. The prospects for muon-induced fusion seemed doomed. The Russians were not so easily detered, however. In the late 1970s, Russian theorists Sergei Gerstein and Leonid Ponomarev developed a theory showing that (dt_u) molecules should form much more rapidly. The mechanism for this was a quantum mechanical phenomenon called resonance in which a muonic tritium atom and a deuterium molecule combine rapidly to form a loose association with a deuterium atom and a (dt_u) molecule. This idea was confirmed in 1983. It turns out that the (dt_u) molecules can be crated in around a thousand millionth of a second which is fast enough to allow each muon to catalyse 1000 fusion events before it expires. Muonic fusion had another chance. But there is yet another obstacle. The alpha particles created in the fusion event have a double positive charge and so tend to capture negatively charged muons and take them out of circulation before they decay. This stops muon-catalysed fusion in its tracks. "This phenomenon we call 'sticking'," says Nagamine. Sticking is measured as the probability that a given muon will end up stuck to an alpha particle. "If muon-to-alpha sticking is 1 per cent, then when muon fusion takes place the cycle only continues a hundred times. If 10 per cent, then 10 times, " says Nagamine. In these terms, breakeven occurs only if the sticking probability can be reduced to 0.3 per cent. "If this sticking process is lower than 0.3 per cent, then we have a chance," he says. Nobody really knows just how strong the sticking effect is. Nagamine's experiments at RAL are designed to find out. When a muon is captured by an alpha particle, it emits X-rays as it becomes tightly bound. Nagamine's idea is to look for this characteristic radiation. And indeed, it has only been possible because of the unique facilities at RAL. The laboratory is the proud owner of a circular particle accelerator called ISIS. This device generates pulses of protons with energies up to 800 MeV. When high-energy protons smash into a graphite target they produce particles called pions. These, in turn, decay into muons which Nagamine can use. The result is the world's most powerful muon beam. The fact that this facility produces pulses of muons rather than a continuous beam is crucial. Every 20 milliseconds a pulse lasting 70 nanoseconds and containing over 10,000 muons enters the target, a mixture of either solid or liquid deuterium and tritium at between 15 and 20 kelvin. The signature of muon to-alpha sticking is an X-ray spike synchronised with this muon pulse, whereas the tritium X-rays form a continuous background. Sticking spike Over a cup of Japanese green tea, Nagamine holds up a raw X ray data plot showing a spike protruding above the shoulder of the tritium background.... The results are astonishing. Nuclear theory predicts that the probability of sticking should be about 0.6 per cent, a level that would doom each muon to less than 200 fusion events. But Nagamine has already done better. "Sticking is close to 0.4 per cent," he says. This allows around 200 fusion events for each muon, but Nagamine believes that it can be improved by optimising his setup. The trick will be to find the optimum mix of tritium and deuterium in the target. One thing is for certain-- the theorists will definitely have to revise all of their ideas about alpha sticking. Commercial viability will not be an option unless Nagamine can demonstrate 900 fusion events for each muon. With a mere 10 grams of deuterium and 15 grams of tritium, fusion could produce enough power to supply the average inhabitant of the industrialised world with electricity for life. End quoting in parts NEW SCIENTIST, 16AUG97, pp34-37 --- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 06:53:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03968; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:52:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:52:25 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103225410.006d9984 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:54:10 +0800 To: From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: MM Experiment In-Reply-To: <19971031124242674.AAA127 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"3U-PL1.0.wz.dKUNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12317 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:21 31/10/97 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: >Ross, I have noted your essays on aether theory, but have not attempted to >follow your constructs in detail. I have chosen to grapple seriously with >Harold Aspden's aether science. I note some similarities between your >thinking and his. Have you read his work? He has a website with essays, >lectures, tutorials, and abstracts of monographs. There is a cross link >from John Logajan's web page. In particular you should check out Harold Aspden's book "Physics Unified" around page 142 (figs 32, and following; Southampton: Sabberton Publications, 1980). Here you will find pictures of your positive and negative charges oscillating in and out with opposite phase, and a bit further on and going from memory I think you will find your infinite grid of oscillating aether cells. He manages to apply a lot of maths to his ideas and comes up with mass ratios of all the fundamental particles, the coupling constant, etc. Quite an achievement, but I don't think I have met any Physicists who have even heard of him. Since you seem to be promoting very similar ideas, you should be rather familiar with the work of others to save reinventing wheels. Also if you cannot apply some maths to your concepts and make it all work together really rather well, no one in academia will even care to look. And even if you do, your chances of getting noticed are next to nill (as per H. Aspden). Sorry for having to sound so pessimistic, but that is the way it is I think. Good luck! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 07:37:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA14555; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:32:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:32:41 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:29:20 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711031031_MC2-268B-46B8 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"AZp_G2.0.9Z3.MwUNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12318 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This message is does not really merit a response, but I will make two comments. Murray writes: As is now well known, both Little and Tinsley, with the active and full cooperation of Ragland, failed to find any excess power with this system. Obviously, there were artifacts operating in 1995 and 1996, but what were they? Every cold fusion experiment and every paper written about the subjects says that the effect is difficult to reproduce and that experiments frequently fail. Ragland's own experiments fail more often than they succeed. After months of intense labor Tinsley only managed to do one run, which is not enough to draw any conclusions. Little did not ask for and has not had "full cooperation" from Ragland; he prefers to do the experiment on his own. It is possible that artifacts caused the 1995 and 1996 results, but a more likely explanation is that the experiment works sometimes, and sometimes it does not, because of unknown factors. If this is not so then why did the blank runs, calibration runs and failed runs show no excess heat? If an unknown artifact produced months of up to 500% excess power in this fairly standard electrolysis setup, then the thoughtful armchair appraiser, which is after all, most of the scientific community, is reasonably going to conclude that artifacts are involved in all mysterious excess heat results for light and heavy water alike. This is an incredible statement. Even if Ragland made a mistake of some sort (which Murray has not and cannot identify), this has no bearing on the flow calorimetry performed by other scientists in other laboratories, like McKubre. Murray says we should dismiss McKubre's calorimetry because Murray claims another person 2000 miles away may have made an error. By that logic, we should dismiss all flow calorimetry performed in all labs for any purpose at any power level anytime in the last hundred years. There is no reason to draw the line at "mysterious excess heat." If conventional flow calorimetry does not work, then it does not work for ordinary heat and mysterious heat alike. Encyclopedias, chemistry books and Logajan's Thermodynamic Scorecard are wrong. We can't trust flow calorimetry. Since the mysterious heat has also been seen with static and thermoelectric envelope calorimetry, we can't trust those methods either. In fact, all calorimetry going right back to 1790 does not work, and Murray is the first person on earth to realize it. If he prove it he will Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, and they'll be so grateful for this astounding knowledge they'll probably throw in Peace and Literature too. Murray has an astounding ability to make ludicrous generalizations. He takes one extreme, isolated example and he says "all others must be like this one." Earlier he dismissed the use of o-rings in all applications under any circumstances because of the Challenger explosion. Now he tells us that "a thoughtful scientist" will assume that flow calorimetry never works. This is like reading about one airplane crash in Africa and concluding that no airplane anywhere ever safely reaches its destination. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 07:41:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA15937; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:39:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:39:24 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971031221449.7176.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:39:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"r5kQO.0.wu3.g0VNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12319 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > The pressures cited for the Mill's gas phase cell seem very low >(2mmHg). This pressure is probably used because the fraction of atomic >hydrogen in a gas increases exponentially as pressure decreases, and the >potassium ions must interact with atomic hydrogen for the reaction to >occurr. My guess is that the low pressure is required to eliminate molecular heat transport leaving only radiative heat transport which is very prone to high errors and will give a bogus apparent excess heat production. This comes from the fact that heating a metal surface in the presence of a low pressure gas has a cleaning effect and the cleaned metal surface will have a much lower emissivity and will radiate less heat. Thus it will heat up for the same power input as it is being cleaned. This will give the bogus desired apparent excess heat. It has been standard practice for decades at NASA to place heaters in electric probes to clean them. It has been demonstrated to work well both in the lab and in spaceflight. The heating cycle that we go through is very similar to the cycle that the supposed gas phase cf devices are put through. There this cycle is imagined to be a hydrogen loading cycle but most likely is just a cleaning cycle. For the electric probes the cleaning effect is measured through a reduction of the electrical resistance of the probe. The cleaner probe allows more electrons to pass through the surface for a given electric potential. We never paid much attention to the lab or spaceflight data for the probe temperature but I am sure that inspection of it would show that the probe, with the heater on, was hotter when it was cleaned. These probes were finely polished, just as the alleged gas phase cf surfaces are required to be, and when cleaned would be good IR reflectors and hence poor IR radiators (emissivity = 1 - reflectivity). So it could be said that NASA was the first to discover gas phase cf. However, not being knowledgeable in the miracles of cf, we just thought that we were cleaning the probes. There is most likely nothing of any interest in gas phase cf and I think that it should be clearly stated. There is something of interest going on in CETI style cf although it is not fusion. There should be no linkage made between a purely bogus field (gas phase cf) and a field with a real artifact demonstrated (CETI style something). Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 07:47:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17387; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:45:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:45:00 -0800 Message-ID: <345DE353.185D earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:44:35 -0600 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, rgeorge hooked.net, storms@ix.netcom.com, ceti@msn.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege fnal.gov, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, design73@aol.com, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, dennis@wazo.com, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp Subject: Team scientific folly References: <199711030104.TAA24335 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5j6uI3.0.VF4.v5VNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12320 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 3, 1997 Richard Wayne Wall, [rwall ix.netcom.com] I am very pleased that you appreciated and quoted from my recent posts on "team scientific folly". I'm starting to work with this as a paradigm that fits the whole field of cold fusion research. One common comment in published reports that is a useful red flag for me is any statement like, for example: "The data for these two runs indicates the reality of an excess energy anomaly. A number of other runs support the same conclusion." Obviously, the writer is selecting the most favorable data to present to argue his case. If the other runs really strongly supported his conclusion, he would be strongly motivated to publish them too. So, the natural conclusion is that the other runs do not clearly support the same interpretation. It is often not explicitly clear how many runs exist in total. Two CETI patents, claiming fantastic excess energy from 25-fold to 1000-fold, each give data from a single run. Mitchell R. Swartz in "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid-State Anomalous Phenomena With the Quasi-One -Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading Into a Material," in Fusion Technology, Jan., 1997, writes: When careful observation is made of some samples of nickel under controlled low-to-moderate current density, cathodic conditions excess heat is observed. "Thermal spectrograms" of power vs time are given for just two runs. Arata and Zhang in their 1997 "Solid-State Plasma Fusion ("Cold Fusion")," page 7, Fig. 8, give excess energy vs time graphs for two runs, quite different from each other, and say, "Note 2: Generating pattern of each sample displays significant difference with chronological change. however, each total amount of excess energy included the eight samples used from 1992 to now was almost same." Even in the fractured translation, the quality of plaintive tentativeness is evident. "The natural response of a team caught in the process of collective folly is to hunker down, cease searching for artifacts, release incomplete descriptions, equivocate, bargain for time, apply spin control to negative reports, offer strictly in-house controlled demonstrations to unqualified appraisers, and keep the muzzle on those few outside scientists who are allowed to attempt replication of the patented cells, while finding enough funding to either establish the inital effect, or find a new, more productive experiment. This is probably the case with BlackLight Power, and may be starting to be the process with the Cincinnati Group." "Skinner's superstitious pigeons & team folly: Sept. 30, 1997 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 reinforcement. 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 chemistry, 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 may 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 invariably 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 inpenetrable 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:01:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA20483; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:55:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:55:28 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103095518.00707338 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 09:55:18 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin In-Reply-To: <199711031031_MC2-268B-46B8 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"A1Ay01.0.y_4.kFVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12321 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:29 11/3/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Little did not ask for and has not had "full >cooperation" from Ragland; he prefers to do the experiment on his own. If you mean that I didn't buy one of Ragland's cells, you're right. However, I have had hours of conversations with Evan that led to an improved custom cell design (which he approved and which you read about at http://www.eden.com/~little/waterflow/water.htm) and 5 or 6 runs on cathodes which he supplied gratis because he felt like we had the best experimental setup. The work has stopped temporarily because (1) no signs of excess heat were ever observed and (2) I am working on ANOTHER change to the calorimeter to attempt to make it reliable at fractional-watt levels of input power. As far as I can tell, I have Evan's full cooperation. Do you know of something he's holding back? P.S. I have not yet written up the other negative Ragland runs we made. My time is limited and when faced with a choice between working on a new experiment that might work and writing up old experiments that did not work....well you can guess which one I usually choose. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:12:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23764; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:06:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:06:49 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:06:42 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: VORTEX-L, "TRUE BELIEVERS", "PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICS" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"YYf4d.0.9p5.NQVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12322 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To put it bluntly, Vortex-L is a forum for "true believers." "Pathological skeptics" are tolerated but not welcomed. For yet another definition of the two types of people, see the excellent article in the current SKEPTIC, V5 #2, "Skepticism and Credulity: finding the balance between Type I and Type II errors" by B. Wisdom. The article discusses the philosophy behind two types of mental attitude: 1. Skeptics: those who, in order to reject all falsehoods, don't mind accidentally rejecting truths. 2. Believers: those who, in order to accept all truths, don't mind accidentally accepting falsehoods. Many people fall between these two descriptions. However, there is significant polarization as well; whose who are solidly in one camp or the other seem to outnumber those who staying between the two. I have observed that each camp holds great disrespect for the other, bordering on hatred. Those of persuasion #1 regard the opposite camp as dangerously gullible "true believers" who would allow science to be damaged by irrational beliefs such as UFOs, psi phenomena, and Free Energy. Those of persuasion #2 regard the other side as dangerously closeminded "pathological skeptics" who stifle research and preserve science from the crazy notions of folks like Galileo, Goddard, the Wrights, Margulis, etc. A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that "we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real" were attacked by those who believe "we must reject cold fusion because the evidence for it is small," and vice versa. Particularly reprehensible was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and much use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html) I started this group as an openminded "quiet harbor" for interested parties to discuss the Griggs Rotor away from the sci.physics.fusion uproar. It quickly mutated into a "believers forum" for discussion of cold fusion and other anomalous physics. I created Rule #2 to prevent this list from becoming a battleground like sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. Vortex-L is intended to be a discussion area for researchers who practice extreme openmindedness, who will "accept falshoods in order to avoid rejecting truths", and who accept that many scientists maintain a "consenus worldview" and reject ideas which violate the concensus. Vortex-L is for those who see great value in removing their usual mental filters by provisionally accepting the validity of "impossible" phenomena in order to test them. This excellent quote found by Gene Mallove clearly states the problem, and reveals the need for "true believers" in a science community otherwise ruled by conservative skepticism: "It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are invesigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963 So, on Vortex-L the "skeptical" attitude of those who believe in the classic "scientific method" is intentionally suspended. While this leaves us open to the great personal embarassment of falling for hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to consider ideas and examine phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of hand without a fair hearing. There are diamonds in the filth, and we see that we cannot hunt for diamonds without getting dirty. Note that skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly acceptable on Vortex-L. The ban here is aimed at "hostile disbelief" and the sort of Skepticism which rejects all that is not solidly proved true, and ignores all new data and observations which conflict with accepted theory. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:14:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25243; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:10:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:10:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 16:10:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Team scientific folly In-Reply-To: <345DE353.185D earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NkMgw1.0.JA6.9UVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12323 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vo, Da Da Da Duh (repeat) More psychobabble from the opinion zone. If you can't beat 'em, analyse 'em. (Heh, heh, heh, and more gruff evily observed, knowing laughter) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:23:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA26156; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:15:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:15:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:13:19 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com Reply-To: Jim Ostrowski To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo In-Reply-To: <345D9265.4D3CC690 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"O9TRx.0.RO6.3XVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12324 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > > > "You need to look in the index of any > > good astromomy book under "Cephied Variable" stars, > > which can be resolved in nearby galaxies and > > distinguished from other types, > > thereby enabling a red shift > > measurement due to the Doppler Effect." > > My source writes: > > "The Illustrated Reference Book of the > Universe states that "if a (Cephied star's) > real power and brightness are known, then its > distance can be worked out." "The Illustrated Reference Book of The Universe" sounds like a laymans coffee table decoration ,but I could be wrong. I would say you need a real "textbook" as is used in at least the jr. college level to deal with the arguments set forth by your source. Did you read Ross'(Tessian) response to your post? Astronomy is just a side interest of mine ,so I only know enough to know where to go when I have a question. > But, how can its distance be worked out > when all you have is an incorrect theory of > nuclear fusion (stars as isolated systems) > and a measure of its luminosity relative to > that of other stars?" "Incorrect theory of nuclear fusion"? The theory appears correct enough to make hydrogen bombs work (as scary as that fact may be). When dealing with people who come up with such stuff it's important to develop an attitude of a skeptical (not cynical) inquirer. They may have something valid , but it's their job to prove it one way or another , by experiment ,preferably . So what experimental evidence does your source offer that controverts theory accepted by the pros? The H-Bomb was an experiment that proved a theory about nuclear fusion which has come into acceptance by professional physicists, astronomers and etcetera. If your source has the "correct" theory , what experiment confirms that theory? > > Hi Jim, > > I would appreciate your comments on the above > quotation. > There you have `em , friend. Happy Trials (experiments)! Jim O. > Jack Smith > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:35:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28371; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:25:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:25:11 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199711010155.TAA23433 dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:23:32 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: One hand Resent-Message-ID: <"c_LJh1.0.ow6.PgVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12325 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Richard Wayne Wall wrote: [Lots of nasty stuff...] I fully support Greg's work for the reason that he is doing research into ou effects in a region that conventional physics cannot proove that it is impossible. Most E&M ou research except for Greg's work is total crap and based upon imaginary things such as "regauging" or "gyscropic particles". Careful examination of the standard conservation of energy equations shows that they cannot be applied to disprove the existance of ou in the SMOT, PMOD, or RMOG. In some cases conventional authors actually come out and admit the regions of non-applicability as in the quote I gave last Tuesday. Although Greg does not seem to be doing too well meeting his shipping schedule, he does seem to be on the right track based on the underlying physics of his devices. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:41:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA32717; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:39:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:39:55 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103111154.006b0274 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:11:54 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Mills' experiments In-Reply-To: References: <19971031221449.7176.qmail hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"3OGJ1.0.5_7.PvVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12326 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:39 AM 11/3/97 -0500, Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: >There is something of interest going on in CETI style cf although it is not >fusion. There should be no linkage made between a purely bogus field (gas >phase cf) and a field with a real artifact demonstrated (CETI style >something). > Gas phase cold fusion is more difficult than water phase cold fusion. Suggest you look further in the literature. Also, the water phase systems are more varied - and complicated - than usually discussed. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 08:44:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00683; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:42:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:42:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 16:41:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: comic relief? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"40gev2.0.SA.cxVNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12327 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vo, Conceit or delusion? One who engages in pillow talk and foreplay with the sheep. Well whaddoyaathink? Is Freud Science? Is it heck. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 09:26:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15167; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:19:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:19:51 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103121751.006a7a64 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 12:17:51 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Debye temp Cc: Robin van Spaandonk In-Reply-To: <345e0886.3980072 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <199711020357.VAA20946 natasha.eden.com> <199711020357.VAA20946 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"PNldJ3.0.ki3.qUWNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12328 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:15 PM 11/2/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk >Above the Debye temp. the specific heat of the substance is pretty >much a constant (i.e. no longer dependant on temperature). >See my other post for a more detailed explanation. >The Debye temp. is not critical, but is a good indicator of how easy >it is to attain CF with the material at any given temp. > Do you have a table of CF materials which work, and dont, and the Debye temps in column B to demontrate this? Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 09:54:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25697; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:48:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:48:57 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 12:46:54 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Debye temp Cc: Robin van Spaandonk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"koSjU1.0.IH6.6wWNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12329 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:15 PM 11/2/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk >Above the Debye temp. the specific heat of the substance is pretty >much a constant (i.e. no longer dependant on temperature). >See my other post for a more detailed explanation. >The Debye temp. is not critical, but is a good indicator of how easy >it is to attain CF with the material at any given temp. > Previously posted: Do you have a table of CF materials which work, and dont, and the Debye temps in column B to demontrate this? Have assembled the data: Metal DebyeT(*) CF success Ni 427 yes Ti 426 yes Pd 283 yes Al 423 no Mg 396 no Cr 598 no Pt 234 no Au 165 maybe (complicated issue of materials) Fe 457 no * from Robin van Spaandonk's page There doesn't seem to be an relationship to my eye at first glance. Did I miscopy these, Robin? Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 09:56:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26175; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:49:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:49:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:46:32 -0800 Message-Id: <199711031746.JAA00085 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: MM experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"gme4K1.0.qO6.3xWNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12331 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hiya Ross, > >> Greetings; >> >> >I've got another couple of questions to pound you with. :) You >> >mentioned earlier that gravity was a result of filtering out >> >background oscillations in aether, kind of like two ships pushed (I >> >know you like the word "pushed" rather than "pulled") together in the >> >ocean due only to the "background waves." >> >> Yes exactly. >> >> >Well, this is essentially >> >the same explaination that conventional physics gives to the Casimir >> >effect. Two conducting plates don't allow the same amount of >> >background wave intensity between them as outside of them. This >> >creates a force pushing them together. However, the Casimir effect >> >is proportional to 1/r^4 instead of 1/r^2, like gravity. How does >> >your aether theory explain the Casimir effect? >> >> Note that your considering that the Casimir effect is a push compressing the >> two plates is correct, but not the normal understanding. Most people >> believe it to be an attraction force pulling the two plates together. I of >> course consider that notion as silly as thinking that a vacuum behind a >> suction cup is pulling the cup to the surface. The air pressure on the >> outside is of course responsible and it is a compression due to external >> pressure that is causing the phenomena. > >The Casimir effect was explained to me using the "two ships in the >ocean" analogy by my physics prof. I thought this was the way >everyone thought of it. Oh well... > >> As for the relation of the force, I have not tried to study that relation >> closely so have not worked out the details. But you are dealing with the >> energy density of the wavelengths that you are excluding internally. And so >> you are excluding shorter wavelengths of energy and correspondingly greater >> energy density waves. I looked into that a couple years ago and didn't see >> anything wierd in what was going on. The normal explanation I think worked >> fine, the only difference is that I would give the waves you are excluding >> structure and geometry, rather than saying they are "virtual". They are the >> background turbulence of the spacetime acoustic manifold, aka QVF. > >But I thought that this was the same explaination you gave for >gravitation! Two massive particles (or solitons, whichever you >prefer) attract each other because they exclude (or "filter") certain >frequencies of background wave motion between them, causing a "push" >toward each other. How can this be the explaination for both the >Casimir effect and gravitation if they obey a totally different >distance relation? Help!!! :-) OK Jay;;llll;;;;!!!!!!!!!! You know, I guess you have me on this one right now. I haven't studied the details of the derivation for about two years, and I have forgotten how I worked that one out. But I do remember that it did work out. You see, I have forgotten how the normal d erivation is worked out mathematically on that one but it is pretty neat. It deals with the intensity of the waves, and it heads right on down and results in the Van der Waal's forces in the limiting case where the plates join together. So you have the separation distance is getting smaller, the numbers of different waves that are multiples of that spacing is getting smaller, and so the net thrust is getting smaller because you are eliminating the numbers of waves repulsing the plates at that fourth power. Gravity is different because you don't elimiate reflections, ie standing waves multiply reflecting between the objects mirrors where the wavelengths are greater than the sub atomic, ie Planck scale, wavelengths. I know that the two seem the same, but the wavelengths you are dealing with are very very much different. You are not setting up two mirrors when you are dealing with gravity, and you are with the casimir effect. That is just a macroscopic version of inter-atomic interactions, and as you reduce the spacings of the plates, the numbers of large waves (ie light) that can reflect are being reduced by that fourth power. OK, that is close to recalling what is going on. I would need to read the papers on it again but I hope you get the gist. Think of the earth as virtually transparent to wave energy at E-35 meters, Planck scale energy, and you will see that there is no w ay to establish two opposing mirrors when even your nuclei are virtually transparent to the wave energy. There really isn't anything that my theory is going to give you on that phenomena that the normal QM considerations using virtual photons cannot give you. The only difference is that I would say that there are real waves in between the plates and not "vi rtual" ones. That said, if you know the true definition of virtual as being waves that are indeed real, but only for a short period of time too short to be measured, then both my notions and the QM notions on that phenomena wind up being the same. That is the sort of thing that I ran into time after time in QM considerations. I could explain it, but so could they. That is why I ran out to the stars for problems that astro physicists could not explain because their theories are flat incorrect out there. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 09:58:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26137; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:49:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:49:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:46:30 -0800 Message-Id: <199711031746.JAA00074 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: MM Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"6npTt2.0.CO6.ywWNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12330 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Also if you cannot apply some maths to your concepts >and make it all work together really rather well, no one in >academia will even care to look. And even if you do, your >chances of getting noticed are next to nill (as per H. Aspden). >Sorry for having to sound so pessimistic, but that is the way >it is I think. Good luck! Thanks for the comments and the reference. I'll have to check into that book as it sounds like he may be on to what I have been working on. Actually for the record, the pulsating spheres were discovered over a hundred years ago by Kelvin as I have said. But I didn't know that he derived the masses of particles from his model as ratios. I did something like that for the electron family. As for applying mathematics, I can say that the sun is double the mass we think it is because mass in the form of aether, is conserved. So I do have some important math to my theory. It is just that it is so simple that no one seems to realize how dramatically important it is. But I will wager that Aspden does not conserve aether or mass in his models; do you know? If he doesn't, he has missed the one key point that is my trick up my sleeve. Conservation of mass leads to a new form of spacetime curvature currently not known, anticipated, or accounted for. And the observational evidence that this curvature manifests is every where you look. So, All I need to do is to say that the spacetime curvature induced by the flow of aether out of stars is greater than zero, and I have made a quantative determination that is observable. The fact that it is not trivial, and is equal to the buoyancy of the thermal motions of the matter in the star is a plus because it means that this effect is large. So if you get a convergence or collimation of the flow of aether, then you get large effective localized spacetime curvatures that cannot be explained via any other manner. And that is where astro physicists will ultimately take note of what I am saying. You see, in the QM laboratory all is well to 9 digits of accuracy. But in astrophysics, they have some problems with the first order of magnitude and are off by a factor of nearly 10 in how much mass is in the solar vicinity in the Milky Way. Hubble ought to be able to see this missing dark mass, but it cannot. It has sought out red dwarfs and rather than finding all of the missing mass, it found even another paradox, a lack of red dwarfs. You see, as the object get smaller and smaller, the numbers normally are going up. This is what happens all the time with stars. But then you suddenly get to the red dwarf stage at about 0.1 solar masses and suddenly when you expect to find a continuously increasing number of them, there are virtually none out there. Now if you happen to know that stars, when they ignite, they have this double whammy of outward thrust due to the aether emissions, then you know that stars near the brink of having enough mass to confine the matter and continue to shine will be likely to blow themselves apart into smithereens. Any way, everywhere you look, you will see the evidence that there is an unaccounted for spacetime curvature due to fusion energy generation. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 10:38:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28832; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:32:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:32:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:21:42 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Full cooperation from Ragland Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711031326_MC2-268F-CF4D compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"27XOF1.0.Q27.eYXNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12333 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote that Scott Little "did not ask for and has not had "full cooperation" from Ragland; he prefers to do the experiment on his own." Scott responds: If you mean that I didn't buy one of Ragland's cells, you're right. Yup. That's what I mean. However, I have had hours of conversations with Evan that led to an improved custom cell design . . . Yup. That's good. As far as I can tell, I have Evan's full cooperation. Nope. If you want full cooperation from him you have to pay him money, buy a cell, visit him for a couple of weeks, and learn his technique first hand. I am sure you could learn a lot if you did that. You might even find a gigantic unknown artifact in his technique, which would prove that Murray is right, which would prove that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I cannot rule out an error; I have not been to his lab for intensive observation and training. He could be sloppy or delusional. I doubt it, but you never know. You can learn a heck of a lot more visiting someone like Fleischmann or Storms. Anyone could, even Bockris. They spent years going down blind alleys, doing it wrong. You can spend five years recapitulating their mistakes, or you can learn from them. I prefer the latter method. It saves time & prevents frustration. Sometimes it saves thousands of man-years. That is why Fleischmann asked Johnson-Matthey to recommend the best palladium. The Japanese have been trying to invent it on their own. They have to learn everything J-M knows about palladium. J-M has a 200-year head start. Do you know of something he's holding back? Nope. Nothing as far as I know. Why should he? Incidentally, I do not see anything wrong with Scott's decision to try it on his own. I do not see anything wrong with our method of getting maximum cooperation & assistance by buying a cell from Ragland. Finally, I have no problem with Ragland charging money for his cooperation. He does not have unlimited free time. On the other hand, I think Ragland overcharged us for the two cells, and I think Scott is trying to do too much on his own. He does not have sufficient knowledge of the literature and he lacks experience and first-hand training. I think that trying to master Pd D2O cold fusion by yourself is a quixotic waste of time. It is like trying to learn gourmet French cooking from cookbooks, without ever visiting a restaurant or attending cooking school. Nobody is that smart. No discipline or skill can be was taught purely by book learning. In the end, you have to interact with other people, and you have see, feel, work and practice with them. Of course, I am on thin ice making such pronouncements, because I myself have not mastered Pd CF. But everyone I know who has mastered it assures me this is the case. They spent years working on related disciplines, and many more months or years working on CF before they got any positive results. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 10:45:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00814; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:38:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:38:09 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Microcavitation, Sonoluminescence and Beer II Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:17:02 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce884$aea4e320$0991410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"vYk883.0.WC.GeXNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12334 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex As a followup, pressurizing an electrolysis cell with CO2 might be worthwhile. The Alkali metal (M) should form the bicarbonate MHCO3 O - M / O=C \ O - H and the excess CO2, Carbonic Acid H2CO3 O - H O - / / O=C --------> O=C + H+ \ \ O - H O - H This should allow the electrolysis cell to get to higher boiling temperatures and lessen the possibility of a H2 - O2 explosion. The recombiner catalyst can be platinum on alumina or a heated platinum wire, or both. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 10:53:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04402; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:51:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:51:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:47:55 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Chip Ransford Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711031351_MC2-2694-E32 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"DoUdn1.0.g41.zqXNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12335 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little got the this fellow's name mixed up. It is Chip Ransford (not Ransom), with Nova Resources. Someone at Nova (not Chip himself) fabricated a cathode made of silver with a thin film of palladium. Ed Storms tried it and likes it so far. Thin film Pd on Ag is a good idea. Over the years people have reported good results with it. If you fabricate the cathode right the Pd sticks well, and Ag seems to enhance CF reactions. However, even if it works I expect it is no panacea. I expect great variability in performance, and I am sure there are a hundred ways to wreck the cathode. You can accidentally run it as an anode and strip off the thin film in no time. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 12:13:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA27221; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:09:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:09:31 -0800 Message-Id: <345E206D.22948FA4 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:05:17 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Rapid Preparation of YBa2Cu3O7-x with Tc 90K Using a Domestic Microwave Oven Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mos7O2.0._e6.vzYNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12336 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, This seems a useful of information. Unfortunately only abstract is available online. http://wwwsoc.nacsis.ac.jp/jjap/36-10A-2/7L0748.tex.abst/abstract.html Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 12:20:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27706; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:54:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:54:41 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Microcavitation, Sonoluminescence and Beer. Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:54:48 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce870$cff43300$0991410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"6VDqm2.0.Hm6.U_WNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12332 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex It seems that one of the most promising ways to get lots of bubbles in water is to charge it with CO2. This forms the weak acid known as Carbonic Acid H2CO3: H2O (H-O-H) + CO2 (O=C=O) -------> O - H / O=C \ O - H It is possible that this molecule could yield CO2 + H + OH in the bubbles, thus setting things up for Hydrino formation, rather than the bicarbonate ion HCO3 - + the H+.(proton). I'm out a bottle of O'Doul's checking this out , this early in the morning. :-) Another possibility for Scott's "Secret Ingredient" in the Vortex machines is dissolved H2, but the Carbonic Acid formed from water taking CO2 out of the atmosphere seems to be the more likely source for nucleating bubble sites. Cheers! Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 13:05:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA07771; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:57:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:57:32 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:38:00 -0500 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: <19971103210053016.AAA90 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"DZq_f.0.Lv1.wgZNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12337 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In his post, Larry does not say if he has studied the material available on the BLP website. His commentary seems based on what he thinks Mills says, not what is actually said. Quoting someone, > The pressures cited for the Mill's gas phase cell seem very low > >(2mmHg). This pressure is probably used because the fraction of atomic > >hydrogen in a gas increases exponentially as pressure decreases, and the > >potassium ions must interact with atomic hydrogen for the reaction to > >occurr. This is at least reasonable in context, but may not be the whole story. Larry then goes on: > My guess is that the low pressure is required to eliminate molecular heat > transport leaving only radiative heat transport which is very prone to high > errors and will give a bogus apparent excess heat production. I know of no reason to try to eliminate molecular heat transport. Indeed, the low gas pressure seems an obstacle to removing heat from the reaction. Does he mean that the process conditions are chosen to produce bogus results to confuse observers? >There is most likely nothing of any > interest in gas phase cf and I think that it should be clearly stated. > There is something of interest going on in CETI style cf although it is not > fusion. There should be no linkage made between a purely bogus field (gas > phase cf) and a field with a real artifact demonstrated (CETI style > something). Mills is the last person who would want to associate his work with CF. The underlying theory is different, being a chemical (electron orbit) rather than nuclear process, and fusion has no part in the theory or practice. Methinks Larry has not read the BLP website. The next critical experiment is measurement of the EUV radiation from the gas phase reaction. It is noteworthy that Larry finds that there is a CETI something. Good. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 13:19:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA11687; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:11:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:11:34 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:10:26 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: R.W.WALL, YOU ARE VIOLATING RULE #2 OF VORTEX-L Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"YDcIR1.0.Os2.4uZNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12338 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > Actually, some agree > with my posts in toto, but there is a small cadre of smot&rmog o/u > wannabes who are quite gullible. Unfortunately, they will hang on > until this thing plays out, as it eventually is destined to do. Then > they will move on and become wannabes of another cause. Absolutely no > insult intended to anyone. Just the nature of some people The word "gullible" is insulting. The word "wannabes" is insulting. It is obvious namecalling. Stating that you intended no insult is misleading. If you intended no insult, you would have used other terms than you did. On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > I don't believe Bill is into censorship in any form. He made this very > clear in his opposition to censorship when Congress passed censorship > laws restricting the internet. Ejecting a subscriber who violates rules of the Forum is not "censorship." Be aware that Vortex-L is not a free and open forum such as, for example, an unmoderated newsgroup. > It's simple, if it offends your sensitivities then don't read, it just > delete it. Since defense can also be used to excuse insults and flamewars, it is not valid. Mr. Wall, I must call your attention to Rule #2 of this forum: 2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden. The tone should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open, hop on board! Help us test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away. (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin, on WEIRD SCIENCE page.) I've reviewed your recent posts. I find a VERY disrespectful, almost "sneering" attitude directed towards Greg Watson, and also towards believer-oriented researchers. You may have intended your posts to be a request for information, but they come across as an ANGRY DEMAND for evidence, and they seem to exhibit an attitude of hostile disbelief. In total, they come close to being an attempt to debunk Watson's work. >From your messages it is plain that you fall solidly into the "Skeptic" camp. Therefor your presence here is tolerated only. See my preceding message re. "believers" versus "skeptics". Have you built any of Watson's devices? If not, then you have not helped us test them. Have you adopted a hostile, disbelieving, disrespectful attitude towards Watson's work? Obviously yes, and you apparantly equate openmindedness with "gullibility." It is true that other vortex-L subscribers may wish to ask Greg W. similar questions, and most of what you have written could easily have been done from the viewpoint of a respectful fellow researcher who practices "provisional belief" in order to test claims. You however did not do it this way. Have you used the terms "gullible" and "wannabes" in reference to those who accept Greg Watson's claims? Yes, and this falls under "namecalling between believers and skeptics." You are in serious violation of Rule #2 of this forum. If you wish to continue to partipate here, first review any future posts VERY CAREFULLY for violations of the spirit, as well as the letter of Rule #2. Suspend all but a trace of normal skepticism, and attempt to remain "so very openminded that your brain almost (but not quite) falls out." Some people have intense dislike for the atmosphere of this forum. This issue, and a possible solution, is mentioned in Rule 2: Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 13:38:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16040; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:28:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:28:12 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199711030026.SAA22890 dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:24:22 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: A quick way to REALLY test Greg's claims? -Was latest reply to R.R.Wall Resent-Message-ID: <"WU4zQ1.0.Yw3.h7aNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12339 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin - > I think that Rick Monteverde could do this > experiment quite quickly. What say you Rick and > Greg? Rick says you must have caught him with the stupids this morning; he can't quite figure out your proposed setup. I sort of get it that you've got straight sections of rollout track, and you can attach ramps to them. By the way, attaching sections is always very hard to do without a fairly noisy and draggy connection point bumps or dips, and for pairs of ramps meant for close tolerance comparisons, this is probably a real problem. Anyway, after that is where I get confused: > 4. Place a Mark II array on rail A, measure the > new roll away distance. You mean just attach magnet arrays to a tilted straight ramp section without a 90 degree dropoff? Hamdi's done that already and gets nothing. Fair duplication here has to include the "blue hole" dropoff. Or do you mean attach the whole MkII track+magnet assembly to that section of rollout track? If you can help me clear up my confusion and it looks like a worthwile way to test the claims, I might have a go at it again. But I really did already give it a pretty good single ramp test. I'd be willing to do it again with Greg's latest design with the sharp 90 dropoff. He says that it's easier to get rollaways with that design. The point being this: If you can see a good replicable rollaway where you're sure that the exit track is level or uphill and the starting track section is lower than or level with the exit, you've got proof of SMOT "OU". Very simple, too. Also you, me, and many others on the list know the objection raised about pushing the ball at the start is a non-issue reflecting the naivete of someone who has only done these experiments in his head and not on the benchtop. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 14:30:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA15912; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:22:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:22:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <345E4E96.25DDF56 microtronics.com.au> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:52:14 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Rmog Mk3 Self Running Achieved References: <199711030834.AAA13347 sweden.it.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EoS1y.0.Wu3.RwaNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12340 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dave Dameron wrote: > > Hi Greg, > At 02:14 PM 11/3/97 +1030, you wrote: > > >I believe the design will be able to be retro fitted to the 3 existing > >Rmod Mk1 units I know about. Please wait for me to finish my testing > >before you start modifying your existing units. > > > >What say you, Rmog Mk1 builders? > > > I will find some Neodym. magnets and more ferrite, so will take some time > anyway. Building stuff ALWAYS takes more time than you thought it would. I always seem to get ideas on how to build it better once I start actually working. Wish I had foresight and knew what I knew before I started to build. > It appears you are using your original idea, especially point #9: fluxgate > doesn't enter the gap or it appears to be a non OU fluxgate (The Mk1 used > the coil timing to do the same, I quessed), and #10: energy in stiff > (Neodym.) magnets(vs. ceramic). The Mk3 design change was done to reduce non Dmec magnetic stresses to a min. The flux gate can enter the air gap as in the Mk1 & Mk2 designs. The only problem is that entering the air gap results in much greater magnetic stresses and requires really solid construction. The Mk3 design is much more forgiving. As to the timing change, its ALL related to how and when the Dmec effect can be made to happen. Once you understand how the flux distortion works, then coil short timing is simple to understand. The Mk3 coil short is longer because the flux gate is in the Dmec area for half of the time. In the Mk1 & Mk2 designs, the coil short timing was shorter because the flux gate is in the Dmec area for a shorter period of time. The Mk3 design also makes the coil short timing easier to control. No external elements are needed. All the info is in the Emf waveform from the sense coil wound on stator 2. This design is self timed and will work in either direction. FLASH >>>>>>>>>>>>> Use a cap to couple the sense coil output to the op amp. Then use a weak pull-up (1meg) directly on the op amp's input to cause the fet to turn on if there is no coil output. This will result in the Mk3 design self starting in the "Motor" mode. Currently I have to spin the rotor up by hand, it will not self start. Will modify the circuit. FLASH END >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The use of NeoDym magnets helps the Dmec effect as the much stiffer domains resist realignment by the opposing coil flux and cause more external flux distortion. Ceramics will still work, but the coils opposing flux actually causes some domain movement in the magnet, reducing the magnets pole face flux density. This weakens the external flux and results in less external flux to distort. Remember its external flux distortion that causes the Dmec effect to work. So NeoDym magnets ARE better than ceramics because they are stiffer, but the higher magnetic stresses require stronger construction. It you can't get a 0.5mm air gap and NeoDyms to work, either beef of the mechanical stiffness or go back to ceramics. With my rotors, the flux gates are VERY flush. Here we want min air resistance. Why waste energy? I find 5 sheets of 80Gsm A4 paper is very close to 0.5mm and is what I use to "Gap" my Mk3 unit. > My Rmog now runs well as a powered motor with 4 fluxgates, 4 magnets, and 2 > coils + opto sensor timing. The reed switch died. > -Dave Hi Dave, The Dmec effect is there. Its a weak force and requires very good magnetic thrust balancing and a understanding of what is required to make it stronger. My rotor is notchy, but rotates smoothly with very little bearing thrust loads. The bearings are VERY solidly mounted. I then use a cut down nylon washer that only touches the inner bearing race and a brass collar. The spacing between the bearings is 32mm. My twin stators are mounted together. I can slide them closer or further away as required. I am working on the optimal stator to flux gate position in regard to notch and Dmec effects. I can get Motor action with as little as 1.2v. I have had self running operation at about 80rpm with the ceramic magnets. Started at 300rpm and switched to motor. Dropped very slowly to 80rpm. Didn't expect that, but seem to remember one of the Mech Eng guys saying that rotary losses increased with the square of the Rpm. It was weak and a finger on the rotor stopped it. I expect better results with the NeoDym. The QField sims show a much improved flux distortion. Much more later. Got to go into town and get the NeoDyms. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 14:40:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00115; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:29:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:29:31 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <345DE353.185D earthlink.net> References: <199711030104.TAA24335 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:09:41 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Team scientific folly Resent-Message-ID: <"LzSEA1.0.K1.91bNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12341 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich Murray wrote: ...[huge snip of negative personal speculations on possible group behavior in a scientific context]... Either the SMOT can do a level rollaway or it can't. So far, definitive, replicable, transportable (different labs trying out a successful unit) rollaway units have not been produced and distributed. I don't know that they ever will, but the work has obviously not yet concluded. All this negative shrieking, mumbo-jumbo, and o-ring paranoia (jeez...) hasn't got the slightest relevancy to the verity of the SMOT claims, and as Scott Little mentions, is a huge waste of Vortex bandwidth. Only experiment is relevant. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 15:31:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12403; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:26:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:26:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:26:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199711032326.PAA00897 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Book Poll Results; Resent-Message-ID: <"fNV_U1.0.e13.nsbNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12342 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For those who responded, thanks again. I assume others will continue to respond as the next day or so goes by, but there is a clear consensus already. Out of 15 replies to my email address, 11 say they would buy or definitely buy the book, 3 say they don't buy that kind of book or aren't interested in this one, and 1 says maybe if he could look it over first. So, amongst people interested in science on the fringe, the opinion seems to be that the book is worth my efforts. I can tell you that for the people I speak to individually in person, where I can use figures, hands, diagrams, Hubble photos, etc., the interest is even greater and that those people understand the fundamental notions really well. They are taken aback at first, but then catch on and ask some good questions and nearly all say they would like to buy the book. In summation, thanks again for your answers, they confirm what I already believed. And within a year I hope to conclude the book's writing and have the illustrations and photos all assembled and ready for publication. Hubble, VLBI, SOHO, SOI, COBE, and numerous other observatories are making my job a pleasure and a breeze. They have already photographed all of the anamolous behaviors I need to build a fantastic case for the emission of aether from stars. When I get the thing written, and those who thought they weren't interested in this kind of a book find out all that is inside, I think some of the no's are going to switch to yes'. Time will tell on that one. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 17:54:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21298; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:48:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:48:34 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:48:15 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A quick way to REALLY test Greg's claims? -Was latest reply to R.R.Wall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Iylfy2.0.aC5.kxdNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12343 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: >>I'm a qualified Scientist with a genuine Ph.D. to my name and the job of >>helping others achieve the same lofty satus :-) I've played with SMOT's. >>They're great fun and I've learnt a bit about magnetism from them. There are >>plenty of configurations where the ball is pulled into the SMOT then carried up >>the slope and deposited on the other side. >> >>I used a ruler in front of the SMOT to hold the ball in place. After lifting >>the ruler, the ball rolled up the slope. Without the magnets, the ball did not >>move. >> >>Greg's suggestion of observation of unusual effects with a MARK II SMOT is very >>good. Unfortunately all my SMOT stuff is in Vancouver and I'm in Geneva now, >>otherwise I would try it myself. >> >>I'll paraphrase and flesh out a protocol. >> >>1. Make up two sets of rails side by side with the provision for positioning a >>SMOT MARK II array on either ramp. >> >>2. Allow the rails to be tilted and attached to some level sections >>downstream of the sloping section. Call theses rail A and rail B. >> >>3. Place a ball on each of the sections and observe the roll away distance for >>each rail. >> >>Then repeat steps 4,5,6 and 7 until a statistically significant sample of >>observations has been established. >> >>4. Place a Mark II array on rail A, measure the new roll away distance. >> >>5. Measure the roll away distance on rail B again. >> >>6. Place the MARK II array on rail B and measure the roll away distance >>there. >> >>7. Measure the roll away distance on rail A again. >> >>8. Goto 4. >> >>Note: The distance between the SMOT magnets should be increased to allow a >>roll through on the established gradient. >> >>I believe that Greg claims the rail with the MARK II SMOT will have a greater >>roll away distance than the SMOTless rail. This should be relatively easy to >>measure. Is that right Greg Watson? >> >>It appears to me that this would quickly show whether there is anything to >>Greg's claims. If there is any energy gain to be had by traversing a SMOT, this >>should show it. >> >>I think that Rick Monteverde could do this experiment quite quickly. What say >>you Rick and Greg? >> >>Cheers, >> >>Martin Sevior >> >>(sorry for the little or no snip, but you may be 100% and I'll come back to this to do the rail (side by side) experiments.) Have you gotten the *amazing* rollaway yet? your 'Deposited on the other side' tells me you needed mags moved FOWARD just a little bit more. Martin, Steve here, (no phD after my name, but hours/days/months of hands on with smot too - Glad you found the Fun in it - isn't it Great) ... I see your above test(s) two different ways, and both miss the Blue-Hole syndrome.. Please correct me where If missread or didn't understand. IF (my understanding of above) you're suggesting a set-up of A&B rails as: A &/or B start:\ \<--equal incline(s) \ \ ----direction of roll-----> \----------------------------*------------ (..end..) measure roll --------------------------* (1) Without any magnets (2) With Magnets "V"'d outward --> (3) With Magnets "V"'d inward <--- With out a smot 'ramp', I can tell you from hands-on that #1 will ALWAYS go 'further'. The Magnets will interact (no matter how they are stacked and act as a fly-by Braking system.. slowing the balls overall travel as it goes down the level measure stick. (if 'V''s are on the level area and not inclined)). your #2 is what lost me. It's the LIFT the ramp provides (KE) to the ball (mass), AND the speed (V), *combined* that gives it the ?POWER? to punch (drop over the end and *ROLL-A-WAY* , beyond what even a dummy like me considers NORMAL Magnetic Behavior. In School, I just learned some things stick and some things don't to magnets..(dumb me/school) and you had to 'pull the things that stuck apart for the next class'. PE Added, conservation of all energy restored :) My drawing (& my probably erroneous misinterruptation) above of your suggestion, should be the other way around - that is start ball at the ..end..(right side of ascii drawing) with or without magnets.. Without magnets,the ball will just STAY put (assumed level) (KE stored). With Magnets (inclined on the slope -left side of acsii drawing)..BUT, we are back to a SMOT 1 arrangement here.. Now, I defy anyone to tell me how a ball can go up the ramp to the top - drop off & ROLLAWAY without Greg's Blue-hole... "Climbing" the ramp is TOMI Proved! apparently no biggy, CLEARING the TOP (proceeding fowarded) with ~+vigor+~, accumulation of KE? V? MASS? ZPF? (whatever/all) is what the Blue-hole is about. This is the area to measure and re-measure. ------------------------- Oh, BTW to R.R.Wall, I have had hundreds if not one thousand plus *Roll-A-WAYS* over the last few months tinkering with my ffSMOT. I foolishly (that's me) went to my closed-looping design BEFORE I understood everything that could go on. My very first smot1 attempt WAS A ROLLAWAY! ~cursed rollaway~ :)... (I say cursed here, in the sense that I obligated myself to close the loop for this *amazing* toy. = so, off to ffSMOT, Greg was kind enough in April to remind us not to get ahead of ourselves, but what guy will listen -eh?) My design (thus far) can be seen here. --- Not recommended as ideal, because it requires you put together all ramps and tracks THEN try it out.. (lots of non-roll a-ways) I still have either my circle (track) too large or not enough ramps. Either way, my ~+vigor+~ has produced (not scientifically measured, but I've about a 7" hand spread) a BEST Roll-A-Way of 12-15" before I was picking it up and trying for MORE, MORE, MORE.. I use Radio Shack magnets and common U-channel aluminum. SPEND the $20.00 or so and TRY IT YOURSELF! Actually, you may even have similar parts laying around (if you have a work shop?), so It will cost you nothing!-- When you finally see &/or Feel (if you build it yourself) that First Roll-A-Way, I'll bet you too will will smile :) best to you & yours -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 19:16:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09006; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:08:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:08:53 -0800 Message-Id: <345E833C.20922E63 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 05:06:52 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rmog Mk3 Self Running Achieved References: <199711030834.AAA13347 sweden.it.earthlink.net> <345E4E96.25DDF56@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6P8DC3.0.XC2.37fNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12344 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Greg, Congratulations! We want photos! Before modifying anything: Could you prepare a standard engineering report about the current experiment (self running Rmog) by assuming yourself a guest engineer who is not familiar to the engine and drove an experiment. This is important because it force you to describe everything as you don't know which detail is important. This method is also to prevent you to try to optimize the engine while you drove the experiment. Best regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 20:59:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA10093; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 20:55:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 20:55:38 -0800 Message-ID: <345E9CC8.17A6 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 21:55:52 -0600 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, "storms ix.netcom.com.jonesse"@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, rgeorge hooked.net, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mizuno athena.kune.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73@aol.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, dennis@wazoo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, droege@fnal.gov, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb aol.com, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, reeber aro-emh1.army.mil, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu Subject: Blue: scientific folly Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"XaFHu1.0.cT2.9hgNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12345 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from pilot10.cl.msu.edu (pilot10.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.20]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05005 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:26:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (blue localhost) by pilot10.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id MAA49298; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:26:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199711031726.MAA49298 pilot10.cl.msu.edu> Subject: scientific folly To: rmforall earthlink.net Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:26:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard A Blue" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Rich, Am I guessing you are beginning to grasp just how sick CF research has become? We have example after example of experiments that seem to be designed to generate a "data stew" from which the believers can pull a selection of data which pleases them. It is a rather hopeless task to attempt to critique many of these experiments simply because there is such a gulf between what is reported and what you need to know to understand the claimed results. One can hope that the experimenters have a better understanding of what they are doing than you can possibly draw from their reports, but I doubt that is true in many cases. For starters the rational that leads a group to try a particular combination of materials and protocols is seldom very convincingly specified. Why, for example, does the Cincinnati Group operate on thorium using AC electrolysis? Sure, I know god told them to do it that way, but really? Mills is a total crackpot who had worked on his "theory of everthing" before cold fusion came along to give him something to explain. It just happens that having the artifact of excess heat nicely complements his unobservable hydrogen in sub-ground states. Actually his atomic model does not suggest the existance of such states so I suspect he came to the idea that such states exist after cold fusion came on the scene. He simply cheated to add this feature to his theory as a explination for cold fusion. I think the most telling evidence for the folly of CF research is the history of what develops after initial claims for CF success have been made. If it were a real phenomena given genuine signals it should, I would think, for there to be an ongoing sequence of experiments with gradual improvements in outcome. Instead all we see is generally declining claims followed by eventual silence with nothing further to report. If Pons and Fleischmann were successful why did they stop? If McKubre was successful why did he stop? Indeed in Miley is successful why do we hear so little about new results from his group? He never did send me anything further although he promised to do so on more than one occassion. I have exchanged e-mail off and on with Mitchell Swartz for several years. Sometimes he seems like a semirational person, but any attempt to resolve differences of opinion with him is a total waste of time. He has taken the position that CF claims are real and will continue to site those shakey references as if everyone of them is rock solid. He does admit to having doubts about the "massive transmutations", but klings to the position that "solid state effects" can induce all sorts of nuclear reactions. I just wish that people in his camp would explain how it is that hydrogen works as well or better than deuterium. The nuclear physics surely has to be very different for those two cases! Some day when you are bored with it all I suggest that you look back at the very first data that McKubre presented as showing clear evidence for excess heat. He was using a ramped electrolysis current in a cell where all electrical leads passed through a single bundled of wires to form a well defined thermal boundary. The data show a close tracking between the low-level temperature signal and the high-level electrolysis current which I say looks very much like crosstalk - an electrical artifact. After that first successful run the cell was torn down and rebuilt so the exact experimental setup was never duplicated; and, oddly enough, the tracking between electrolysis current and temperature never again appears. My reading is that the first time McKubre thought he saw excess heat it was a simple experimental artifact, but his team were convinced by that data that they were onto something. So McKubre doggedly persued artifacts although the magnitude of the effect he reported declined steadily, gradually merging into the noise. Still his calorimetry is held up as being of the highest standards, and his pronouncements on required loading and sample selection are part of the CF gospel. We skeptics are just not supposed to notice that few others claiming success actually statisfy the McKubre protocol requirements. He, after all, worked only with heavy water and used light water as a blank. Of course anyone (such as the Japanese) who announce a failure to replicate one or another of the CF claimed successes are always going to be dismissed as not having followed "The PROTOCOL." This need to reject any non-supportive result carries over, in general, to the way in which CF believers have treated direct evidence (or lack of same) for nuclear reactions. I would say that failure to detect neutron emission is a clear indiction that deuteron fusion is not occurring with a sensitivity of perhaps one billion times higher than the best calorimetry. No neutrons means no fusion, so the believers have to reject that data out of hand. Now justifying that rejection has led the CF community to adopt all sorts of bogus theories as if they had some fundimentally sound basis. This is where Scott Chubb comes into play. What he says is not total nonsense, but there is no connection between his model wave functions and reality. He does not ever demonstrate that his selection of wave functions actually describe a real system. Then, of course, he is totally left hanging by the claims of success using light water systems. Protons do not make very good bosons! Still, oddly enough, the CF believers still take Chubb theory as somehow supporting their claims. Of course any attempt to discuss "a theory" for cold fusion from a critical prospective is like nailing jelly to a tree. The believers simply refuse to say what they assume is occurring. You can't be critical of their assumptions if they don't make any. Actually they do all make the assumption that "low energy" nuclear reactions simply do not conform to what is known about nuclear reactions. It is an absurd position to take simply because the physical parameter of temperature simply cannot influence reactions to the degree claimed. I also like to point out that people such as George Miley actually use "low energy" nuclear reactions and depend very strongly on the fact that the reaction processes behave as expected. It is simply a matter of being selective as to which facts to accept and which to reject. So, in the end, that is what I think accounts for all the positive claims. Given a means for generation of a suitable "data stew" the believers select the data they like and reject what they don't like. It is a well recognized flaw in many scientific studies -- the error of post-selection. I don't think you will ever find "the smoking gun" that explains precisely what is wrong with a given CF claim. There is most likely no single source of error. It is just that when the experiment is sufficiently poorly executed the believer can find a way to pick from the chaos the results he was seeking. That is why the protocols never seem to make much sense. The only requirement is a sufficiently variable outcome. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 22:23:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11146; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:19:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:19:18 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Debye temp Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 06:18:39 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <346197a4.18843436 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"87FUt2.0.1k2.avhNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12346 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 12:46:54 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > Previously posted: > > Do you have a table of CF materials which work, and dont, >and the Debye temps in column B to demontrate this? First, it was not my intention to imply that the Debye temp would provide a precise measure of whether or not something would work. More that it provides an indicator of how well I would expect something to work, if it works at all. The degree to which any given metal absorbs hydrogen is obviously of major importance. So it pays to take this into consideration when viewing the chart. > > > The elements I included in the table on my web page, were included for various reasons as follows: > > Have assembled the data: > >Metal DebyeT(*) CF success >Ni 427 yes >Ti 426 yes >Pd 283 yes These three, as positive results had already been reported. >Al 423 no >Mg 396 no These two, as I hoped that they might prove useful in the future (both are plentiful in the earth's crust, ensuring cheap "fuel"). BTW I think Bill Page once reported some success with Al, though I don't know if this was ever replicated. >Cr 598 no This one because it is in between Ti and Ni in the periodic table. >Pt 234 no >Au 165 maybe (complicated issue of materials) These two because I was "taken" by their low DB temps. (I believe there may actually have been a couple of positives reported with Pt, though my memory is a bit hazy on this). I have also had a report of a very strong reaction of Au in heavy water (though this was carried out by a high school student, and has to the best of my knowledge not been replicated yet). >Fe 457 no This also because it lies between Ti and Ni. (and is known to absorb H). While you note that Fe has not been successful, I suspect it may be at higher temps (+100C or so higher at least). These would be high pressure experiments. > >* from Robin van Spaandonk's page > > There doesn't seem to be an relationship to my eye >at first glance. Note that none of the elements mentioned normally has a rhombohedral structure. This implies that any useful results will depend (at least) upon trace elements alloyed with them. So it is not really all that surprising that no immediate correlation is obvious, as few experimenters have explicitly tailored the trace elements to suit. Furthermore, even for the purposes of your implied comparison, one would need to take into account the temperatures at which individual experiments were carried out (relative to the Debye temp. of the actual "active sites" within the metal used). It is perhaps noteworthy that this hypothesis provides a neat explanation for the link between temperature and reaction rate. > > Did I miscopy these, Robin? No, not at all. What I did not include in the table, are Sb and Bi, both of which have rhombohedral lattices (and DB temps of 211K and 119K resp.), though I don't know the degree to which they do, or do not, absorb hydrogen. If they do not, then an experiment with "filings" (large surface area), might nevertheless prove interesting. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 3 23:54:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA09832; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:48:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:48:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <345ED35D.B91EC9AA microtronics.com.au> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:18:45 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rlEbU3.0.SP2.ODjNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12347 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have posted RMOG & SMOT Simple OU Proofs. They can be linked from the Rmog & Smot pages. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 01:07:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA08903; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:00:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:00:22 -0800 Message-ID: <345EE41D.5241B840 microtronics.com.au> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 19:30:13 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Cheap Linear Hall Effect Device Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"H8vVC3.0.xA2.bGkNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12348 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I believe the "Real" builders on these lists should adopt a low cost, standard Magnetic Flux Density measuring device. I use a UGN3503U Linear Hall Effect sensor to do my flux density measurements. It costs $3.95 Aus from any Disk Smith Electronic (Australia) store. Part # Z-2620. It has a 13v / Tesla (1.3v / 1,000 Gauss, 130mv / 100 Gauss, 13mv / 10 Gauss, 1.3mv / 1 Gauss) sensitivity and a noise (error) factor of +- 90uv / +- 0.07 Gauss. Max freq is 23Khz (-3bd). Not bad for a $3.95 (>$3.00 Us) part. Any other contenders? -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 05:23:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10666; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:18:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:18:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:18:42 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Resent-Message-ID: <"K7mXs2.0.Uc2.w2oNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12349 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:18 PM 11/4/97 +1030, Greg Watson wrote: >I have posted RMOG & SMOT Simple OU Proofs. Here is a quote from the page: >I am replicating the tests at present and will report any changes >in the results. Greg, you claim to have succeeded in making devices that run by themselves continuously without any energy input whatsoever! Please tell us, what could possibly possess you to spend any of your incredibly valuable time conducting these insignificant tests? Is it just a hobby?...something to relieve the relentless pressure of the crash development program in which you must surely be embroiled? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 05:26:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA11864; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:24:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:24:20 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:23:34 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: A better description of the test of the SMOT. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Ev_Y33.0.Dv2.28oNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12351 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From msevior axnd05.cern.ch Tue Nov 4 10:45:01 1997 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:42:35 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: msevior axnd05.cern.ch Subject: Re: A quick way to REALLY test Greg's claims? -Was latest reply to R.R.Wall On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Martin - > > > I think that Rick Monteverde could do this > > experiment quite quickly. What say you Rick and > > Greg? > > Rick says you must have caught him with the stupids this morning; he can't > quite figure out your proposed setup. I sort of get it that you've got > straight sections of rollout track, and you can attach ramps to them. By > the way, attaching sections is always very hard to do without a fairly > noisy and draggy connection point bumps or dips, and for pairs of ramps > meant for close tolerance comparisons, this is probably a real problem. > Anyway, after that is where I get confused: HI Rick, Steve Ekwall produced a nice ASCII art picture of what I had in mind. Here it is. A &/or B start:\ \<--equal incline(s) \ \ ----direction of roll-----> \----------------------------*------------ (..end..) measure roll --------------------------* The idea is to have two rails set flush to the surface in the same piece of plywood. These are tilted to enable a ball starting on a ramp to roll down and out onto the flat section. If there is not enough space in your place for a long flat section, you can just raise the flat section so that the ball has to roll up a hill on the other side. You still measure the distance the ball rolls, with and without the SMOT array. The basic idea is to have enough downward roll for the ball to get through the MARK II SMOT and out the other end. So you don't "climb and drop", the ball has enough momentum to "punch through" to the other side. So the system is like your 7 SMOT array only you have only 1 SMOT and it points downhill. The protocol is designed so that sources of systematic error can be identified. To this end, I propose that the magnetic array be moved from one rail to the other and that measurements are made on rail A and B with the the magnetic array moved from one rail to the other. In my games with the MARK II SMOT I found it was very easy to locate the array with some pins pushed into plywood and the attraction between the magnets would hold them in place. So I propose to position pins on both tracks to allow the same magnets to be moved from one location to the other. > > > 4. Place a Mark II array on rail A, measure the > > new roll away distance. > > You mean just attach magnet arrays to a tilted straight ramp section > without a 90 degree dropoff? Yes. I mean that. > Hamdi's done that already and gets nothing. Oh, I missed that. Did he do what I've suggested? > Fair duplication here has to include the "blue hole" dropoff. Or do you > mean attach the whole MkII track+magnet assembly to that section of rollout > track? > This would be more work but it would be a fairer test if the ball stays on the tracks. For this test you need an elevated run-away behind the SMOT ramp and an elevated roll away section to measure the energy of the ball leaving the ramp. \ / \ / \ /| / \/ |/ A B C A is the incline leading to the ramp. B is the SMOT ramp. C is the roll-away incline. (Highly exagurated in ASCII art.) So the new procedure would be to take your best ramp and attach an incline leading into the ramp. There should be sufficient vertical gain that the ball can get over the SMOT ramp with the magnets removed. Measure the final exit height in section C. Put the magnets back on the ramp, perform the same test and measure the final exit height again. I can imagine two problems with this set up. 1. The ball could get airborne with the magnets in place and be pulled into either magnet. 2. This is not fair test because there will be more magnetic losses in a fast moving ball than a slow moving one, such as the SMOT Mark IV is meant to be. Still it may show something. Cheers, Martin From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 05:27:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA11616; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:23:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:23:48 -0800 Message-ID: <345F9190.1F2C itl.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:20:16 -0800 From: nick7 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Richard W. Wall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id FAA11586 Resent-Message-ID: <"wDp_b3.0.Qr2.Z7oNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12350 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RE: Gullible... wannabe... SMOT believers etc In his insulting diatribes, R.W.W. seems to have missed that when we ordered our SMOT kits, Greg was not promising "rollarounds" or obvious OU. He was merely offering four SMOT ramps for experiments that demonstrated the strange effects that have also been replicated by others. The late Chris Tinsley, who I knew personally, was one. Greg has now put, on his web site, that he is sending a SMOT to the family of Chris. He is either cynically using the death of a wonderful person to give credibility to his "money grabbing schemes" ($A4000 - postage - materials - fabrication costs - 6 months of work = not much) or he is legit. Greg *has* moved the goalposts a number of times. He is now offering more spectacular performance than we paid for. As I have remarked before, if a working rollaround SMOT turns up on our doorsteps in a couple of weeks, there is a chain of logical inference that can be made about magnets as a source/conduit for energy from who-knows-where. As far as Greg's alleged inconsistencies that R.W.W. has pointed out go, they are far more easily explained when one realises that most people do not write emails in a fashion that would survive legal cross examination - that's why legal judgments are so huge - most people write in a shorthand manner without the qualification and definitions that would make them watertight. I bet R.W.W. one hundred pounds sterling that Greg will ship and that my SMOT will rollaround in a suitably OU fashion...... provided that R.W.W. will give me odds of 1000 to 1 against this. He is sooooo confident that I am sure he will agree to demonstrate his faith in his powers of analysis. Looking forward to receiving my OU SMOT + £100,000 before Christmas! Nick Palmer, Group co-ordinator, Jersey (UK) Friends of the Earth From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 05:48:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA19699; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:47:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:47:40 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:44:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up In-Reply-To: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VF3iN2.0.gp4.wToNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12353 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Scott Little wrote: > Greg, you claim to have succeeded in making devices that run by themselves > continuously without any energy input whatsoever! Please tell us, what > could possibly possess you to spend any of your incredibly valuable time > conducting these insignificant tests? Is it just a hobby?...something to > relieve the relentless pressure of the crash development program in which > you must surely be embroiled? > Oh come on Scott! Yes we know that new discoveries are most likely at the edge of knowledge, but sometimes people with hands on intuition (eg. inventors and engineers) turn up suprises in 'old' knowledge. It's just not right for you to be taking that line and questioning someone's integrity, sanity etc. at most, take the piss in a kind way. Why do you get so angry? If they keep the amount of their posts down and don't piss people off, if it's sh*t it will blow over. There's good *team work* going on here! Larry, Bauer and Hamdi are checking the theory (the accumalated knowledge), Greg's observed effect, both theory and experiment will crossbred. Just go check the history of Science and see how many times the experts got it wrong. As the bard put it: 'All the World's a stage, each man has his entry and exit.. La di da' When history is written, are you going to be the foaming mouth voice of the establishment. Ah, sigh! You've got a role to play even if it's Bottom's part. Remi. PS. read Needham and see what happened to Chinese Science. They were YEARS ahead often 4000 years ahead!!!! (shriek!, shriek! They has f**king oil rigs and gas heating!!!!!! for Chris sake). They stagnated because everything had to fit their preconcieved idea of how the universe worked. No flames please. I just won't bother. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 05:50:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA18719; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:44:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:44:26 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:40:50 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Debye temp In-Reply-To: <346197a4.18843436 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"14bLQ.0.Ha4.uQoNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12352 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:18 AM 11/4/97 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 12:46:54 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >[snip] >> Previously posted: >> >> Do you have a table of CF materials which work, and dont, >>and the Debye temps in column B to demontrate this? > >First, it was not my intention to imply that the Debye temp would >provide a precise measure of whether or not something would work. More >that it provides an indicator of how well I would expect something to >work, if it works at all. The degree to which any given metal absorbs >hydrogen is obviously of major importance. So it pays to take this >into consideration when viewing the chart. > Thank you for trying to clear this up, but upon inspection there seems to be no correlation at all with Debye temperature based upon those numbers, and material activity. ==================================================================== ... >Note that none of the elements mentioned normally has a rhombohedral >structure. This implies that any useful results will depend (at least) >upon trace elements alloyed with them. So it is not really all that >surprising that no immediate correlation is obvious, as few >experimenters have explicitly tailored the trace elements to suit. >Furthermore, even for the purposes of your implied comparison, one >would need to take into account the temperatures at which individual >experiments were carried out (relative to the Debye temp. of the >actual "active sites" within the metal used). >It is perhaps noteworthy that this hypothesis provides a neat >explanation for the link between temperature and reaction rate. .... >What I did not include in the table, are Sb and Bi, both of which have >rhombohedral lattices (and DB temps of 211K and 119K resp.), though I >don't know the degree to which they do, or do not, absorb hydrogen. If >they do not, then an experiment with "filings" (large surface area), >might nevertheless prove interesting. > As mentioned before, the active materials are NOT rhombohedral, and the papers are in the literature, including extensive xray spectroscopy papers. Also, although alloying does have implications, it seems uncomprehensible at first consideration how the fact that "none of the elements mentioned normally has a rhombohedral structure ..implies that any useful results will depend upon trace elements alloyed with them". ? Good luck, anyway. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 07:22:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19146; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:13:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:13:27 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971103210053016.AAA90 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:13:11 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"UYIKW.0.zg4.LkpNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12354 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to Mike Carrell, >> My guess is that the low pressure is required to eliminate molecular >heat >> transport leaving only radiative heat transport which is very prone to >high >> errors and will give a bogus apparent excess heat production. > >I know of no reason to try to eliminate molecular heat transport. Indeed, >the low gas pressure seems an obstacle to removing heat from the reaction. >Does he mean that the process conditions are chosen to produce bogus >results to confuse observers? I don't think anyone has selected the low pressure region to intentionally produce bogus results. Instead, I think that the apparent excess heat was noticed at the low pressures and it was thought that this was necessary for the supposed reaction to occur. I don't claim to know all the reactions or surface physics but I do know that metal surfaces get dirty, there is no way to avoid that, and when you heat them in the presence of hydrogen at low pressure they are cleaned off very nicely. In spaceflight we clean our probes befor they get too dirty. If we waited too long they would get too dirty and the calibration would be wrong. So we don't wait too long but if we did then we could clean them and they would be back working fine. This cleaning effect is very effective and it should result in a large decrease in emissivity in the metal surface. Such an emissivity decrease would result in a large apparent but bogus excess heat. I have read all the BLP stuff and it is total nonsense. It is claimed incorrectly that QM and relativity have been unified for the first time. No such unification is done and existing theory such as the Dirac equation and QFT are already consistant with relativity. The Klien-Gordon equation, which is valid only for bosons, is used to describe the electron which is a fermion. The alleged solution for the sub-ground state does not depend on the potential. Therefore the solution is valid for any potential including a zero potential. So then the electron could go into the sub-ground state in free space without the necessity of an attractive nucleus. That would be a neat trick, an electron could be out in free space and it could go into a sub-ground state orbit around nothing. We could call these things electrinos. An electrino would be a hydrino without the unecessary protron in the center. I think it would be good for BLP to add a electrino section. I am sure there would be many useful applications. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 07:29:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22662; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:22:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:22:54 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:22:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971104102017_968330778 emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Murray on Wreckage & Ruin Resent-Message-ID: <"FzZmN1.0._X5.CtpNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12355 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich, Would you please post your critique of November 1 about Ni-H2O Wreckage & Ragland Ruin in easily accessible email form? My obsolete software can handle emails of less than 32K, but it doesn't deal as well as it ought to with text files (and it can't handle graphics files at all). Thanks. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 07:58:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA32642; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:49:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:49:31 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104092556.00701e40 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 09:25:56 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up In-Reply-To: References: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"1FsKX1.0.sz7.9GqNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12356 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 13:44 11/4/97 +0000, Remi Cornwall wrote: >Why do you get so angry? If they keep the amount of their posts down and >don't piss people off, if it's sh*t it will blow over. Remi, I'm not angry at all. "Incredulous" describes it better. I'm just trying to find out why the one man that has apparently succeeded in our mutual quest spends his time the way he does. In my dreams it goes rather differently when I succeed. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 08:13:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA05864; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:05:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:05:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:05:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711041605.IAA08968 sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"YRUCY1.0.YR1.3VqNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12357 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Vorts, Table top fusion for the high school students! The latest Electric Spacecraft Journal (ESJ) No.22 describes how to do it as demonstrated in the recent (Sept. 28, 1997) experiment by Richard Hull. The article is titled "Fusor Neutron Generators" reviewed by Leslee Kulba. "The production of neutrons seems to be occuring in special vacuum tube designs known as Fusors. The phenomenon is reminiscent of work done by Tesla and Farnsworth. Tom Ligon has described and demonstrated recent work with Fusors which is attributable to Dr. R.W. Bussard." Richard Hull duplicated the air version of the fusor and generated a plasma ball with ray and a plasma ball with bugle as shown in the article photographs. The plasma ball looked about 1" diameter with the jet on one end about 3" long, as seen from the clear 24" vacuum chamber dome. Glowing sheaths or quills, and pulsed anomalous glow discharges are also some of the phonomena, depending on the voltage and gas used. The simple demonstration air fusor, as described, is basically two concentric geodesic grids, about basketball and golf ball sized with between 100V and 3kV dc grid bias enclosed in a vacuum chamber to 200 microns. This fusor if filled with deuterium and operated at 14kV, is capable of generating 300,000 neutrons per second. A simple neutron detector is also described. Dr. Robert W. Bussard and his associates are continuing the reseach efforts. "If fusors can be developed into viable power sources, Bussard is optimistic that their ability to supply great amounts of energy, without the tremendous heating and dangerous levels of radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion, could lead to the development of space drives for routine interplanetary travel within our lifetimes." Additional Sources: Richard Hull, Tesla Coil Builders of Richmond (TCBR) Robert W. Bussard USA Patents 5,160,695 Method and Apparatus for Creating and Controlling Nuclear Fusion Reactions 4,826,646 Method and Apparatus for Controlling Charged Particles From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 08:28:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08784; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:16:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:16:32 -0800 Message-Id: <345F3B7D.EB5F8A53 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:13:01 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Simple RMOG OU Proof ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IBOhX2.0.292.UfqNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12358 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think a simulation on rubber suspended ferrite rod experiment will possibly show the magnetic flux around the air gap is increasing when strength of opposing poles increase. So the suspended core (while helping closing the loop) will be attracted eventu ally to the positive direction of the magnetic gradient. This can not be interpreted as OU effect because it can be explained with conservative terms. I also understand the OU phenomenon related to ferromagnetic materials (according Greg) having absolutely dynamic behaviour, but this proposed experiment have no timings and could be considered as static. Probably the effect exploited here is important part of the RMOG operation, but it is not source of the OU. Everything could have been correct if this experiment was presented as "A part of theory of operation of RMOG". (I am currently studying English grammar and hope to do less mistake soon.) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 09:20:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29074; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:13:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:13:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:13:24 -0800 Message-Id: <199711041713.JAA00998 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo Resent-Message-ID: <"OPOMg.0.667.yUrNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12359 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't understand the gist of this post, but there seems to be a lot of confusion about what we can or can not accomplish and how and why as far as astronomy and distance determination is concerned. As for red shift, that is easy to determine. Take a spectrogram, measure the red shift of lines we know from our laboratory such as H alpha etc. This can be done with optical, radio, gamma, etc. so long as we know the line we are looking for. Thus if you go to the SOHO site, you will find lots of iron 14 times ionized in the coronal investigations and from stars, a variety of lines, and from gas clouds the hydrogen 21 cm line etc etc. As for cepheids, we know that they are sort of pulsating in brightness, and the period of oscillation we have determined corresponds to the absolute luminosity of the star. So, if you collect the light from one of these in a galaxy, you can determine the luminosity we observe, and thus the distance to that star based on the 1/R^2 reduction in intensity with distance. You can as well, determine the line of sight velocity of that star relative to the earth. With those, you can say, the star is this far away, and it is moving this fast relative to us along a line of sight. You know nothing about proper motion normal to the line of sight. If you additionally know the velocity of the center of the galaxy relative to earth due to Doppler measurements again, then you can determine the velocity of the star relative to the center of its galaxy. Now, as for cosmology, what you have now learned is how fast that star and that galaxy are moving relative to our location in the universe, along a line of sight. Now, you can make a stab at **why** it is moving at that velocity. It could be the galaxy is simply moving away from us due to motions in our local group of galaxies, or its local group of galaxies. This adds a randomization superposed on top of the line of sight velocities that must be accounted for if you are going to say anything about the Hubble constant. So no single galaxy can tell you anything about the Hubble flow. But, according to the current thinking, there is no manner for there to manifest a Doppler shift other than for an object to be moving through space relative to the observer. So none of the discourse I have read makes sense. It is like you are trying to prove there is a red shift there via the intensity measurements. Red shift is as easy to measure as it is for a Cop to hand you a ticket for speeding via a radar gun. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:10:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA06573; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:42:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:42:46 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <345E9CC8.17A6 earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:37:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Blue: scientific folly Resent-Message-ID: <"HkYZp3.0.cc1.LwrNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12360 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Richard A Blue makes some good points arguing that there is no cold fusion and that the excess heat detected in static calorimetry experiments is just an artifact. I think it is time to accept these two facts and go on from there. We are left with some examples of flow calorimetry that produced apparent heat excess far above the noise level. I recall that Jed Rothwell once said that he would believe until his dying day that the CETI experiments he observed showed a real excess heat. I think that is an appropriate position and that the validity of his observations and the non-existance of any source of fraud will stand the test of time. A real effect was observed and this effect was too large and observed by too many investigators to be written off as an error or some sort of fraud. So a real effect exists and it is not likely that it is fusion. Then the term cold fusion should be abandoned. It should be called something else. My scientific interest is in the transfer of energy in excess of the limits placed by the Carnot Cycle limit. I will call this effect Excess Carnot Energy Transfer or ECET for short. I will suggest now, but make my arguments at a future date, that cold fusion effects are actually ECET. I know of no experts in ECET other than myself and perhaps Byung Chan Eu at McGill University. Certainly Dick Blue or others like him know nothing of it and if they were to make any comments they would make themselves out to be total fools. I rank Eu only as a possible expert because in his papers, Eu-BC The Boltzmann-Equation and Nonequilibrium Ensemble Method JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS Vol 103 Iss 24 pp 10652-10662 1995 Eu-BC Boltzmann Entropy, Relative Entropy, and Related Quantities in Thermodynamic Space JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS Vol 102 Iss 18 pp 7169-7179 1995 Eu-BC Fluctuations and Relative Boltzmann Entropy JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS Vol 106 Iss 6 pp 2388-2399 1997 he does write out the basic result that shows that the second law of thermodynamics, when evaluated to a more precise higher order, is violated, in complete agreement with my independent work. However he then proceeds to totally revise the standard accepted form of fluid dynamics so that the terms that violate the second law will vanish. Eu never actually evaluated the excess entropy flux terms or checked to see what the effects of them would be or if there is any evidence that such effects exist as I have done myself. So Eu, having found these additional terms, based on standard and accepted fluid dynamics, concludes that they are wrong and gets rid of them by throwing out the accepted dynamics and replacing them with his own revised dynamics which appears to me to be clearly bogus. I guess I would rank myself as the only person who knows about ECET and believes in it. I think that the insistence on fusion in cf and the use of marginal static calorimetry results has greatly harmed the field and left it open to attacks from skeptics like Dick Blue. I vote to replace cf with ECET. If you have ECET you still will have unlimited free energy and in some ways it is better than simple heat production because you could directly produce cold (good for air conditioning) as well as heat. And ECET is fully supported by standard physics. Those disbelieving in it are placed in the position of having to reject standard physics and come up with new bogus physics. This is exactly the opposite of the physics situation for cf. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:27:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11926; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:57:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:57:44 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971104115720.ZM13004 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:57:20 -0600 In-Reply-To: "John E. Steck" "Re: Hydrogen" (Oct 31, 8:14pm) References: <971031165322.ZM18588 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"RhSxc1.0.Bw2.M8sNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12361 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Oct 31, 8:14pm, John E. Steck wrote: > On Oct 31, 4:03pm, John Schnurer wrote: > > > a] in volts and amps and watt seconds how much electricty makes > > how much gas. Gas in moles and liters at STP > > b] if you burn the gas how much energy in btu, btu/hour, joules > > I have a couple of good books at home that should have some experimentally > determined numbers. I don't recall your original request to be honest. I'll > do some digging over the weekend. Perhaps someone will be able to answer > before then? If you don't hear from me by Tuesday, feel free send a reminder! OK. This is what I found in: Fuel from Water Michael Peavy Merit Inc. 1995 ISBN 0-945516-04-5 Lindsay Publications #2010 $24.95 -- Smallest amount of energy needed to electrolysize one mole of H2O is 65.3 Wh at 25 C & 1.24 V. The reaction is endothermic (at 2V the reaction is exothermic). Recombined H & O releases 79.3 Wh. -- At 100% efficiency ~480 Wh (0.6 hp) of H can be produced per hour. A conventional setup will require 4.8 kWh per 1 m3 H (includes requirements of all equipment needed; pumps, safety equipment, etc.) -- $200US Setup ==================== - Distilled H2O with 20-30% KOH electrolite solution - Sintered sheet, wire, or gauze nickle electrodes - ~1-2 atm operation (implied) - 1.9 to 2.0 V - 75-80 C - Current density ~2000 amp/m2 - Non-metalic cell (pickle jar!) - efficiency ~50% Doing the math.... 1 kWh produces ~ 167 liter or ~48,000 BTU H at ~240 Wh/hour (at 1 atm H = 3 Wh/l and 1 kWh=3415 BTU) High Pressure Cell ===================== - Distilled H2O with 30-50% KOH electrolite solution - Roughened, coarse screen, nickle electrodes - 98.7 atm operation - 1.6 V - 200 C - Current density ~1 amp/cm2 (<-?) - Nickle lined steel cell - efficiency ~75% Doing the math.... 1 kWh produces ~ 250 liter or ~72,000 BTU H at ~360 Wh/hour (at 1 atm H = 3 Wh/l and 1 kWh=3415 BTU) Solid Polymer Cell (GE) ===================== - Solid perfluorinated sulfonic acid polymer in an H2O bath - Coarse screen nickle electrodes - (?) atm operation - (?) V - 120 to 150 C - Current density ~20,000 amp/m2 - Teflon PFTE cell - efficiency ~90% Doing the math.... 1 kWh produces ~300 liter or ~86,000 BTU H at ~432 Wh/hour (at 1 atm H = 3 Wh/l and 1 kWh=3415 BTU) -- As for the implications of changing of setup variables I suggest getting the book. Many tables expressing the relationships far better than what I can do typing! 8^) Also covers the chemistry and outlines and illustrates various practical applications of the discussed technologies. Better yet, there are pictures to back everything up. Well worth the $25 as far as I am concerned. Hope that helps! I appreciate the excuse to knock the dust off the book! 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:38:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16320; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:09:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:09:45 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104130742.006a9abc world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:07:42 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Wharton and Blue's skeptical folly In-Reply-To: References: <345E9CC8.17A6 earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"cnktb.0.n-3.bJsNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12362 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:37 PM 11/4/97 -0500, Lawrence Wharton wrote: > Richard A Blue makes some good points arguing that there is no cold fusion >and that the excess heat detected in static calorimetry experiments is just >an artifact. I think it is time to accept these two facts and go on from >there. Cold fusion is real, and we have just reviewed the world literature which continues at a significant rate. Anyone care to guess what the annual rate is? or which countries are leading the scientific race? Lawrence Wharton, Richard Blue and anyone else who ignores the literature and wants ignore what is occurring is entitled to do so. It is unfortunate that they lead others away from peer-reviewed literature and substitute their own disinformational statements, but science and engineering will prevail over their gossip, misreadings of articles, and other misunderstandings. BTW, cold fusion is consistent with conventional physics. More information is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:44:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26593; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:38:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:38:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:33:24 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Meant "not" Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711041337_MC2-26B6-9447 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"zwbdO3.0.LV6.AksNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12363 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In my message "Greg Watson shares the blame" I accidentally wrote: 1. We are naive, we never expected the thing to work; I meant we are NOT naive. Maybe that is a Freudian slip. John Logajan said he does not think the SMOT will work for "obvious" reasons. He never said what they were. I presume he means the same thing I do. The SMOT appears to violate C. of E. so it probably does not work. Over the centuries thousands of scientists, inventors and crackpots have constructed similar magic magnet machines. As far as I know, not a single one has ever worked. I am nearly certain these machines are impossible. Yet I see no harm in poking around trying to make them work. I do not even mind sending $100 to an interesting fellow like Watson. I got my money's worth in amusement value and a nice article by Chris in I.E. Let me put it this way: poking around with these machines is batty. It is a waste of time. But so is fishing, flying a kite, or speculating about string theory in 11-dimensional space. It's fun! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:45:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28018; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:41:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:41:56 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104133956.006abb7c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:39:56 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Cheap Linear Hall Effect Device In-Reply-To: <345EE41D.5241B840 microtronics.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"tsCmu2.0.dr6.onsNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12365 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:30 PM 11/4/97 +1030, Greg Watson wrote: >Hi All, > >I believe the "Real" builders on these lists should adopt a low cost, >standard Magnetic Flux Density measuring device. > >I use a UGN3503U Linear Hall Effect sensor to do my flux density >measurements. It costs $3.95 Aus from any Disk Smith Electronic >(Australia) store. Part # Z-2620. It has a 13v / Tesla (1.3v / 1,000 >Gauss, 130mv / 100 Gauss, 13mv / 10 Gauss, 1.3mv / 1 Gauss) >sensitivity and a noise (error) factor of +- 90uv / +- 0.07 Gauss. >Max freq is 23Khz (-3bd). Not bad for a $3.95 (>$3.00 Us) part. > >Any other contenders? > Neat idea of UGN3503U for $4 to measure this. Although for other purposes, use a Walker Fluxgate FGM-3D1 flux density meter. It has its output connected into a 16bit DAQ-Keithley metrabyte card, using a Keithley electrometer (610C) for electrical isolation. What are you going to do? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:45:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27683; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:40:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:40:54 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104133846.006b7560 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:38:46 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Cold fusion is confirmed unlike putative ECET In-Reply-To: References: <345E9CC8.17A6 earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"WqZ7c.0.Mm6.qmsNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12364 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:37 PM 11/4/97 -0500, you wrote: > > ... Then the >term cold fusion should be abandoned. It should be called something else. >My scientific interest is in the transfer of energy in excess of the limits >placed by the Carnot Cycle limit. I will call this effect Excess Carnot >Energy Transfer or ECET for short. I will suggest now, but make my >arguments at a future date, that cold fusion effects are actually ECET. > I know of no experts in ECET other than myself and perhaps Byung Chan Eu >at McGill University. Certainly Dick Blue or others like him know nothing >of it and if they were to make any comments they would make themselves out >to be total fools. I rank Eu only as a possible expert .... Unlike ECET which is a putative new process of which there are only two experts including our own Lawrence Wharton, cold fusion (CF) was confirmed by three labs at MIT, by NASA, by CEREM (the French Atomic Energy Agency), was shown by the US NAVY to have occurred in the Harwell data (often cited wrongly against cold fusion), and has been confirmed by a plethora of laboratories (including Los Alamos). It may turn out that these above-cited nuclear, metallurgical and engineering investigators have more respect than the few quite vocal critics of the field on vortex and s.p.f. whose own background upon inspection ranges from felines to acupuncture. On cold fusion: It is true that CF is a difficult to achieve process, but it produces helium-4 in palladium from heavy water, and other ash consistent with fusion. The heat given off is intense and is the major signal of the reaction. Those interested in the nuclear physics, metallurgy, or other engineering aspects might consult the peer-reviewed literature which continues with both theoretical and experimental papers. More information, and leads, on the science and engineering of cold fusion is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html or in numerous physics, fusion, and engineering journals cited in the bibliography at the above webpage. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 10:59:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA31139; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:50:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:50:38 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711041850.MAA18303 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: Meant "not" In-Reply-To: <199711041337_MC2-26B6-9447 compuserve.com> from Jed Rothwell at "Nov 4, 97 01:33:24 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:50:29 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2XamW.0.Nc7.xvsNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12366 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > John Logajan said he does not think the SMOT will work for "obvious" reasons. > He never said what they were. I presume he means the same thing I do. The > SMOT appears to violate C. of E. so it probably does not work. That pretty much sums it up. Let me add that I think (in my opinion) that Greg Watson is a straight up guy, seems sincere and dedicated to his ideas, shows every evidence of putting long hard hours into it. If nothing else comes out of it, at least Greg and his fellows will learn quite a bit about various aspects of physics and electronics. I don't see harm in any of it. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 12:01:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03589; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:54:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:54:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:00:02 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Greg Watson shares the blame Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711041303_MC2-26B6-8FCD compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"hECek.0.-t.XrtNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12367 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I do not wish to prolong this spat between R.W. Wall and people who supporter Greg Watson. I agree with Bill Beaty. Wall was out of line with his veiled attacks on "gullible wannabes." Oddly enough, I think he would be much less obnoxious, if he would unveil his attacks. He should say in plain English: "I think that people who still believe Watson's claims are gullible." I doubt anyone here would object to that language, even if we respectfully disagreed. We don't like the sarcasm, the mockery. I do not think you mock people when you tell them straight out they seem gullible. Anyway, here is the test: Would you be willing to say it face to face in a semi-formal setting, like the question and answer session after a lecture at a physics conference? Richard Wall can easily express his ideas in terms that would be acceptable in that setting. Bill Beaty acts as the conference moderator. He admonishes people maybe once a year, which is about as often as the chairmen at physics conferences come down on rowdy troublemakers. (There isn't much rowdiness at physics conferences. Most of the audience sleeps. Other people gab instead of listening. To liven things up, I propose that the ICCF venue be changed to a country-western dance & pool hall with a $3 cover charge to keep out the riffraff.) I know that Wall is incorrect, because we paid Watson good money for his gadget. We are not naive. Chris Tinsley, Soo Seddon and I worked on a replication. We discussed the matter frequently, so I know exactly where we all stand (or stood, in Chris' case). It may be difficult for Wall to understand this, but: 1.We are naive, we never expected the thing to work; 2. We do not believe it works today; 3 I do not expect he will ever ship one; 4. At the same time I do not regret sending him the money, and I do not think he is scamming anyone except possibly himself. At worst he is a harmless crank. I remain completely open minded. I am 100% ready to believe it if I ever see demonstrations, widespread testing and replications. Why shouldn't I remain open minded? What harm does it do? I don't believe in the SMOT because it appears to be a violation of the conservation of energy, a concept I firmly believe in until further notice. I may be difficult for someone like Wall to understand how I can maintain such contradictory states of mind at the same time: believing and not believing, accepting and rejecting claims. I might be accused of hypocrisy. I hope not. I aim for the *long term suspension of belief.* I do not know the answer, I choose not to decide one way or the other. This is a difficult state of mind to achieve. It is like the empty state that people strive to achieve in Zen meditation. When you mediate you must overcome the urge to wiggle and scratch and let your mind wander. When you suspend believe in a scientific question for months, or years, you must fight the urge to decide one way or the other. It is particularly difficult for people who are used to finding answers and Getting Things Done. It takes practice. Like the Red Queen, I practiced when I was young and I can now believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Having said all that, I must add that I resent Greg Watson's behavior. I think he shares much of the blame for the controversy and bad feelings here. He should fulfill his promises. We paid him. He is months late. He should stop fooling around, stop being distracted, and stop doing what Scott Little rightly calls "insignificant tests." He should ship at least one SMOT to one of the people who purchased it. If it works, the controversy here will end instantly. (We might not all believe it, but we will stop arguing.) If it does not work we will politely dismiss Watson. Watson keeps crying wolf. He keeps changing his tune, and changing his plans. I, for one, am less and less inclined to pay attention. As Scott Little said: "Our own SMOT efforts showed no indication of o-u behavior. We ordered a SMOT kit. I'd rather not read another word about SMOTs until the kit arrives." Me too, on all counts: ours did not work; we ordered one; and I wish Watson would be quiet until he has placed a few kits in the hands of people who can test his claims independently. I am not satisfied with the independent replications and roll-away tests I saw in web pages linked to Watson's. I got a roll-away to work too, but it did not mean a thing. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 12:33:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14613; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:25:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:25:23 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971104202509.00683ab8 atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:25:09 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"lH_cV3.0.7a3.nIuNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12368 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton writes: >This cleaning effect is very effective and it should result in a large >decrease in emissivity in the metal surface. Such an emissivity decrease >would result in a large apparent but bogus excess heat. Are you saying that the metal surface after cleaning radiates less (or do I have it backwards), and if so then how does this translate into a "large apparent but bogus excess heat." Physics is not my specialty, and at this point I am unable to see the apparent link to your conclusion that you do. Please explain. Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 13:20:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA31671; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:10:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:10:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:05:47 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: scientific folly Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711041609_MC2-26BB-DBFA compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"t4R703.0.kk7._yuNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12370 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: My scientific interest is in the transfer of energy in excess of the limits placed by the Carnot Cycle limit. I will call this effect Excess Carnot Energy Transfer or ECET for short. I will suggest now, but make my arguments at a future date, that cold fusion effects are actually ECET. There are three problems with the ECET hypothesis: 1. It violates thermodynamics, especially the Second Law. 2. It would only work with flow calorimeters (if it worked at all). As I have told him countless times, the excess heat effect is also seen in static and thermoelectric envelope calorimeters. 3. Cold fusion also produces nuclear effects: tritium, helium, neutrons and transmutation. The ECET hypothesis cannot explain these effects. EPRI estimates that in some cases they are 40 orders of magnitude greater than conventional physics can explain. Wharton will ignore this message. I am only posting it to counteract his "disinformation" (as Mitchell Swartz rightly calls it). Static calorimetry proves Wharton is wrong, so he pretends it does not exist. Tritium proves he is wrong, so he is blind to the tritium data. He ignores all ugly data that slays his beautiful hypothesis. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 13:22:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA29095; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:03:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:03:25 -0800 Message-ID: <345F8E01.4240 interactsystems.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:06:19 -0500 From: Paul Nash Reply-To: pnash interactsystems.com Organization: Interact Systems, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Greg Watson shares the blame References: <199711041303_MC2-26B6-8FCD compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"HVp0Q1.0.O67.PsuNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12369 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > >I am not satisfied with the independent replications >and roll-away tests I saw in web pages linked to Watson's. I got a >roll-away to work too, but it did not mean a thing. > > - Jed Hi Jed- When you say that you got a rollaway to work too, why or for what reason was did you dismiss that event?. I would think that depending on the explanation of the rollaway, c. of e. laws might be in trouble...or in the least it should be chalked-up to a considerable anomaly. Just curious why your rollaway was "non-eventful" enough to say that "it did not mean a thing." Thanks, Paul Nash Fairfield, CT USA pnash interactsystems.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 13:32:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA04985; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:25:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:25:59 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:26:56 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"VqNwD.0.mD1.cBvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12371 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:03 AM 11/1/97, John Logajan wrote: >Also, 285,800 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.481J/ampere = 1.481 Volts >minimum required >to dissociate H2O. At 1:35 AM 11/1/97, Scott Little wrote: >When you apply electrical power to an electrolysis cell, the fraction of >that power converted into chemical energy (in the form of H2 & O2 gas) is >given by 1.48*I. The remainder of the input power, given by (V-1.48)*I, is >converted directly into heat. At 11:57 AM 11/4/97, John E. Steck wrote: >OK. This is what I found in: > >Fuel from Water >Michael Peavy >Merit Inc. 1995 >ISBN 0-945516-04-5 >Lindsay Publications #2010 $24.95 > > >-- >Smallest amount of energy needed to electrolysize one mole of H2O is 65.3 Wh at >25 C & 1.24 V. The reaction is endothermic (at 2V the reaction is exothermic). This is quite a discrepacy, 1.48 V vs. 1.24 V. And endothermic? Perhaps some some ambient heat is utilized to overcome the 0.24 V difference? Sounds like the potential makings for a type 2 perpetual motion machine! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 13:38:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06916; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:31:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:31:55 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:27:50 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: scientific folly Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711041631_MC2-26B9-B3B6 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"OPsUp2.0.ch1.6HvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12372 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: My scientific interest is in the transfer of energy in excess of the limits placed by the Carnot Cycle limit. I will call this effect Excess Carnot Energy Transfer or ECET for short. I will suggest now, but make my arguments at a future date, that cold fusion effects are actually ECET. There are three problems with the ECET hypothesis: 1. It violates thermodynamics, especially the Second Law. 2. It would only work with flow calorimeters (if it worked at all). As I have told him countless times, the excess heat effect is also seen in static and thermoelectric envelope calorimeters. 3. Cold fusion also produces nuclear effects: tritium, helium, neutrons and transmutation. The ECET hypothesis cannot explain these effects. EPRI estimates that in some cases they are 40 orders of magnitude greater than conventional physics can explain. Wharton will ignore this message. I am only posting it to counteract his "disinformation" (as Mitchell Swartz rightly calls it). Static calorimetry proves Wharton is wrong, so he pretends it does not exist. Tritium proves he is wrong, so he is blind to the tritium data. He ignores all ugly data that slays his beautiful hypothesis. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 13:48:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA08803; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:35:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:35:13 -0800 Message-ID: <345F9507.562227E3 microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:05:03 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Simple RMOG OU Proof ? References: <345F3B7D.EB5F8A53 verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0l0Vh3.0.F92.DKvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12373 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > I think a simulation on rubber suspended ferrite rod experiment will possibly show the magnetic flux around the air gap is increasing when strength of opposing poles increase. So the suspended core (while helping closing the loop) will be attracted even tually to the positive direction of the magnetic gradient. This can not be interpreted as OU effect because it can be explained with conservative terms. > Exactly my point. There is NO magic here. NO new physic. Just a NEW design of a flux gate generator which uses a, until now, unknown effect. The test set-up shows how the Rmog's basic OU effect works. It shows that current flowing in the coil (induced by the approaching flux gate) INCREASES the force of attraction on the flux gate over that which would happen if the coil were open. This increased INWARD force imparts more kinetic energy into the rotor than the departing drag back attractive forces withdraws. Its the INCREASED inward attractive force that makes the Rmog OU. As to where the extra energy comes from????????????? > I also understand the OU phenomenon related to ferromagnetic materials (according Greg) having absolutely dynamic behaviour, but this proposed experiment have no timings and could be considered as static. > Correct. But it shows EXACTLY why and HOW the Dmec effect works. > Probably the effect exploited here is important part of the RMOG operation, but it is not source of the OU. Everything could have been correct if this experiment was presented as "A part of theory of operation of RMOG". > Correct. I don't know WHERE the extra energy is coming from. BUT, I do understand WHY and HOW the Rmog's Dmec effect works. > (I am currently studying English grammar and hope to do less mistake soon.) > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar Hi Hamdi, Your english is ok by me. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 14:07:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20394; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:02:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:02:19 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:58:46 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Greg Watson shares the blame Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711041701_MC2-26B9-B690 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Dp8--3.0.8-4.bjvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12375 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Paul Nash asked what I meant when I said my SMOT rollaway "did not mean a thing." I meant there was a slight downhill slope, which I did not notice at first. Tinsley also experienced this. A slope too small to be observed with a bubble level is enough to produce a fake rollaway. You test by putting a bead on the track with the magnets removed, and tapping the table, or blowing on the bead. If it starts to move, you can make a fake rollaway in that direction. You have to try many times; it will work maybe 1 in 50 times. The SMOT is a fascinating gadget. It is a good toy. Mine was laughably crude, but Tinsley's was refined and precise. Based on our observations I do not see any reason to think it is OU. We discussed this. You could find our observations in the Vortex archives, but frankly I do not think it is worth digging up the messages. At this stage I think there is nothing to the SMOT. I expect it is a mistake. We should ignore it unless Watson sends a kit to one or more independent investigators. I am not positive it is a mistake, but I do not think it is worth pursuing or discussing. If Watson keeps talking for another 3 months or 6 months and he *still* has not sent out a kit, I will be convinced he is a flake or a fraud, like Meyer, Neumann and ten-thousand other Perpetual Motion Machine Men. How long do you wait? Where do you draw the line and write someone off? It is a judgement call. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 14:07:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17897; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:55:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:55:39 -0800 Message-ID: <345F99D3.FD1FEB53 microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:25:32 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up References: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rrLSg.0.DN4.LdvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12374 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 06:18 PM 11/4/97 +1030, Greg Watson wrote: > > >I have posted RMOG & SMOT Simple OU Proofs. > > Here is a quote from the page: > > >I am replicating the tests at present and will report any changes > >in the results. > > Greg, you claim to have succeeded in making devices that run by themselves > continuously without any energy input whatsoever! Please tell us, what > could possibly possess you to spend any of your incredibly valuable time > conducting these insignificant tests? Is it just a hobby?...something to > relieve the relentless pressure of the crash development program in which > you must surely be embroiled? > > Scott Little HI Scott, The day I started posting openly to this group, I gave up the ownership of my research. I have been in business long enough to know that I will NOT be the one to make a killing. Did the Wright Brothers become rich? Money and or Fame doesn't turn me on. What's IMPORTANT to me is that as many people as possible, understand the everyday physical effects which drive my gadgets. Try the Rmog experiments, they should take you only a hour or so to verify. Then build a level track with the very small graduation in the second of the SMOT tests. You should be able to verify the ball will not roll in such a small field graduation. Do these two tests, it will take Earth Tech only a few hours. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 15:03:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA08071; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:49:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:49:41 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971104202509.00683ab8 atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:49:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"LrFne1.0.cz1._PwNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12380 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Larry Wharton writes: > >>This cleaning effect is very effective and it should result in a large >>decrease in emissivity in the metal surface. Such an emissivity decrease >>would result in a large apparent but bogus excess heat. > >Are you saying that the metal surface after cleaning radiates less (or do >I have it backwards), and if so then how does this translate into a >"large apparent but bogus excess heat." Yes that is correct. A highly polished metal surface would be a poor IR radiator. Another example would be the silvered surface on Thermos jugs. It is necessary to reduce the IR radiation and a Thermos would not be much good without it. If the heat calibration of the supposed gas phase cf device is done before cleaning, as is the case, then the emissivity during calibration would be higher than in actual operation. This would give a very large error, on the order of a factor of two or more in the apparent heat generated. That is because the cleaned metal surface will be hotter for the same energy input as the IR radiation would be much reduced. Of course the solution would be to do the calibration after cleaning but this is not possible to gas phase cf advocates because the cleaning process is thought to be the same as the hydrogen loading process. I recall that the first time I read a gas phase cf paper, a paper by Panatelli, the thing that most impressed me was that the procedure for supposedly loading in the hydrogen was identical to the procedure we use here at NASA to clean our metal surfaces and when the metal reactor surface is cleaned it will heat up. In fact I would say that the Panatelli patent is invalid since we have been doing the exact same thing with roughly the same set up years before his patent. A reference is: Space Science Instrumentation 5 (1981) 493-502, "The Dynamics Explorer Langmuir Probe Instrument", J. P. Krehbiel et al. The last section of the paper describes the technique of probe heating to clean it. At the date of this paper (1981) heat cleaning metal was already an old technique. And the presence of hydrogen is necessary. Without it there is not much cleaning. I could go over some old calibration data and I am sure that I could show clearly that NASA discovered gas phase cold fusion a decade before the other known alleged discoveries. But I will not do that. We were just cleaning probes and I don't want any of my bosses to think I am a jerk for looking into that matter. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 15:32:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21671; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:26:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:26:23 -0800 Message-ID: <345FAF13.542D8A8 microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:56:11 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Greg Watson shares the blame References: <199711041701_MC2-26B9-B690 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DotXI2.0.UI5.SywNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12381 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > Paul Nash asked what I meant when I said my SMOT rollaway "did not mean a > thing." I meant there was a slight downhill slope, which I did not notice at > first. Tinsley also experienced this. A slope too small to be observed with a > bubble level is enough to produce a fake rollaway. You test by putting a bead > on the track with the magnets removed, and tapping the table, or blowing on > the bead. If it starts to move, you can make a fake rollaway in that > direction. You have to try many times; it will work maybe 1 in 50 times. The > SMOT is a fascinating gadget. It is a good toy. Mine was laughably crude, but > Tinsley's was refined and precise. Based on our observations I do not see any > reason to think it is OU. > > We discussed this. You could find our observations in the Vortex archives, but > frankly I do not think it is worth digging up the messages. At this stage I > think there is nothing to the SMOT. I expect it is a mistake. We should ignore > it unless Watson sends a kit to one or more independent investigators. I am > not positive it is a mistake, but I do not think it is worth pursuing or > discussing. If Watson keeps talking for another 3 months or 6 months and he > *still* has not sent out a kit, I will be convinced he is a flake or a fraud, > like Meyer, Neumann and ten-thousand other Perpetual Motion Machine Men. How > long do you wait? Where do you draw the line and write someone off? It is a > judgement call. > > - Jed Hi Jed, Do the second of the SMOT simple OU Proof tests at : http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smotouproof.html Make the track very level. Create the small positive magnetic gradient field. See the ball will not roll. Try to give the ball a push. Watch the ball slow and stop in the middle of the field. Frictional losses are REAL losses. Yet given these same start and final field densities, the SMOT will quickly draw the ball up the ramp and let it drop off to rest at the starting level. No rollaway needed here. If the SMOT is not OU why does the level test fail and the climb & drop test work? The start and final flux densities are the same. The results should be the same. They are not. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 15:38:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18680; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:31:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:31:09 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971104164659.ZM15264 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:46:59 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 4, 3:27pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"YOb-7.0.lZ4.p0xNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12382 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 4, 3:27pm, Horace Heffner wrote: > This is quite a discrepancy, 1.48 V vs. 1.24 V. And endothermic? Perhaps > some some ambient heat is utilized to overcome the 0.24 V difference? > Sounds like the potential makings for a type 2 perpetual motion machine! Hey stranger! Nice to see you back. 8^) The endothermic call out got my attention too. Didn't question it the first time I read the book because it made sense at first glance. Split takes 65.3. Recombine gives 79.3. 14 Wh has to come from somewhere. Make the split endothermic and you find the missing energy. <- easy to jump to this conclusion! Re-reading the book to answer Friday's question caused me to now wonder "Is the threshold reaction specifically 14 Wh endothermic?" Couldn't find that answer. I suppose it wasn't relevant at the time because they were not looking for type 2 paradoxes. It would seem compelling now to setup a device with these parameters to verify the threshold and to measure the temperature decrease of the electrolite (although, gauging from the ever raging debate on calorimetry for CF cells, I doubt we could ever say any temperature difference would be conclusive! ha ha ha). Hmmm, come to think of it, all that expensive CF equipment is rather under utilized right now......... anyone interested? No matter, a home setup may be sufficient. Not terribly accurate or conclusive, but adequate (and you thought throwing river rocks in a camp fire was exciting! PLEASE remember to VENTILATE the garage while you work or you wont have to worry about it long ) As for the 1.48 V vs. 1.24 V, I can't confirm or deny either, just report what someone else aparently found. The SWITCH from endo to exo with increasing V is very interesting to me, or more specifically, the point at which a specific V causes a zero caloric reaction is of extreme interest to me. 2V is supposed to be the realistic ceiling for splitting water, with diminishing return the closer you get. My guess is resistance heating (or hydrino production?, sorry, had to do it seeing as KOH is involved) satisfies and then exceeds the endothermic demands, creating the observed switch and subsequent waste heat. ......OR it could just be late in the day and I am being overly optimistic AGAIN! hee hee. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 15:57:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA22529; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:51:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:51:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack centuryinter.net Message-Id: <345FA537.61C3D7D5 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 17:44:07 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: <199711041713.JAA00998 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wbwoU2.0.xV5.IKxNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12383 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: "But, according to the current thinking, there is no manner for there to manifest a Doppler shift other than for an object to be moving through space relative to the observer. So none of the discourse I have read makes sense. It is like you are trying to prove there is a red shift there via the intensity measurements." Hi Ross, Please expand the above statement. I don't think I understand what you are getting at. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 16:20:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01569; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:11:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:11:16 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:11:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711050011.QAA01314 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"eddoa3.0.KO.WcxNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12384 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is not too pertinent, though maybe more pertinent than some of what's been passing here lately (it's about gas, right? ;-) John Steck wrote: [snipped the scientific stuff] >......... anyone interested? No matter, a home setup >may be sufficient. Not terribly accurate or conclusive, > but adequate (and you thought throwing river rocks >in a camp fire was exciting! PLEASE remember to >VENTILATE the garage while you work or you wont >have to worry about it long ) Ah yes, the river rocks... my first H20 -> H2 + O electrolysis was done in the garage, with the door wide open of course. The output was directed to a spherical thin-film pressurized latex vessel. That container was then tied off, and attached to the ceiling near the open door. Recombination was manually accomplished by means of a lit candle attached to the end of a pool cue. The resulting exothermy caused a few observers to gather. My mother diagnosed it correctly; she said: "O, U!" That phrase (or something) has been ringing in my ears ever since. Dan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 16:27:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02644; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:13:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:13:55 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 19:09:55 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: <971104164659.ZM15264 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"F3S_c.0.Af.1fxNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12385 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:46 PM 11/4/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote about calorimetry and his putative claim that there is some kind of problem because he and an acupuncturist dont understand the science of heat and mass transfer: >It would seem compelling now to setup a device with these parameters to verify >the threshold and to measure the temperature decrease of the electrolite >(although, gauging from the ever raging debate on calorimetry for CF cells, I >doubt we could ever say any temperature difference would be conclusive! ha ha >ha). Hmmm, come to think of it, all that expensive CF equipment is rather >under utilized right now......... anyone interested? No matter, a home setup >may be sufficient. Not terribly accurate or conclusive, but adequate (and you >thought throwing river rocks in a camp fire was exciting! PLEASE remember to >VENTILATE the garage while you work or you wont have to worry about it long >) Athough, neither John Steck nor apparently Motorola Inc. seem able to consider thermometry/calorimetry as being a science, attention of all vorts is directed to Lavoisier (circa 1776), who used good thermometry, and then derived calorimetry so that he measured the difference in specific heat between arterial and venous blood. With that difference in specific heat, and the color (red, like lead, mercury, and iron oxide) he correctly deduced that mammalian blood was binding oxygen, which he named in the same paper ("acid former" = oxygen). Fact: Good calorimetry is obtainable. The continued attacks today against calorimetrists mirror the hostility Lavoisier also received. Just before his head was removed during the French terror, he was reminded that the "Revolution does not need scientists". Perhaps, the pathologic skeptics long for the power of Robespierre? In fact, that head lopped off was a loss for France, and the world, and any reader here is encouraged to get his original papers. In summary, calorimetry is accurate (if done correctly) and can be conclusive despite the sophomoric, unsupported, comments. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 16:28:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21947; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:05:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:05:58 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Re:Tabletop Fusion Experiment Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:31:17 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce947$75c006c0$13a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"ah3SS2.0.WM5.0nvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12376 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael Randall wrote: > This Fusor if filled with deuterium and > operated at 14 kV, is capable of generating > 300,000 neutrons per second. Welcome to square one. :-) You just put Hot Fusion back at least 50 years. There was Cockcroft & Walton 1927,the "Stellerator", The "Perhapsatron", Columbus II, Scylac, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Theta Pinch, Applied Symmetrical Squeeze (ASS Pinch)etc., "if only we could increase that 300,000 neutrons per second by at least 9 orders of magnitude". ROFL. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 16:45:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22437; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:06:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:06:56 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: A Boring Experiment Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:41:19 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce962$011bd7c0$13a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"VKW902.0.mT5.tnvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12379 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Around 1797, Rumford (Phil.Trans.,1798) used a blunt borer in a cannon and succeeded in boiling by friction 26.5 pounds of cold water in 2 1/2 hours. If you calculate out the horsepower assuming the water went to steam,and the cannon weighed half-a-ton, you are hard put to see where he got some five horsepower from to run the boring tool. Not a windmill or waterwheel or even a steam engine was available then for that kind of horsepower. Twelve Clydesdales,perhaps? :-) He only got about a half pound of iron filings for his effort, so it must have been mostly friction work. Easy enough to do this with a drill-press and a couple of metal plates in a bucket of water, these days. Huh, Scott? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 16:54:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22205; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:06:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:06:28 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:49:32 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: A better description of the test of the SMOT. Resent-Message-ID: <"1eoq13.0.-P5.QnvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12377 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin - I believe it was Hamdi who did this sort of test, but it could have been someone else. Such experiments can reveal things about the process, but as for a test of OU behavior, I believe it does need to be a real replication of the dropoff ramp. Also, there's bound to be a relationship between ball inertia at various points and rolling behavior, eddy currents, etc. Maybe these things don't matter, but I don't think we know that they don't. They probably do matter from what I've seen. In some rigs the speed of the ball seems to be held constant - if you launch it in there (as if from a downhill ramp), it gets slowed down. Standing starts accelerate to roughly the same ultimate speed. Such behavior would seem to take some of the meaning out of straight downhill tests through magnet arrays. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 16:57:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22272; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:06:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:06:38 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711041605.IAA08968 sweden.it.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:10:49 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"u0AW43.0.QR5.bnvNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12378 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael - Kulba writes in the article: > "If fusors can be developed into viable power > sources, Bussard is optimistic that their ability to > supply great amounts of energy, without the > tremendous heating and dangerous levels of > radioactivity associated with thermonuclear > fusion, could lead to the development of space > drives for routine interplanetary travel within > our lifetimes." I was wondering how a gizmo can release "great amounts of energy" through apparently standard nuclear fusion without "dangerous levels of radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion." Perhaps Bussard is wishfully thinking these devices might somehow have the same disregard for conventional nuclear reaction products he hears about in connection with CF? Maybe the apparent contradiction is just an artifact of the author's reporting. Significant all the same, if fusors really work... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 18:05:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03680; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:58:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:58:13 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104163806.006b9884 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:38:06 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"L1-Cz.0.Qv.qAzNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12387 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On the thermoneutral potential: At 12:26 PM 11/4/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 1:03 AM 11/1/97, John Logajan wrote: >>Also, 285,800 * 6.2422E+18 / 2 / 6.0221E+23 = 1.481J/ampere = 1.481 Volts >>minimum required to dissociate H2O. > > >At 1:35 AM 11/1/97, Scott Little wrote: >>When you apply electrical power to an electrolysis cell, the fraction of >>that power converted into chemical energy (in the form of H2 & O2 gas) is >>given by 1.48*I. The remainder of the input power, given by (V-1.48)*I, is >>converted directly into heat. > > >At 11:57 AM 11/4/97, John E. Steck wrote: >>OK. This is what I found in: >>Fuel from Water >>Michael Peavy >>Merit Inc. 1995 >>ISBN 0-945516-04-5 >>Lindsay Publications #2010 $24.95 >> >>Smallest amount of energy needed to electrolysize one mole of H2O is 65.3 Wh at >>25 C & 1.24 V. The reaction is endothermic (at 2V the reaction is exothermic). > > >This is quite a discrepacy, 1.48 V vs. 1.24 V. And endothermic? Perhaps >some some ambient heat is utilized to overcome the 0.24 V difference? >Sounds like the potential makings for a type 2 perpetual motion machine! > No. The description by Scott Little is not accurate. 1.48 volts (light water) is the applied voltage where the electrolysis production is isothermal. Furthermore, it is a much more complicated issue because of activation, concentration and IR polarizations. Perhaps Dieter Britz, or Vesco Noninski, might take this further if they wish. If not, the interested reader could read either Dr. Bockris' or the late Dr. Uhlig's books. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 18:06:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14208; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:01:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:01:09 -0800 (PST) From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:05:13 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"UEzg53.0.vT3.XDzNq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12389 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >>Smallest amount of energy needed to electrolysize one mole of H2O is 65.3 >>Wh at >>25 C & 1.24 V. The reaction is endothermic (at 2V the reaction is >>exothermic). > > >This is quite a discrepacy, 1.48 V vs. 1.24 V. I worried about this once, too. It turns out that 1.24 V is the free energy, while 1.48 V is the enthalpy. The free energy determines the reaction equilibrium point and goes into calculating the equilibrium constant that people might remember from college chemistry. Heat production at constant pressure is enthalpy, and this is what we are interested in when discussing cold fusion electrolytic cells, so it's 1.48 V. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 18:06:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03870; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:59:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:59:45 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:57:34 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce98e$2f6afda0$13a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"mQgxk.0.Jy.GCzNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12388 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Dan Quickert To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Hydrogen Dan wrote: > >Ah yes, the river rocks... my first H20 -> H2 + O electrolysis was done in >the garage, with the door wide open of course. The output was directed to a >spherical thin-film pressurized latex vessel. That container was then tied >off, and attached to the ceiling near the open door. Recombination was >manually accomplished by means of a lit candle attached to the end of a pool >cue. The resulting exothermy caused a few observers to gather. My mother >diagnosed it correctly; she said: "O, U!" That phrase (or something) has >been ringing in my ears ever since. > I have to post this excerpt from an older Britannica article on early balloon research. "Glaisher's Ascent, At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Aberdeen in 1859,a commitee was appointed for the purpose of making observations in the higher strata of the atmosphere by means ofa balloon.For two years nothing was affected, owing to the want both of an observer and of a suitable balloon. After its reappointment at the Manchester meeting of 1861,the committee with Henry Tracey Coxwell,an aeronaut who had made a good many ascents, and he agreed to construct a new balloon of 90,000 cu.ft. capacity,on the condition that the committeewould undertake to use it,and pay 25 pounds for each high ascent made especially on its behalf, defraying also the cost of gas, etc., so that the expense of each high ascentamounted to nearly 50 pounds. An observer still being wanted, James Glaisher a member of the committee, offered himself to take the observations, and accordingly the first ascent was made on July 17,1862 from the gas-works at Wolverhampton. Altogether Glaisher made 28 ascents, the last being on May 26,1866. With regard to physiological observations, Glaisher found that the frequency of his pulse increased with elevation, as also did the number of inspirations. The number of his pulsations was generally 76 per minute before starting, about 90 at 10,000ft.,100 at 20,000ft.,and 110 at higher elevations.But a good deal depended on the temperament of the individual. This was also the case in respect to colour:at 10,000ft.the face of some would be a glowing purple,whilst others would scarcely be affected;at 4 miles high Glaisher found the pulsations of his heart distinctly audible,and his breathing was very much affected, at 29,000ft.he became insensible. In his ascent of Sept.5,1862,Glaisher considered that he reached a height of 37,000ft. But that figure was based,not on actual record, but on the circumstance that at 29,000ft.,when he became insensible,the balloon was rising 1,000ft. a minute and that when he recovered consciousness 13 minutes later it was falling 2,000ft. a minute,and the accuracy of his conclusions has been questioned.Few scientists have imitated Glaisher in making high altitude ascents for meteorological observations." Okay, Dan. Lets see you top that for dedicated science. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 18:17:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17324; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:02:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:02:50 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:03:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711050103.RAA06497 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Snorts, Vorts? Resent-Message-ID: <"Em57A2.0.XE4.vMyNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12386 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, >Applied Symmetrical Squeeze (ASS Pinch)etc., >"if only we could increase that 300,000 neutrons per second by at least 9 >orders of >magnitude". > >ROFL. Regards, Frederick Careful there. Not sure ROFL'ing is allowed anymore. The Vorts are getting mighty touchy lately. Name a topic and someone's turned to anger or ridicule recently. What's going on? El Nino effect? Pardon my soapbox, but some of us could stand to show a bit more patience and sense of humor. If you feel angry about a post, think a bit before you reply: Do you have to be angry about it? Did the sender intend the post to be an attack, or was the slight inadvertent or in good humor? Will your reply help straighten things out, or will it heat things up? Please calm down, people! Dan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 18:43:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA17128; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:32:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:32:45 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 21:24:15 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Je repond! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"K4Q1e1.0.WB4.ChzNq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12390 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Captains Log, Stardate 9986.104 , "Sentient Meat" "They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "Meat. They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars." "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat." "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat." "Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage." "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea the life span of meat?" "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through." "No brain?" "Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!" "So... what does the thinking?" "You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?" "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." "Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years." "So what does the meat have in mind?" "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual." "We're supposed to talk to meat?" "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?' That sort of thing." "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?" "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." "I thought you just told me they used radio." "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?" "Officially or unofficially?" "Both." "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." "I was hoping you would say that." "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?" "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say?" `Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?" "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." "So we just pretend there's no one home in the universe." "That's it." "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You're sure they won't remember?" "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them." "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream." "And we can mark this sector unoccupied." "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again." "They always come around." "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how utterly, cold this galaxy would be if one were all alone with no-one to talk to but meat." *********************************************************************** <---- End Included Message ----> -> Posted by: w9sz prairienet.org (Zack Widup) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 19:34:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA32609; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:28:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:28:47 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:27:21 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce99a$ba0bc460$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"0xua52.0.Oz7.jV-Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12391 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dan Quickert wrote: Is El Nino causing these "firestorms"? I don't think so Dan, more like a combination of the "Fall Back" clock settings about a week ago, and possibly a bit of S.A.D.D.s. Then again the Full Moon is due in about 10 days. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 19:44:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03206; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:41:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:41:57 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 21:40:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711050340.VAA04705 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"MW1Ye1.0.hn._h-Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12392 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: 11/4/97 Oh My God! He's back. And now RWW is in your face and in full compliance with Beaty's rule NUMBER TWO. How can that be? Why he claims cold fusion is a fact. Yes siree, Bob. Cold fusion is a fact and RWW is one of those nasty true believers. And, back off any of you pathologic skeptics. How am I doing Bill? %^) Briefly, Michael Randall let the cat out of the bag. I have been corresponding with him for the past couple of months about the Farnsworth-Hirsch multipactor fusor. Don't believe it? Check it out with Michael. Some of you o/u and cf *nonbelievers* did not pay close attention when I said I wanted o/u (cf) as much as you, but it would appear in a different venue than Mr. Watson's research. My method of research comports closely with the Scientific Method, sorry to say. I do not conduct my research via the internet nor do I make unsubstantiated statements. Sorry, no grandstanding or planned world tours either. Although all are welcome to jump on fusor cf band waggon, don't ask me for any proof. Your welcome to prove it yourself. Let's be consistant. And, I take no offense at being tagged a cold fusion wannabe. %^) No way to criticize my research. So please don't ask me for any proof. Please feel free to roll your own fusor. It's easy to do your own proof. Consistancy please. >Kulba writes in the article: > > > "If fusors can be developed into viable power > > sources, Bussard is optimistic that their ability to > > supply great amounts of energy, without the > > tremendous heating and dangerous levels of > > radioactivity associated with thermonuclear > > fusion, could lead to the development of space > > drives for routine interplanetary travel within > > our lifetimes." > >I was wondering how a gizmo can release "great amounts of energy" >through apparently standard nuclear fusion without "dangerous levels >of radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion." RM Are you guys ready for this? Both camps have been right all along. Fusion and transmutation can be both an aneutronic or neutronic processes. Of course, the Farnsworth-Hirsch multipactor fusor produces gazillions of neutrons. It's trivially easy to demonstrate. Bussard's P-B 11 (hydrogen and Boron 11) fusion reaction is an aneutronic reaction producing three alpha particals. One with 3.76 Mev energy and a pair with 2.46 Mev energy and all three with a 2+ charge. Two individual biased collector grids may capture these alpha particals and convert them to He, thus a direct electrical conversion. Essentially there is no heat involved as this is a direct electrical conversion. There will be a small amount of soft x-ray radiation, easily sheildable. This electrical conversion process is already in existence. You know those *dangerous* plutonium power supplies in those risky space probes. Guess how they get direct power conversion. By the way B 11 is an 80% isotope readily available in sea water. >Perhaps Bussard is wishfully thinking these devices might somehow >have the same disregard for conventional nuclear reaction products he >hears about in connection with CF? Maybe the apparent contradiction is >just an artifact of the author's reporting. RM No artifact. See above. BTW, don't sweat 300,000 neutrons/sec. Not much of a dose. The key is they're there and easily detected. Yes, I'm deeply involved with it. RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 20:03:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02435; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:56:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:56:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:56:17 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: {off topic} Rick M. & Hawaii Isl's. :) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Ybsnm.0.Zb.ev-Nq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12393 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FYI/Amusement only :) (fwd message)... nasa Rick, sorry for the band-width and to the group here... but, until Thanksgiving (or longer) it looks like you might think twice about skinning dipping .. err 'Body-Surfing' till then.. Nasa's new flying wing will be over-head with two(2) sensor sending units on board :) --- At 6 million pixel array... you/they could see the 'moon' -eh? At 22-49,000 feet you wouldn't see them.. (smile you're on candid camera:) (maybe a big array of round dishes (covered with tin-foil) in your back yard ..spelling out ICU or RM etc?? ;) till Thanksgiving anyway.. --- 7,200 watts of stay-up power too. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:01:48 -0500 (EST) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: ekwall2 diac.com Subject: NASA's Solar Powered Aircraft Begins Science Missions in Hawaii Dwayne Brown Headquarters, Washington, DC November 3, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1726) Michael Mewhinney Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA (Phone: 415/604-3937) Fred A. Brown Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA (Phone: 805/258-3449) Eric Dunn Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kekaha, Kauai, HI (Phone: 808/335-4560) RELEASE: 97-253 NASA'S SOLAR-POWERED AIRCRAFT BEGINS SCIENCE MISSIONS IN HAWAII Pathfinder, NASA's solar-powered, remotely piloted aircraft, has begun conducting a series of up to four science mission flights to highlight the aircraft's science capabilities while collecting imagery of forest and coastal zone ecosystems on Kauai, HI. Remotely piloted aircraft similar to Pathfinder could spend long periods of time over the ocean, monitoring storm developments to provide more accurate predictions of hurricanes. These aircraft also could be used to monitor major croplands, forests and other large, remote expanses to provide early warning of crop damage or fires. The Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai, is the staging base for these flights as part of NASA's Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program, based at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. Kauai was chosen as an optimum location for testing Pathfinder due to high levels of solar irradiance, available airspace and radio frequency, and diversity of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. Major science activities of Pathfinder, the first flight of which occurred on Oct. 25, include detection of forest nutrient status, forest regrowth from Hurricane Iniki, sediment/algal concentrations in coastal waters and assessment of coral reef health. The science activity is being coordinated by NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, and involves researchers at the University of Hawaii and University of California. The flights will conclude just before Thanksgiving. The flights will test two new scientific instruments, a high spectral resolution Digital Array Scanned Interferometer (DASI) and a high spatial resolution Airborne Real-Time Imaging System (ARTIS). The remote sensor payloads were designed by Ames to support NASA's Mission to Planet Earth science programs. The flights will be conducted at altitudes between 22,000-49,000 feet. "This will be the first time that we have flown these two new sensor systems," said Steve Wegener, Ames' manager of the payloads and science element of the program. DASI, a remote sensing instrument that looks at reflected spectral intensities from the Earth, will be used to study such things as plant stress, constituents in coastal zone waters and coral reef health. Measuring 30 inches long and ten inches in diameter, DASI weighs less than 25 pounds and mounts beneath Pathfinder's wing. The ARTIS payload is built around a digital camera, which has a six-million-pixel array, enabling it to take high quality digital photographs. The camera has a variety of potential science and commercial applications, such as documenting flood surges, geologic features and crop stress, according to Wegener. Both sensors are designed to be small, lightweight and interactive, in compliance with ERAST program goals of miniaturizing flight payloads. "These new sensor technologies are being developed for use in the next generation of remotely piloted aircraft," Wegener said. These and other new sensor systems are designed to complement high altitude studies of atmospheric ozone, land-cover change and natural hazard studies conducted by NASA's Earth Resources Survey aircraft. Pathfinder recently set an altitude record for propeller- driven flight of over 71,500 feet. "Pathfinder's performance to date has exceeded our wildest expectations," said the programUs manager Jenny Baer-Riedhart. "We beat our altitude milestone by 6,500 feet in the first two flights this summer and demonstrated the capability for science mission demonstrations in a remote, tropical location." Pathfinder is one of several remotely piloted aircraft being evaluated under the ERAST program. The program focuses on developing technologies required to operate subsonic unpiloted aircraft at high altitude for long-duration flights. "Remotely piloted aircraft have the potential to do the dull, dirty and dangerous missions where you wouldn't want to put a pilot at risk," Wegener said. Pathfinder is a flying wing with a span of 99 feet. Small pods extending below the wing's center section can carry a variety of scientific sensors. Solar arrays on the upper wing surface can provide as much as 7,200 watts of power at high noon on a summer day to power the craft's six electric motors and other electronic systems. A backup battery system can provide power for up to five hours to fly the craft after sundown. Pathfinder was designed, manufactured and is operated by AeroVironment, Inc., of Simi Valley, CA, under a jointly sponsored research agreement with NASA. -end- -=jse=- :) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 20:32:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16765; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:27:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:27:52 -0800 Message-ID: <345FF5C5.66297A4A microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:57:49 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: RMOG versus Normal flux gate generators Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ozhv22.0.d54.5N_Nq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12394 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have loaded a comparison of the Rmog's energy flows and that of a Normal flux gate generator. The sims clearly show how and where the increased flux occurs and WHY it doesn't occur in other flux gate type generators. Its linked from the Rmog page or the 5th Nov update link on the home page. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 20:59:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA15834; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:54:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:54:53 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 21:53:22 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce9a6$bebf9200$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"o_Fuz.0.It3.Qm_Nq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12395 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Richard Wayne Wall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment >11/4/97 > >Oh My God! He's back. And now RWW is in your face and in full >compliance with Beaty's rule NUMBER TWO. How can that be? >Why he claims cold fusion is a fact. Yes siree, Bob. Cold fusion is a >fact and RWW is one of those nasty true believers. Richard. Do you call 14 Kilovolts (162 Million deg K) which is about three times as HOT as the original Tokamak, COLD FUSION? And, back off any >of you pathologic skeptics. How am I doing Bill? %^) > >Briefly, Michael Randall let the cat out of the bag. I have been >corresponding with him for the past couple of months about the >Farnsworth-Hirsch multipactor fusor. Don't believe it? Check it out >with Michael. No need, His post said 14 kilovolts. At 10 milliamps thats 140 joules/sec or 140 watts. 300,000 4 Mev reactions/sec is about 0.2 microwatts. Figuring 3.3 x 140 = 462 joule/sec (watts) to get "wallsocket breakeven" 462/2E-7 you is gonna need a multiplier of about 2.3 BILLION. > >Some of you o/u and cf *nonbelievers* did not pay close attention when >I said I wanted o/u (cf) as much as you, but it would appear in a >different venue than Mr. Watson's research. My method of research >comports closely with the Scientific Method, sorry to say. I do not >conduct my research via the internet Maybe you should. :-) nor do I make unsubstantiated >statements. Sorry, no grandstanding or planned world tours either. >Although all are welcome to jump on fusor cf band waggon, don't ask me >for any proof. Your welcome to prove it yourself. Let's be >consistant. And, I take no offense at being tagged a cold fusion >wannabe. %^) > >No way to criticize my research. So please don't ask me for any proof. >Please feel free to roll your own fusor. It's easy to do your own >proof. Consistancy please. > >>Kulba writes in the article: >> >> > "If fusors can be developed into viable power IF the Moon was made of Green Cheese....? >> > sources, Bussard is optimistic that their ability to >> > supply great amounts of energy, without the >> > tremendous heating and dangerous levels of >> > radioactivity associated with thermonuclear >> > fusion, could lead to the development of space >> > drives for routine interplanetary travel within >> > our lifetimes." >> >>I was wondering how a gizmo can release "great amounts of energy" >>through apparently standard nuclear fusion without "dangerous levels >>of radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion." RM > >Are you guys ready for this? Both camps have been right all along. >Fusion and transmutation can be both an aneutronic or neutronic >processes. Of course, the Farnsworth-Hirsch multipactor fusor produces >gazillions of neutrons. It's trivially easy to demonstrate. Bussard's >P-B 11 (hydrogen and Boron 11) fusion reaction is an aneutronic The P-B11 and P-Li7 fusion reactions were done in 1927 by Cockcroft and Walton before Deuterium and the Neutron were discovered.Even at bombarding energies of 500 to 700 KILOVOLTS the yields were of scientific interest but hardly worth considering for net energy gain. >reaction producing three alpha particals. One with 3.76 Mev energy and >a pair with 2.46 Mev energy and all three with a 2+ charge. Two >individual biased collector grids may capture these alpha particals and >convert them to He, thus a direct electrical conversion. Aw come on. look at the lifetime of a He++ or He+ (alpha particle). Essentially >there is no heat involved as this is a direct electrical conversion. >There will be a small amount of soft x-ray radiation, easily >sheildable. This electrical conversion process is already in >existence. You know those *dangerous* plutonium power supplies in >those risky space probes. Guess how they get direct power conversion. >By the way B 11 is an 80% isotope readily available in sea water. Sure, and the other 20% is B10 which has a neutron capture cross section of almost 10,000 barns. That is why it is used as a neutron detector. (n+ 5 B10 ---> 3 Li7 + 2 He4 + 2.78 MEV. > >>Perhaps Bussard is wishfully thinking these devices might somehow >>have the same disregard for conventional nuclear reaction products he >>hears about in connection with CF? Maybe the apparent contradiction is >>just an artifact of the author's reporting. RM > >No artifact. See above. BTW, don't sweat 300,000 neutrons/sec. Not >much of a dose. The key is they're there and easily detected. > >Yes, I'm deeply involved with it. Stay with it Richard, But. Don't insult the intelligence of the folks on Vortex. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 21:15:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18121; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 21:13:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 21:13:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <346025DE.7690 keelynet.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 23:53:02 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Je repond! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TL3YO2.0.1R4.B20Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12396 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi John et al! I laughed so hard, I had tears in my eyes....where did that great dialogue come from??? THANKS! -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 22:27:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA16927; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:23:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:23:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:22:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711050622.WAA05221 denmark.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"_tHW71.0.K84.631Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12397 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >No need, His post said 14 kilovolts. At 10 milliamps thats 140 joules/sec or >140 watts. >300,000 4 Mev reactions/sec is about 0.2 microwatts. Figuring 3.3 x 140 = >462 joule/sec >(watts) to get "wallsocket breakeven" 462/2E-7 >you is gonna need a multiplier of about 2.3 BILLION. According to Farnsworth's research he acheived a 30 sec. self-sustained fusion reaction on Dec. 28, 1965, according to his wife that was a witness to the event. In Farnsworth's Fusor Mark III-Mod.6 (Patent 3,386,883) at 170 kv and 70 ma at vacuum 10-6mm of hg with a mixture of tritium and deuterium as fuel, he acheived a 1.55 x 10 10th neutron count. In Bussard's Patent 5,160,695 is a much simpler design as demonstrated in the ESJ article. I don't think that even in universities they can demonstrate fusion on the table top. It seemed to me to be a nice practical HS or college physics experiment to "see" the fusion reaction as it occurs. It was reported to look like a star. Regards, Michael From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 22:35:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA20109; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:34:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:34:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3460134A.33CE gorge.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 22:33:46 -0800 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Mills' experiments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aqW4E3.0.3w4.fD1Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12398 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > the procedure for supposedly loading in the > hydrogen was identical to the procedure we use here at NASA to clean our > metal surfaces and when the metal reactor surface is cleaned it will heat > up. If I understand correctly, you are saying that the cleaned surface will "heat up" because it does not radiate IR as effectively as when it was dirty. I assume that heat energy is being applied to the metal, (at a higher temperature than the temperature of the metal before the cleaning process was begun) but that the metal surface is unable to radiate this energy away as efficiently as it had been able to when "dirty." One might assume that NASA was intentinally applying heat energy to the probes they were cleaning. Is this assumption accurate? If it is not, what energy source causes the cleaned metal surface to "heat up?" Does Mills apply the same heat energy to his metal surfaces that NASA applies during cleaning with hydrogen? Thank You. Tom Miller From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 22:38:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA20664; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:36:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:36:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:36:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711050636.AAA21063 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"G0cLa2.0.e25.cF1Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12400 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:40 PM 11/4/97 -0600, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: >You know those *dangerous* plutonium power supplies in >those risky space probes. Guess how they get direct power conversion. For the Apollo landings, they were relatively crude things using only the thermal output from the Pu-238 (89 year half-life) to run a thermoelectric generator. Can any of our NASA guys comment on whether they've become more sophisticated since then? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 22:41:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA21106; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:37:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:37:37 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:36:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711050636.AAA21059 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"5_VDc1.0.f95.lG1Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12401 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >>When you apply electrical power to an electrolysis cell, the fraction of >>that power converted into chemical energy (in the form of H2 & O2 gas) is >>given by 1.48*I. The remainder of the input power, given by (V-1.48)*I, is >>converted directly into heat. and Mitchell responded > No. The description by Scott Little is not accurate. Please provide an estimate of how inaccurate it is...i.e. what fraction of (V-1.48)*I is actually converted into heat in a typical CF cell? That will help. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 22:41:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA20636; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:36:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:36:21 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:36:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711050636.AAA21054 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"8IDCd3.0.G25.YF1Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12399 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:41 PM 11/4/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >Easy enough to do this with a drill-press and a couple of >metal plates in a bucket of water, these days. Huh, Scott? ....uh...whazzat!? I was sleeping on this one but woke up when I heard my name. Fred are you suggesting that metal rubbing on metal might be o-u!? Throughout this ambitious search for energetically anomalous devices the only thing I've found thus far that is positively o-u is...your brain!. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 23:09:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA28084; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:59:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:59:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:59:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711050659.WAA18305 denmark.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"B_XAi2.0.Qs6.db1Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12402 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Rick, > >I was wondering how a gizmo can release "great amounts of energy" through >apparently standard nuclear fusion without "dangerous levels of >radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion." Well it seems that it depends on what fuel you use for the fusion. Boron is reported not to be radioactive during fusion. Perhaps Bussard is >wishfully thinking these devices might somehow have the same disregard for >conventional nuclear reaction products he hears about in connection with >CF? Maybe the apparent contradiction is just an artifact of the author's >reporting. For a complete description of fusion methods see Bussard's 5,160,695 patent under "Background of the Invention". He also gives all the math and descriptions required for self-sustaining and ou energy production. Briefly there are two traditional methods used to achieve nuclear fusion confinement, "inertial" confinement and "magnetic" confinement. The method Farnsworth, Bussard and others are using is the alternative "electric inertial" means of plasma confinement. >Significant all the same, if fusors really work... Yes! The fusors are not self-sustaining yet but there is fusion taking place "right before your eyes"! Regards, Michael Randall >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 4 23:37:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA04326; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 23:33:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 23:33:13 -0800 Message-Id: <34601247.12B05CF1 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:29:28 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: BLP hydrogen as CDM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"psddG3.0.W31.u42Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12403 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Vortex and Welcome Horace, I just figured out the possibility the hydrogen atoms or molecules with fractional quantum energies may contribute to the cold dark matter which postulated to form galactic halos and fill the intergalactic space. CDM is postulated to substitute for the missing mass needed to satisfy the observed dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters. I think so, because the needed material should not emits photons and should be transparant. They should be invisible. Normal hydrogen atoms are visible as they radiates. But this fractional energy may prevent these atoms radiating when they collide even a t high velocities (high temperature) and remain mostly invisible. There are some claims that the X and EUV radiation coming from unidentified sources may been produced by this hydrogen atoms. Did you hear something like this? Could this be possible? (assuming the Black Light Power claims are true) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 00:56:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA03867; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:52:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:52:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:52:00 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wharton and Blue's skeptical folly In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971104130742.006a9abc world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"k72Fa1.0.Ay.jE3Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12404 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> At 12:37 PM 11/4/97 -0500, Lawrence Wharton wrote: -snip- >> >> Anyone care to guess what the annual rate is? or which >>countries are leading the scientific race? -snip- >> Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) >> Is it too late to go after the EURO-Dollar yet??? or did /?I?/ M.I.A. 'Miss It Again'? -=jse=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 01:34:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA25894; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:26:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:26:06 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 23:22:42 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: {off topic} Rick M. & Hawaii Isl's. :) Resent-Message-ID: <"kfpYH3.0.WK6.jk3Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12405 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve - I bet I could see that thing. I can sometimes see the weather balloons they launch to check the upper air if they're near enough to lining up with the sun to pick up good backlighting, and they're only a few feet across. At least I think they're weather balloons... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 02:39:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA06780; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:35:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:35:59 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:32:32 -1000 To: Vortex-L From: Rick Monteverde Subject: SMOT Magnetic Anomaly & Ou Proof Resent-Message-ID: <"3bjMn.0.sf1.Cm4Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12406 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > Do the second of the SMOT simple OU Proof tests at : > http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smotouproof.html What is the point of the differential ramp test? Is it established logically that this reveals a true energy differential and not just an efficiency differential with regard to a rolling ferrous ball? The energy distribution of the fields could well net out symetrically while a rolling ball sees different dynamics from different directions. Assuming constant track frictional losses, symmetry could be measured by carefully measuring the force on a static ball at numerous points through the array and summing. I think the rollthrough experiment *could* be saying that the fields are anomalously assymetrical, or it *could* be saying that it's more efficient for a ball to roll through one way rather than another. Which do you want to bet it is? Tesla's homopolar patents show how eddy currents can cause this behavior in those devices. Spin it one way, it's draggy. The other way, it's much easier. To prove SMOT OU, just show good level rollaways, that's all. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 02:46:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA31722; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:40:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:40:40 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <345FAF13.542D8A8 microtronics.com.au> References: <199711041701_MC2-26B9-B690 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:37:14 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Greg Watson shares the blame Resent-Message-ID: <"p0_J9.0.al7.dq4Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12407 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg - > Yet given these same start and final field densities, > the SMOT will quickly draw the ball up the ramp > and let it drop off to rest at the starting level. No > rollaway needed here. Now this is starting to worry me again; in the above statement you imply a claim that the behavior described indicates anomalous or OU behavior when clearly it does neither. You say that "Yet given these same start and final field densities...", but they are not the same. The ball at the start is somewhat free to roll either way, perhaps just barely within the fields enough that we can easily start it *towards* the stronger fields. And yet at the bottom of a ramp without rollaway capability the ball is clearly held with much more force than it experienced at the start point. So the first statement is false, and the second, "...let it drop off to rest at the starting level" doesn't have the relevance you seem to be trying to give it. Just because it ends up at the same gravitational potential doesn't mean that it isn't in a lower energy state in this system - it most certainly is. Therefore, the conclusion "No rollaway needed here" is not true. Have I misunderstood this somehow? Was this a mistake or typo, or do you really believe that just because a ball rolls up a ramp and drops down stuck in the field at the same gravitational potential that it's either an anomaly or OU? True level rollaways *are* needed to prove SMOT OU. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 02:53:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA00408; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:52:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:52:12 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711050340.VAA04705 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:48:21 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"ORjhZ3.0.D6.R_4Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12408 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Richard - > No artifact. See above. BTW, don't sweat > 300,000 neutrons/sec. Not much of a dose. The > key is they're there and easily detected. Wow. Well... are they hard to build? I'm sick of SMOTs. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 03:03:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA02702; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:02:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:02:33 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711050659.WAA18305 denmark.it.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:59:10 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"bFPGK.0.8g.795Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12409 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael - > Yes! The fusors are not self-sustaining yet but > there is fusion taking place "right before your > eyes"! Sounds neat, but somehow the real significance is still escaping me. I don't see how you could get usable home-kilowatts of energy from conventional high energy fusion reactions without killing yourself and your neighbors with neutrons - at least without a pretty good lead brickpile around the thing. Are the neutrons being recycled more efficiently or something? In other words, is there a shortage of neutrons for the given amount of energy released, like what DB is always complaining about in his anti CF posts? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 04:04:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA11731; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:58:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:58:33 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Debye temp Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:57:59 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3461f038.21416706 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80@world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080 world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"o3SQY2.0.Ct2.dz5Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12410 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 04 Nov 1997 08:40:50 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > As mentioned before, the active materials are NOT rhombohedral, >and the papers are in the literature, including extensive >xray spectroscopy papers. Ok, according to my hypothesis (with credit to Horace Heffner and Charles Cagle), the basic criterion that needs to be satisfied, is that there be a minimum of relative motion between nuclei involved. This leads to the following list of further criteria. Vibrations must: 1) Be parallel (i.e. the same spatial orientation). 2) Have the same frequency. 3) Have the same amplitude. 4) Be in phase. Now according to Debye, vibrations in a lattice will consist of a mixture of all possible wavelengths that lie between the following two boundaries: upper bound: largest dimension of the crystal in question lower bound: the distance between the closest two atoms in the crystal. Furthermore they will be in 3 dimensions. (I believe I have found an exception to this as I am about to explain). Due to the lower bound on the wavelength (i.e. upper bound on the frequency), as a crystal is heated, ever more of the heat energy in the crystal will be represented by vibrations at the maximum possible frequency (minimum wavelength), until at the melting point, almost all energy will be represented by vibrations at this frequency. IOW as the crystal is heated there will be an upward shift in the average frequency, with a tendency to "pile up" against the upper boundary. (Just as there is a tendency to pile up against the lower boundary when matter is cooled to absolute zero). I suspect that when a crystal is heated beyond the point where all energy resides in the highest frequency vibrations, it melts. I.e. this is the melting point of the substance. Now I am going to go out on a limb, and say that all vibrations within a specific crystal with the same frequency, also have the same amplitude. So 2 and 3 above are satisfied simultaneously. It isn't very important which frequency the atoms have, as long as it's the same for many of them. It should be obvious from the above, that as a crystal is heated, the maximum frequency, will tend to dominate all other frequencies. So we can use this fact to help satisfy our criteria. IOW heating a crystal to near the melting point tends to satisfy both 2 and 3. That leaves 1 and 4. Now consider an *fcc* or *bcc* crystal, where multiple symmetry exists. Take 3 atoms A, B, and C. A-B, B-C are nearest neighbours. However the B-C vibration could easily be at right angles to the A-B vibration (as both are equidistant due to the symmetry), destroying long range order in the vibrations. (We would like A, B, and C to all vibrate in the same direction to satisfy nr 1). Nevertheless some medium range order will sometimes occur for short periods, even in these lattices, by sheer coincidence. At low temp. there will be less of this coincidental medium range order than at high temps, due to the fact that there is a mixture of wavelengths, as well as direction at lower temps. (I.e. 2 and 3 will mismatch as well as 1 and 4). Raising the temperature helps to fix 2 and 3. Using a lattice with a minimum of symmetry helps 1, and probably also 4. (I think that on any given straight line running through several atoms there will be a tendency for all atoms that meet 1, 2 and 3 to also be in phase (for longitudinal vibrations), as this will be a minimum energy configuration.) So fcc and bcc lattices, while somewhat workable at temps. in the neighbourhood of the Debye temp. and above, don't have the built in advantages of a minimally symmetrical lattice such as a rhombohedral or "trace element skewed" lattice. This is why I say that I suspect that the "active sites" in a nominally fcc lattice such as Ni or Pd, are probably rhombohedral (or at least skewed, such as to reduce their symmetry). For skewing to be effective, several adjacent cells need to have the same skewing, i.e. you need to have a short to medium range regular pattern. > > Also, although alloying does have implications, it seems uncomprehensible >at first consideration how the fact that "none of the elements >mentioned normally has a rhombohedral structure ..implies that any >useful results will depend upon trace elements alloyed with them". ? Alloying of trace metals will tend to distort a normally symmetric lattice, leading to a reduction in the number of degrees of symmetry present. This decreases the number of nearest neighbours that any given atom has. (See above). [snip] The bottom line is that metals such as Ni and Pd, while good H absorbers, are only minimally effective at temps near or below their Debye temp. due to their fcc &/or bcc lattices. If they had "better" lattices, I would expect to see either explosive heat release, or massive transmutation, or both, especially at elevated temps. This essentially leaves three paths open for further investigation: 1) Use a base matrix that is already rhombohedral (Sb or Bi). 2) Make use of existing crystallographic databases to find crystalline compounds containing H that are rhombohedral. 3) Try to figure out exactly which additive trace elements along with H will skew an fcc or bcc lattice sufficiently to reduce the symmetry of a cell to the minimum. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 04:08:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA13419; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:07:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:07:18 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:04:59 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce9e3$0a7ddd00$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"QnyAV2.0.bH3.q56Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12411 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:40 PM Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >At 01:41 PM 11/4/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>Easy enough to do this with a drill-press and a couple of >>metal plates in a bucket of water, these days. Huh, Scott? > >....uh...whazzat!? I was sleeping on this one but woke up when I heard my >name. Fred are you suggesting that metal rubbing on metal might be o-u!? Yes indeed Scott, especially if there is water between the "plates" which will do about the same thing as Microcavitation and Sonoluminescence, with Hydrino generation to boot. One way to find out, isn't there? :-) > >Throughout this ambitious search for energetically anomalous devices the >only thing I've found thus far that is positively o-u is...your brain!. No need to delve into omnipotence at this juncture. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 04:13:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA14037; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:11:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:11:03 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:09:01 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce9e3$9ab2fa40$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"LFqQ63.0.AR3.L96Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12412 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Hamdi Ucar To: vortex Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 12:36 AM Subject: BLP hydrogen as CDM >Hi Vortex and Welcome Horace, > >I just figured out the possibility the hydrogen atoms or molecules with fractional quantum energies may contribute to the cold dark matter which postulated to form galactic halos and fill the intergalactic space. > >CDM is postulated to substitute for the missing mass needed to satisfy the observed dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters. > >I think so, because the needed material should not emits photons and should be transparant. They should be invisible. Normal hydrogen atoms are visible as they radiates. But this fractional energy may prevent these atoms radiating when they collide even at high velocities (high temperature) and remain mostly invisible. > >There are some claims that the X and EUV radiation coming from unidentified sources may been produced by this hydrogen atoms. > > >Did you hear something like this? Could this be possible? (assuming the Black Light Power claims are true) Now the light bulb is lighted! Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 04:31:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA16517; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:28:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:28:38 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:27:10 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce9e6$239a5cc0$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"MnIPq.0.x14.qP6Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12413 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Michael Randall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:26 PM Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>No need, His post said 14 kilovolts. At 10 milliamps thats 140 joules/sec or >>140 watts. >>300,000 4 Mev reactions/sec is about 0.2 microwatts. Figuring 3.3 x 140 = >>462 joule/sec >>(watts) to get "wallsocket breakeven" 462/2E-7 >>you is gonna need a multiplier of about 2.3 BILLION. > >According to Farnsworth's research he acheived a 30 sec. self-sustained >fusion reaction on Dec. 28, 1965, according to his wife that was a witness >to the event. In Farnsworth's Fusor Mark III-Mod.6 (Patent 3,386,883) at 170 >kv and 70 ma at vacuum 10-6mm of hg with a mixture of tritium and deuterium >as fuel, he acheived a 1.55 x 10 10th neutron count. Yes Michael, but the input is 12 kilowatts or KJ/sec. you would need about 2 x 10 16th neutron count just to get back the 12 KW. >In Bussard's Patent 5,160,695 is a much simpler design as demonstrated in >the ESJ article. I don't think that even in universities they can >demonstrate fusion on the table top. Sure you can. Use an automotive ignition coil, a battery, and a spark plug immersed in diesel fuel. Doesn't smell too pretty, but it isn't a fire hazard, and the ignition coil won't fry the students if they happen to get too close. It seemed to me to be a nice practical >HS or college physics experiment to "see" the fusion reaction as it occurs. >It was reported to look like a star. It will, indeed. Interesting post Michael. Regards, Frederick > >Regards, >Michael > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 04:40:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA20260; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:38:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:38:55 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:37:28 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce9e7$93e05100$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"owaN61.0.Oy4.UZ6Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12414 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex-l eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 11:40 PM Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment >At 09:40 PM 11/4/97 -0600, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > >>You know those *dangerous* plutonium power supplies in >>those risky space probes. Guess how they get direct power conversion. > >For the Apollo landings, they were relatively crude things using only the >thermal output from the Pu-238 (89 year half-life) to run a thermoelectric >generator. You should see the price tag on those "relatively crude things", Scott. The ones on the Voyagers that are still at 70% of launch power after 20 years in space (zero maintenance calls) :-)say that WE did a darn good design job. Regards, Frederick Can any of our NASA guys comment on whether they've become more >sophisticated since then? > >Scott Little >EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 >512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) >little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 04:48:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA21413; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:46:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:46:57 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:45:29 -0700 Message-ID: <01bce9e8$b2a0d320$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"gqQqV2.0.TE5.0h6Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12415 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Rick Monteverde To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 4:03 AM Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment >Michael - > > > Yes! The fusors are not self-sustaining yet but > > there is fusion taking place "right before your > > eyes"! > >Sounds neat, but somehow the real significance is still escaping me. I >don't see how you could get usable home-kilowatts of energy from >conventional high energy fusion reactions without killing yourself and your >neighbors with neutrons - at least without a pretty good lead brickpile >around the thing. Wrong Rick. You want neutron moderators-absorbers like water (or motor oil) and Boron compounds like Borax. Of course you could always use Boraxo bricks. :-) Regards, Frederick Are the neutrons being recycled more efficiently or >something? In other words, is there a shortage of neutrons for the given >amount of energy released, like what DB is always complaining about in his >anti CF posts? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 05:26:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA26622; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:20:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:20:55 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105081852.006ba2dc world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:18:52 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Wharton and Blue's skeptical folly In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971104130742.006a9abc world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Rzsd62.0.uV6.rA7Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12417 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve did not get the country correct, and left off a publication rate (unites are number of publications per year). Anyone else? At 01:52 AM 11/5/97 -0700, you wrote: >On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >> At 12:37 PM 11/4/97 -0500, Lawrence Wharton wrote: >-snip- >> > >> Anyone care to guess what the annual rate is? or which > >>countries are leading the scientific race? >-snip- > >> Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > >> >Is it too late to go after the EURO-Dollar yet??? > >or did /?I?/ M.I.A. 'Miss It Again'? > >-=jse=- > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 05:28:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA25762; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:12:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:12:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:07:31 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Flap Zacks Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9mt6p2.0.SI6.637Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12416 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Credit to Zack ... BTW, did you write it? On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Subject: Captains Log, Stardate 9986.104 , "Sentient Meat" > > *********************************************************************** > > <---- End Included Message ----> > > > -> Posted by: w9sz prairienet.org (Zack Widup) > Hi John, I guess that gets around, n'est ce pas? :-) Zack From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 05:42:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02907; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:38:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:38:59 -0800 (PST) From: atech ix.netcom.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971105084052.008f96c8 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:40:52 +0000 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: R.W.WALL, YOU ARE VIOLATING RULE #2 OF VORTEX-L Resent-Message-ID: <"lKv7d.0.Jj.mR7Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12418 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mr. Wall has a considerable reputation on Chip's Tesla List. I believe this is the reason he feels that he can be so foward on the Vortex List. Ironically, it is the main stream position of the Tesla List that J. P. Morgan cut Tesla's funding because Tesla wanted to work on impossible 'Perpetual Motion' ideas. Indeed, the goal of 99.9% of those on Chip's Tesla List want to make 'a big spark'. Unfortunately, it takes thousands of dollars worth of independant research on subjects that Mr. Wall would probably consider 'Fringe Science Bull' to begin to understand the OU riddle. Those who only want to read a few posts on this list and think that they can keep up are destined to continue to look ridiculous. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 06:41:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12531; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 06:33:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 06:33:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:31:44 -0600 (CST) From: Zack Widup Subject: Re: Flap Zacks To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"43k7D1.0.j33.fE8Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12419 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > Credit to Zack ... > > BTW, did you write it? > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > > > Subject: Captains Log, Stardate 9986.104 , "Sentient Meat" > > > > *********************************************************************** > > > > <---- End Included Message ----> > > > > > > -> Posted by: w9sz prairienet.org (Zack Widup) > > > > Hi John, > > I guess that gets around, n'est ce pas? :-) > > Zack > > Nope. I think I got it off a ham radio discussion group and thought it would be great for the neotech mailing list. I think I posted it there a year or so ago. No idea who wrote it! Zack From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 07:18:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19367; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:09:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:09:38 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105090651.00700624 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:06:51 -0600 To: From: Scott Little Subject: Pu-238 electrical generator In-Reply-To: <01bce9e7$93e05100$21a6410c default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"drc9E.0.Wk4.lm8Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12420 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:37 11/5/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >You should see the price tag on those "relatively crude things", Scott. The >ones on the Voyagers that are still at 70% of launch power after 20 years >in space (zero maintenance calls) :-)say that >WE did a darn good design job. Indeed you did! I was wondering, however, if RWW's claim that these generators now work via direct capture of charged particles is correct? The only ones I know about just use the heat energy emitted by the nuclear fuel. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 07:52:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24549; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:43:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:43:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711051543.HAA30813 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: {off topic} Rick M. & Hawaii Isl's. :) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:44:25 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Tc0HP3.0.R_5.nG9Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12422 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Rick! > > I bet I could see that thing. I can sometimes see the weather balloons they > launch to check the upper air if they're near enough to lining up with the > sun to pick up good backlighting, and they're only a few feet across. At > least I think they're weather balloons... > How fast are they moving? Most good sightings of UFOs by astronomers have been near the disc of the sun. People always talk about how people confuse ordinary phenomena with UFOs but logically the opposite also must occur.. Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 07:53:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24561; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:43:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:43:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711051543.HAA29325 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Tesla and Morgan , was Re: R.W.WALL, Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:10:22 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ov2DO1.0.h_5.pG9Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12423 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi "atech" and all! > Ironically, it is the main stream position of the Tesla List that J. P. > Morgan cut Tesla's funding because Tesla wanted to work on impossible > 'Perpetual Motion' ideas. Indeed, the goal of 99.9% of those on Chip's Tesla > List want to make 'a big spark'. Ironically, Tesla lost Morgan's support for exactly the same sort of grandiose thinking. Tesla wanted Wardenclyffe to be the center of all world communications and power, and insisted on holding to this goal even as Marconi's relatively portable and inexpensive technology was being commercialized. Morgan was right to pull the plug on him! Certainly for commercial reasons. Not to mention that the project if successful would have probably presented an environmental hazard of unknown proportions. I bet some of the same people who deify Tesla think the HAARP project is an evil idea, talk about irony :-) Tesla had many avante garde ideas which still need investigation--- Oddly, I have never heard of a replication of Tesla's "Apparatus For The Utilization Of Radiant Energy", his only "o/u" patent, from any of the Tesla groups-- maybe because it doesn't produce any big, manly sparks :-) --- and Tesla had many ideas that were just plain wrong. Sort of like the people on this list. Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 07:58:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA23921; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:40:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:40:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105093904.0070b7fc mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:39:04 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up In-Reply-To: <345F99D3.FD1FEB53 microtronics.com.au> References: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"apjOi3.0.hr5.dD9Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12421 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:25 11/5/97 +1030, Greg Watson wrote: >The day I started posting openly to this group, I gave up the >ownership of my research. Fine, but why are you fiddling around with SMOT tests and the like instead of working on the devices (e.g. RMOD) which you claim will run continuously all by themselves? It's been quite a few months now since you announced your success in this endeavor and it is frustrating not to have any visible proof of your success. We played along with the early SMOT tests, hoping that some incredible anomaly would manifest itself. None did. Our SMOT tracks were miserably ordinary. If you've really got something, Greg, it has to be something very special that your particular embodiment has captured. It is high time that the world found out the truth behind your claimed success, Greg. In fact, I'm surprised that Jed hasn't started accusing you of letting innocent people starve in underdeveloped countries by witholding potentially vital energy technologies from commercialization. I propose an official Vortex committee visit to your house to observe the RMOD device running all by itself continuously. We could all pitch in and buy an elected Vortex member the necessary airline ticket...sort of like the way s.p.f. sent Tom Droege to Griggs place...only this time we'd do it better by preparing the representative beforehand with agreed-upon observations and tests to perform. Robin, how far are you from Greg? Are you willing? Are there any other volunteers who live reasonable close to Greg? Greg, are you willing to entertain such a visitation? If successful, I guarantee you it would launch a wave of multi-lab experimentation into your research that would make the first 'SMOT rush' pale by comparison! Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 08:29:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03395; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:16:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:16:45 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:19:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199711050340.VAA04705 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <68D29D40FC hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"fDrHs2.0.fq.fl9Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12424 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Richard - > > > No artifact. See above. BTW, don't sweat > > 300,000 neutrons/sec. Not much of a dose. The > > key is they're there and easily detected. > > Wow. > > Well... are they hard to build? I'm sick of SMOTs. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > Yes, does anyone here know how to build them or where the plans are? It does sound like a great demo for a physics department... JAY OLSON From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 08:30:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06504; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:22:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:22:12 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971105102135.ZM22697 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:21:35 -0600 In-Reply-To: Mitchell Swartz "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 4, 6:19pm) References: <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Mitchell Swartz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"wmF2o1.0.Ob1.oq9Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12425 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 4, 6:19pm, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 04:46 PM 11/4/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote about calorimetry and his > putative claim that there is some kind of problem because he and an > acupuncturist don't understand the science of heat and mass transfer: > Athough, neither John Steck nor apparently Motorola Inc. > seem able to consider thermometry/calorimetry as > being a science, attention of all vorts is directed to.... yada yada yada Cripes man, it was a joke. I even put in the "ha ha ha" for the slow witted who may not appreciate or understand dry humor. Sorry you took it the wrong way, but lighten the hell up already. You are going to give yourself an aneurysm with all that anger. If anything it was a sarcastic jab at all the self appointed critics constantly clogging this bandwidth debating the blatantly obvious, categorically denying the observed, and unfairly casting dispersions on credible participants for no other reason than because they (the critics) have jumped to conclusions or just plain don't understand what the hell they are talking about. Your personal attacks are offensive and uncalled for no matter how justified you feel leveling them. I am really getting pretty sick and tired of having to deal with all this unprofessional crap many are spewing on vortex lately. Perhaps you've been blasting away at others for so long now that you've lost perspective and fail realize your own blinding, overly hostile, knee jerk attitude. I do not, nor have I ever contested the validity of the science of calorimetry or of any reported results by any individual or organization on this list. Check the archives if you want. Not specifically working with a particular lab, individual, or with their equipment I don't feel qualified to comment on their protocol or challenge their findings. I wish more would police themselves with this guideline and quit wasting everyone's time with their own arrogance. Oh, and just for the record, I am not a spokesman for Motorola, just a cog in the machine with an altruistic interest in the continued advancement of human civilization. Opinions expressed are my own (because I have the courage to do so) and do not necessarily reflect those of Motorola. As far as I am concerned, Motorola is just something entertaining that pays the bills. If you feel I am an idiot, fine. I don't really care. Hope THAT helps. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 08:39:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02314; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:28:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:28:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:26:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971105112401_-1241288001 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"DlDTY2.0._Z.yw9Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12426 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton said that heating metal in the presence of hydrogen at low pressure would clean the metal surface very effectively, thus reducing its emissivity, which would produce bougus excess heat in a gas-phase BLP cell. How would the emissivity of the metal filament in a gas-phase BLP cell, or the emissivity of the interior surface of the container in which the filament was placed, affect the calorimetry? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 08:39:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02571; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:30:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:30:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105112715.0069892c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:27:15 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: John Steck In-Reply-To: <971105102135.ZM22697 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DlRyY.0.5e.Py9Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12427 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:21 AM 11/5/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote: >On Nov 4, 6:19pm, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >> At 04:46 PM 11/4/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote about calorimetry and his >> putative claim that there is some kind of problem because he and an >> acupuncturist don't understand the science of heat and mass transfer: > >> Athough, neither John Steck nor apparently Motorola Inc. >> seem able to consider thermometry/calorimetry as >> being a science, attention of all vorts is directed to.... > >yada yada yada > >Cripes man, it was a joke. Very little of the idiotic critiques, and ad hominems against the field is a joke. Sorry if it was misunderstand in the flame-wars that seem to paroxysmally appear. >If anything it was a sarcastic jab at all the self appointed critics constantly >clogging this bandwidth debating the blatantly obvious, categorically denying >the observed, and unfairly casting dispersions on credible participants for no >other reason than because they (the critics) have jumped to conclusions or just >plain don't understand what the hell they are talking about. > Agree with that. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 08:44:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03780; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:38:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:38:18 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971105103501.ZM22801 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:35:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: Mitchell Swartz "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 4, 6:19pm) References: <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"I9XH33.0.zw.i3AOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12428 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:46 PM 11/4/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote: > It would seem compelling now to setup a device with > these parameters to verify the threshold and to measure > the temperature decrease of the electrolite The thermoneutral voltage for electrolysis is called out as 1.481 V at 25 C. (same reference text as before) 1.23 to 1.47 V the reaction is endothermic 1.47 to 2.00+ V the reaction is exothermic Still unclear on the exact endothermic value for a specific reaction at a specific V. No data on that. Anyone? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:01:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15305; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:52:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:52:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:51:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199711051651.IAA16236 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"BnevG2.0.Kk3.nGAOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12431 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> Richard - >> >> > No artifact. See above. BTW, don't sweat >> > 300,000 neutrons/sec. Not much of a dose. The >> > key is they're there and easily detected. >> Just keep in mind that if you are building a device for power generation, and it squirts out neutrons, then it will not be suitable for the task. By the time you amp up the power, the neutron flux will be killing everything around it and will be inducing radioactivity in all of the materials around the vicinity. (at least if you ran it at high power for years) neutrons are precisely what you do not want in a power generator. And as well, they would have to overcome the Lawson criteria for power generation anyway prior to exceeding breakeven. As for the lab device, have at it. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:01:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA14775; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:51:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:51:24 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Pu-238 electrical generator Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:49:47 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcea0a$d353fa80$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"dsyIK2.0.ic3.9GAOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12429 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 8:15 AM Subject: Pu-238 electrical generator Scott Wrote > > I was wondering, however, if RWW's claim that these >generators now work via direct capture of charged particles is correct? That Would be quite a feat, wouldn't it? Getting the 5 mev or so kinetic energy from the Alpha's to decelerate in a retarding field to generate power. Although I heard that this was being done in Free Electron Lasers to recover some of the energy from the 100's of Mev electrons after the pass through the "magnetic speed bumps" that cause them to generate the UV. >The only ones I know about just use the heat energy emitted by the nuclear >fuel. Those are all I know of, the Russian made "TOPAZ" is a thermionic generator rather than a thermoelectric device,though. These are neat systems that produce power in the 10 to 100 Kw range. There is/was one on display at the Sandia Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. Very neat package, looks something like a very large badminton "birdie" with the heat rejection fins. :-) 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) > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:02:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15217; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:52:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:52:00 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:51:42 -0800 Message-Id: <199711051651.IAA16228 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"d-gKn2.0.8j3.hGAOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12430 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I think so, because the needed material should not emits photons and should be transparant. They should be invisible. The Dark Matter doesn't emit energy except virtual, and it is perfectly transparent. It is called "empty space", and it is massive. Mass, in fusion reactions in stars, is conserved. And matter is composed of resonant standing waves in and of that aether we believe to be an empty vacuum of nothing. The notion of emptyness is abhorent to the mind, once you come to understand the connectivity of working in an ocean. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:10:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20063; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:03:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:03:46 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105120134.00698fa8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 12:01:34 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM In-Reply-To: <199711051651.IAA16228 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA20015 Resent-Message-ID: <"30Pm43.0.Cv4.mRAOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12432 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:51 AM 11/5/97 -0800, you wrote: > >>I think so, because the needed material should not emits photons and should >be transparant. They should be invisible. > >The Dark Matter doesn't emit energy except virtual, and it is perfectly >transparent. It is called "empty space", and it is massive. Mass, in >fusion reactions in stars, is conserved. And matter is composed of resonant >standing waves in and of that aether we believe to be an empty vacuum of >nothing. > >The notion of emptyness is abhorent to the mind, once you come to understand >the connectivity of working in an ocean. > >Ross Tessien Here is an update from today's headlines, re: dark matter and what it does emit. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) ================================================================== Scientists say home galaxy has a halo Missing matter of the universe may cause glow By David L. Chandler, Globe Staff, 11/05/97 The Milky Way galaxy, home of the sun and Earth, is surrounded by an aura of high-energy radiation that may be a sign of the long-sought ''missing matter'' in the universe, scientists reported yesterday. The researchers were startled by the glow, because the region outside the giant pinwheel-shaped galaxy has been thought to be virtually empty. ''There is nothing out there in other wavelengths,'' such as those detectable by optical or radio telescopes, that should be generating high-energy radiation, said a physicist David Dixon. The radiation, he said, forms an aurora extending into space many thousands of light-years, or many millions of billions of miles, possibly surrounding the Milky Way, a galaxy of about 100 billion stars. The previously undetected halo, made up of gamma rays, was discovered using an instrument called EGRET on the orbiting Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. ''These gamma rays are providing the first evidence that some high-energy process is occurring out there,'' said Dixon, the project leader. Gamma rays have the greatest energy of any form of electromagnetic radiation. They are produced by the most violent and dramatic events in the universe, such as a star's cataclysmic death throes, the birth of a galaxy, or collisions between supermassive objects, such as neutron stars or black holes. But ''as far as we can tell using other telescopes, the space around our galaxy is rather empty of the kinds of things which we would expect to generate gamma rays,'' Dixon said. The gamma-ray glow around the galaxy, he said, appears to spread out in a fairly uniform halo, rather than coming from a few distinct sources. ''It may be a fundamental phenomenon of the universe,'' said Stephen Maran, a spokesman for the American Astronomical Society. But, he said, it is not yet clear whether this is a permanent feature of the galaxy or some kind of temporary halo. Dixon offered three possible explanations for the glow: high-speed particles whizzing through space, called cosmic rays, could be colliding with photons - particles of light - to produce gamma rays; spinning neutron stars, which are the superdense collapsed remains of dead stars, could be emitting the rays; or the halo may be the first sign of the ''dark matter'' that theorists say must be the most abundant material in the universe but that has never been detected. It is the possibility that the glow is the result of dark matter that has astronomers excited, because the quest for this missing matter has been one of astronomers' most important in recent decades. One of the leading theories about dark matter - so called because it gives off no visible light or other forms of radiation that would make it visible to observers on Earth - is that it could be made up of subatomic particles of some unknown type. These have been dubbed WIMPs, for weakly interacting massive particles. While these particles would not interact with matter or with ordinary radiation, Dixon said, they might occasionally collide with each other, giving off gamma rays in the process. ''If you look at the wide distribution of where gamma rays are coming from, it is very suggestive of dark matter distribution,'' Dixon said, because it is spread so uniformly. Dixon, a physicist at the University of California, Riverside, made the discovery with the help of astrophysicist Dieter Hartmann of Clemson University and Eric Kolaczyk, a statistician at the University of Chicago. The discovery was reported at an astrophysics meeting this week in Estes Park, Colo. Gamma rays, which pack about a billion times more energy than rays of visible light, are absorbed by Earth's atmosphere and so can only be studied from space. Dixon said that others will doubtless come up with additional theories to account for the gamma-ray halo around the Milky Way, besides the three ideas he suggested. But he said that pinning down the explanation may require a new, more advanced gamma-ray telescope that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is planning for a future mission. The new telescope, called the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope, or GLAST, would provide much more detailed information about the distribution of the rays. This story ran on page A04 of the Boston Globe on 11/05/97. © Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:20:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10925; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:09:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:09:55 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971105110803.ZM23196 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:08:03 -0600 In-Reply-To: Mitchell Swartz "John Steck" (Nov 5, 10:34am) References: <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971105112715.0069892c world.std.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: John Steck Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"nkIgg1.0.ag2.UXAOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12433 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 5, 10:34am, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > Very little of the idiotic critiques, and ad hominems against > the field is a joke. My apologies for taking liberties with a sore topic. I *was* trying to poke fun, no hostility intended. 8^) Best wishes to you as well. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:34:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA14720; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:27:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:27:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105122454.006cc9f4 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 12:24:54 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: John Steck In-Reply-To: <971105110803.ZM23196 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971105112715.0069892c world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"61-YZ3.0.rb3._nAOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12434 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Think it is the medium that leads to some misinterpretaton. There is no way that we can use easily use over the internet the nuances of facial expressions that we primates are so used to, and apparently dependant upon to distinguish slight (but important) differences. ;-)X Mitchell Swartz At 11:08 AM 11/5/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote: >My apologies for taking liberties with a sore topic. I *was* trying to poke >fun, no hostility intended. 8^) > > >Best wishes to you as well. > > >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 09:44:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27875; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:36:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:36:35 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711041631_MC2-26B9-B3B6 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:35:00 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: scientific folly Resent-Message-ID: <"nPQAJ.0.Tp6.YwAOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12435 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Responding first to Jed Rothwell and then Mitchell Schwartz I think that there is quit a bit of misunderstanding here. I am not arguing that the observed cf effects are not real but rather that they are not nuclear and are instead due to a combined chemical and thermodynamic reaction. The nuclear aspect of cf is probably the greatest impediment to further advances in the field. Many of the bigtime cf advocates like Author C. Clarke have argued for such an approach - there is something there, maybe it is not fusion but there still is something there of great interest. >From Jed Rothwell' >There are three problems with the ECET hypothesis: > >1. It violates thermodynamics, especially the Second Law. That is the whole idea - the second law does not work when evaluated to higher order. That is the essential basic concept in my work and in Eu's papers. We differ in that Eu says the second law does not work so we must revise existing fluid dynamics so that it does work, and I say the second law does not work, that is the way it is, and let's see what use can come from that fact. >2. It would only work with flow calorimeters (if it worked at all). As I have >told him countless times, the excess heat effect is also seen in static and >thermoelectric envelope calorimeters. The effect is clearly much greater in flow calorimeters. I remember a quote in an early issue of infinite energy in which Jed says that CETI never got much excess energy out of their cells until they switched from static to flow calorimeters. I will look it up and give the reference. A smaller effect could also exist in static calorimeters but it should be consistent with the NHE findings that a static calorimeter producing apparent excess heat when placed into a flow calorimeter will give no excess heat in the flow calorimeter. >3. Cold fusion also produces nuclear effects: tritium, helium, neutrons and >transmutation. The ECET hypothesis cannot explain these effects. EPRI >estimates that in some cases they are 40 orders of magnitude greater than >conventional physics can explain. The nuclear effects are far below the amounts needed to explain the excess heat. In cases such as Claytor's tritium production the result is likely from hot fusion. He accelerates deuterium atoms into the target with 2Kev and that is enough energy to cause hot fusion. That works, no doubt about it, but just calculate the cost of the tritium produced and one sees that it is many orders of magnitude too high to be of any practical use. Even Claytor admits that his technique is of scientific but no practical interest. Mitchell Swartz says, > Unlike ECET which is a putative new process of which there are only >two experts including our own Lawrence Wharton, Nothing wrong with a field starting out with a small number of advocates. The great P&F were just two people. Gregg Watson is just one person and we could have shortly the evidence that his SMOT works. After the field matures and there is still only a few advocates then you know there is a problem. In two years from now if Gregg is the only one who thinks his SMOT, PMOD, or RMOG then there is most likely some problem with it. >cold fusion (CF) was confirmed by three labs at MIT, by NASA, by CEREM >(the French Atomic Energy Agency), was shown by the US NAVY to have >occurred in the Harwell data (often cited wrongly against cold fusion), >and has been confirmed by a plethora of laboratories (including Los Alamos). I agree that the large number of confirming experiments, including the lower level output of the static cells, show that there is a real phenomena there. My alternative theory to the cold fusion hypothesis still preserves the goal of unlimited free or nearly free energy. As long as you are exceeding the Carnot limit you achieve that goal. And there is not much doubt that this limit has been exceeded. The CETI Power Gen 95 demo gave about a kilowatt output with about 1 watt electrolysis input. The pressure drop across the cell was likely much less that 1 Atmosphere (about 10^5 Pascals) and probably the pump could not even produce a pressure of 1 Atmosphere. A flow rate of 10 ml/s over a pressure drop of 10^5 P would give a power of 1 watt so the pump input power to the cell was much less than 1 watt. Then the heat out to power in is still about 1000 to 1 even including the pump power input. This way exceeds the Carnot limit which would be about 50 to 1. The CETI cells used with flow calorimetry are the only convincing example of a heat excess exceeding the Carnot limit. The Carnot limit must be exceeded if the device is to be of any use. The lower output of the static cells are of scientific interest but of no practical interest. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 10:00:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA31093; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:49:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:49:11 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:46:55 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcea12$ce7ada80$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"TXofp3.0.lb7.L6BOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12436 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz posted the Globe News article on missing matter. Good Stuff. Intermolecular collisions heat, friction, light cause the formation of Hydrinos and Electrinos, these give off EUV (256 Kev heat)plus some visible photons,and occasionally cause some transmutation reactions that give off neutrinos and WIMPs ie., they are Athermal. This can occur in the electrolysis cells, in gas discharges, in hydrogenous friction devices (like wet brakes), in Vortex machines, and in the Griggs Pump, in single bubble sonoluminescent phenomena and probably in the Hot Fusion plasmas too. :-) "Cold Fusion" is okay by me.The big chore is to optimize it, if possible. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 10:04:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21064; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:55:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:55:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:55:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"t7HKb.0.z85.QCBOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12437 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:46 PM 11/4/97, John E. Steck wrote: [snip] > >Hey stranger! Nice to see you back. 8^) Gnorts to you too! Missed this place much. Suffered severe depression and withdrawal when I signed off. Sure sign of addiction! Shouldn't be here now, but a boys got to play sometime. [snip] >Hmmm, come to think of it, all that expensive CF equipment is rather >under utilized right now......... anyone interested? [snip] I've got some (other) electrolysis experiments going at the moment in my lab (er, uh, kitchen), but will eventually have the following available: (1) 5 probe digital thermistor thermometer certified NIST traceable to 0.1C accuracy and 0.02 C repeatable. (2) A number of dewar flasks and glass thermistor probe covers inserted in foam dewar lids (3) A selectable constant voltage (as opposed to constant current) power supply (4) Some deionized water (5) Some Li2SO4 (no KOH). Also have KNO3 and various other things to make electrolytes (e.g. Draino). What I am short on is nickel electode material and good KOH. I do have some of Scott Little's beads, but don't want to use them. They are still in the PPC I built but never tested. Hoping for something good to do with it later that maybe won't destroy the beads. I have some nichrome wire but that doesn't sound like a definitive test even by my amateur standards. Better than nothing I guess. Am willing to run some tests if no better info surfaces. Any suggestions for a source of suitable KOH or source of suitable electrodes for verification of endothermic properties? Can't order from chemical companies that give the third degree. (Residential.) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 10:10:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA02188; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:03:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:03:15 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711050340.VAA04705 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:07:09 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"ZEdIo3.0.RX.TJBOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12438 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I offer some background on electrostatically confined fusion, including "fusors" and other "brand names". The original concept is, as far as I know, by Farsnworth. The basic idea is to arrange some means to generate a large negative potential (at least some tens of kV) in a spherical system, so that ions (positive) will be trapped and oscillating radially. The ions collide, and occasionally a collision results in a nuclear fusion event. BTW, here we are talking about confentional nuclear fusion between two colliding energetic (tens of kV) ions, ie. "hot" fusion. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept, but there are many serious problems to overcome. The most obvious one is that the pressure that can be exerted by practical electric fields is small, because the maximum electric field that can be produced between two electrodes is small. This is because real electrodes emit electrons at high electric field (field emission) which leads to heating and failure, usually in the form of an electric spark. Farnsworth saw a possible way to improve on the basic electric confinement. He arranged to launch the ions as nearly as possible in the radially inward direction, with as little azimuthal velocity as possible (minimizing angular momentum). Then, at low background gas pressure the ions oscillate along radial trajectories. They converge at the center of the sphere, where the density (and thus the pressure) can be very much greater than at the outer surface of the sphere, where as noted above the practical confining electrostatic pressure is limited. Note that this 'pressure multiplication' does not violate any thermodynamic law, because the ion velocities are not Maxwellian distributed. (Thermodynamics is about Maxwellian systems.) Collisions give ions azimuthal velocity and must be avoided as much as possible. Ion-ion elastic collisions are unavoidable, and the elastic collision probablilty is orders of magnitude greater than the fusion probability. That Coulomb barrier _is_ a barrier to all who would exploit fusion reactions, be they of the hot team or the cold :<(. The radial convergence helps, because most of the ion-ion collisions take place in the dense region near the center, and thus they produce only small increments of angular momentum. However, standard kinetic calculations show that the elastic collisions will beat the fusion collisions, and net energy will not be obtained. Therefore, one must now invent ways to refocus the scattered ions or "cool" them in their azimuthal degrees of freedom. In principle this is not impossible; it is done, for example, in high energy accelerators and storage rings and in special electron and ion traps. Another kind of collision, not fundamental, is ion collisions with grids. Most of the experiments use grids to apply the negative electric potential. However, even with very open grids intercept ions. Bussard, to the limited extent that I am familiar with the details of his concept, establishes the potential by radial injection of charged particle beams. Of course, it takes energy to make the beams, and now beam ions must be contained and recycled to a very high degree if net power is to be produced. Nature is occasionally kind. It was discovered (I think first by experiment, rather than by calculation from theory, but I do not know the history that well) that the kinetic and electrostatic interaction between ions and electrons in these systems can sometimes produce multi-humped potential distributions. (Other examples of self-organized multi-humped potentials are well known in plasma physics and electrochemistry.) This phenomenon appears to be exploitable to improve electrostatic confinement. Also, the particle distribution can oscillate, either freely or upon being driven. Oscillation modes can have very large amplitudes in the convergence region, leading to periodic short bursts of enhanced fusion. It remains to be seen if any of these or as yet undiscovered or uninvented effects can improve electrostatic confinement sufficiently to yield net fusion power. Currently in the USA there is a small, but fruitful, amount of theory, experiment and development activity. (1) The largest group I know of (a couple of people) is at Los Alamos Nat Lab. Presently they are trying to exploit the oscillations. They also are studying combined electrostatic and magnetic confinement of spherically converging ions in a Penning trap. (2) At the U. of Illinois, George Miley, known on Vortex for his cold fusion and transmutation work, has also been working on electrostatic confinement on and off for many years. Recently he has made good measurements of double humped potentials. He has also given a lot of attention to short-term applications far below fusion breakeven. For example, he has licensed technology to a German firm to make compact neutron sources. (Neutron sources already exist using other trechnologies. Neutrons are good probe particles, because they are uncharged and penetrate many materials. They can be used to examine luggage at airports, scan for suspected nuclear material for disarmament monitoring, and identify the composition of the material outside an oil well pipe 5 km below the surface.) Also, a slightly nonspherical system emits an ion jet in one direction and can be used as a small thruster on satellites, etc. (3) Bussard had a group working on an experiment here in San Diego. I don't know if they are still working or if they have any money now. Comments on recent posts: "If fusors can be developed into viable power sources, Bussard is optimistic that their ability to supply great amounts of energy, without the tremendous heating and dangerous levels of radioactivity associated with thermonuclear fusion, could lead to the development of space drives for routine interplanetary travel within our lifetimes." (quote posted by M. Randall) The absence of radioactive products is contingent on the use of B-11 fuel. The proton-B11 fusion rate is much smaller than deuterium-tritium and other fusion reactions. The performance of electrostatic (or magnetic or inertial confinement fusion devices) will have to be improved greatly in order to realize this advantage. The direct conversion of ~3 MeV He+ product ions is possible in principle, but it is far from trivial in practice. (Note: This is _not_ how Pu electric generators work; they let the radioactive decay product slow donw and then they convert the resulting heat.) >According to Farnsworth's research he acheived a 30 sec. self-sustained fusion reaction on Dec. 28, 1965, according to his wife that was a witness to the event. In Farnsworth's Fusor Mark III-Mod.6 (Patent 3,386,883) at 170 kv and 70 ma at vacuum 10-6mm of hg with a mixture of tritium and deuterium as fuel, he acheived a 1.55 x 10 10th neutron count. This input power is about 12 KILOwatts, the fusion output is a bit under 50 MILLIwatts. This is _not_ "self-sustained" fusion. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 10:21:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06662; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:17:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:17:00 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971105103501.ZM22801 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> References: Mitchell Swartz "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 4, 6:19pm) <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:21:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"9863A3.0.wd1.PWBOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12439 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 04:46 PM 11/4/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote: > >> It would seem compelling now to setup a device with >> these parameters to verify the threshold and to measure >> the temperature decrease of the electrolite > >The thermoneutral voltage for electrolysis is called out as 1.481 V at 25 C. > (same reference text as before) > >1.23 to 1.47 V the reaction is endothermic >1.47 to 2.00+ V the reaction is exothermic > >Still unclear on the exact endothermic value for a specific reaction at a >specific V. No data on that. Anyone? "Endo" or "Exo" just depends on which direction the reaction is being pushed. If you combine H2 and O2 the reaction is exothermic; if you dissociate water into H2 and O2 it is endothermic. 1.23 V is the free energy. 1.48 V is the enthalpy (heat at constant pressure). Any cell voltage above 1.48 V while dissociating water is due to power absorbtion by some process somewhere in the cell (eg. electrolyte electrical resistance, resistive films on electrode surfaces, concentration gradient potentials at electrodes). Usually this ends up as dissipation as heat in the cell. BTW, some people who have posted recently seem to thing that internal cell processes somehow affect how one calculated electrical input power. If any "black box" has only two electrical terminals, then the electrical power into that box is IV, pure and simple. The internal processes, no matter how nonlinear and time dependent, only affect what V and I are. But is is easy to measure V and I. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 10:34:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10383; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:26:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:26:42 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:24:24 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcea18$0b6f75e0$21a6410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"wJJBU2.0.5Y2.UfBOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12440 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 11:03 AM Subject: Re: Hydrogen Horace wrote: > >Any suggestions for a source of suitable KOH Horace, if you have access to some clean wood ashes leach them out with water to get the K2CO3, then some lime Ca(OH)2 will convert this to CaCO3 plus 2 KOH. Remember Grandma's Lye Soap? :-) Keep away from too much air though or it will pick up atmospheric CO2 and revert to K2CO3. Good to see you back! Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 11:23:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA30367; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:13:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:13:07 -0800 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971105131247.ZM24234 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:12:47 -0600 In-Reply-To: Schaffer gav.gat.com "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 5, 12:20pm) References: Mitchell Swartz "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 4 6:19pm) <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"ZRbkv2.0.BQ7._KCOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12441 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 5, 12:20pm, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > 1.23 V is the free energy. 1.48 V is the enthalpy (heat at constant > pressure). Any cell voltage above 1.48 V while dissociating water is due > to power absorbtion by some process somewhere in the cell (eg. electrolyte > electrical resistance, resistive films on electrode surfaces, concentration > gradient potentials at electrodes). Usually this ends up as dissipation as > heat in the cell. The answer is likely "already tried and failed", but I am somewhat suprised this non-paradox requiring situation hasn't been exploited yet. By utilizing ambient heat to "fuel" an operating endothermic cell, an excess could be generated in the form of chemical PE. Profitable, but not o/u. It would just making use of readily available and free low grade heat. Again I wonder, how much heat is specifically drawn into the reaction? Alloting for anticipated efficiency losses, I would expect more heat would need to be drawn into the reaction to split than recovered in recombination. My book just says "+heat". It doesn't quantify it. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 11:50:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05345; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:38:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:38:53 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971105133323.ZM24356 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:33:23 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 5, 12:26pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"qCvUR.0.BJ1.BjCOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12442 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 5, 12:26pm, Horace Heffner wrote: > Any suggestions for a source of suitable KOH or source of suitable > electrodes for verification of endothermic properties? Can't order from > chemical companies that give the third degree. (Residential.) You can get KOH naturally by straining water through wood ashes. Run a current through it to check resistance to figure out concentration. Keep straining or adding water to achieve the recommended 20-30% KOH solution. Make sure you filter all the ash out! (coffee filters work great) Probably not ideal, but any stainless steel will suffice for the nickel. Hit your local hardware store and see if they have any screen or wire mesh. You are primarily after maximum surface area, so use your best judgement. The book I have shows a pretty simple schematic. I can bring it in tomorrow, scan it, and post it for you if you want. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 11:52:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07141; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:47:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:47:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:44:02 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711051446_MC2-26F0-E170 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3otpJ2.0.Vl1.jrCOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12443 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: It is high time that the world found out the truth behind your claimed success, Greg. In fact, I'm surprised that Jed hasn't started accusing you of letting innocent people starve in underdeveloped countries by withholding potentially vital energy technologies from commercialization. No, no . . . no! Only if I am convinced he has something. Greg may be yet another Perpetual Motion Machine Man. In that case he is doing the world a favor by suppressing knowledge of the machine. We have enough perpetual motion machines already. People send me blueprints for them every month. Seriously, Chris & I may have exaggerated the argument, but there is a moral dimension to this debate which should not be forgotten. I think most people would agree that a medical research company with a viable vaccine for AIDS or childhood diarrhea would be morally obligated to market such medicines or give them to a do-good research organization. Furthermore, the legal standards for corporate liability are much higher than they used to be. When tobacco companies run scared society has changed! I doubt it will happen, but I can imagine a situation in 20 years in which Exxon is sued for hiding their own cold fusion results, just as the tobacco companies are in hot water for knowing what they knew 30 years ago. When a company sells a product that damages people's health, and it can be shown that the company knew for a long time about a viable alternative or a method of reducing the damage, the company can be held liable. Cold fusion does not meet that test today, because it is far from being a proven alternative, but the day may come . . . I propose an official Vortex committee visit to your house to observe the RMOD device running all by itself continuously. We could all pitch in and buy an elected Vortex member the necessary airline ticket...sort of like the way s.p.f. sent Tom Droege to Griggs place...only this time we'd do it better by preparing the representative beforehand with agreed-upon observations and tests to perform. This is tempting, but I think it is poor idea. Greg said that the latest machines can be assembled and operated easily. He can resolve our doubts for the cost of mailing one or two packages to Scott Little and Gene Mallove (or one or two others on the list of purchasers). Somehow, it seems to me it is a bad idea to take time off from work, mount an expedition, and spend hundreds of dollars to resolve a question that Greg could resolve for $20 in postage this afternoon. An expedition seems disproportionate. Gene has been on several wild goose chases to look at magic magnet motors. I have watched videos of his adventures. In the inventor's workshop, the closer you look the less you know. The whole thing is fishy. Greg chooses not to end the arguments. I must conclude that he does not want the arguments to end for some reason, or he is unable to end them. Since Greg does not want to settle the issue, we should back off. I learned many years ago that when a person acts as if he does not want to sell something, there is a always a good reason, and you should not buy it. Griggs is a different case. His machine cannot be moved easily, and it takes considerable skill to operate in the high excess-energy mode. If Greg tells us that his latest machine produces sustained, self-regenerating energy but it requires skill to operate, then I will fully in favor of an expedition. I'll contribute money to assist. Still, Greg should take the first step. He should mail out several copies of a video showing the machine in operation. If he isn't willing to do that, he does not want to sell and we don't want to buy. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 12:54:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26186; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:38:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:38:37 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:38:17 -0500 (EST) From: Todd Heywood To: " minnie.nic.kingston.ibm.com":@minnie.nic.kingston.ibm.com:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Science papers (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"w3x-C1.0.XO6.AbDOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12444 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This one hits home... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ************************************** SCIENCE PAPER JARGONS AND THE REAL MEANING BEHIND THEM: It has long been known.... (I haven't bothered to look up the reference.) It is believed.... (I think.) It is generally believed.... (A couple of other guys think so too.) It is not unreasonable to assume (If you believe this, you'll believe anything) Of great theoretical importance (I find it kind of interesting) Of great practical importance (I can get some mileage out of it) Typical results are shown (The best results are shown) Three samples were chosen for further study (The others didn't make sense, so we ignored them) The four-hour determination was not studied (I dropped it on the floor) The four-hour determination may not be significant (I dropped it on the floor but scooped most of it up) It has not been possible to provide definitive answers (The experiment was negative, but at least I can publish the results somewhere) Correct within an order of magnitude (Wrong) It might be argued that.... (I have such a good answer for this objection that I shall now raise it) Much additional work will be required (This paper is not very good, but neither are all the others in this miserable field) These investigations proved highly rewarding (My grant is going to be renewed) I thank Jane for assistance with the experiments, and Bob for useful discussions on the interpretation of the data (Jane did the experiment and Bob explained it) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 12:55:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA30220; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:48:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:48:55 -0800 Message-ID: <3460DAD0.4BC0 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:45:04 -0600 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up References: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> <345F99D3.FD1FEB53@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Qh3fE.0.xN7.rkDOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12445 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > What's IMPORTANT to me is that as many people as possible, understand > the everyday physical effects which drive my gadgets. Then you MUST prove it. No disrespect intended, but your ideas will die if you don't convince others that the effect is real. They must see it for themselves; look at it; touch it; know that it isn't 'set-up'. If you do this, everyone on this list will go into the archives, dig up all your messages, archive your web-page, and eat up every word you say like there was honey on your tongue. :) And you will move the world a large step closer to harmony. Hasta, Craig Haynie Houston From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:01:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA32431; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:56:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:56:24 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105144955.00713d64 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:49:55 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: John Steck In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105122454.006cc9f4 world.std.com> References: <971105110803.ZM23196 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971105112715.0069892c world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"lk92b1.0.Zw7.trDOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12448 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:24 11/5/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Think it is the medium that leads to some misinterpretaton. >There is no way that we can use easily use over the internet >the nuances of facial expressions that we primates are so used to, >and apparently dependant upon to distinguish slight (but important) > differences. ;-)X This is an excellent point. In my experience the majority of the disagreements that arise via email are a result of miscommunication that likely would not occur in a face to face discussion. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:01:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA32379; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:56:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:56:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105141220.00711a2c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:12:20 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH In-Reply-To: <971105112401_-1241288001 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"2d_r41.0.rv7.erDOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12447 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:26 11/5/97 -0500, Tstolper aol.com wrote: >How would the emissivity of the metal filament in a gas-phase BLP cell, or >the emissivity of the interior surface of the container in which the filament >was placed, affect the calorimetry? Good thinking! I don't think it could. BTW, do you know how they are making this particular calorimetric measurement? Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:02:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA31243; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:51:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:51:22 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971105205110.00698a40 atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:51:10 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"vWkhl.0.4e7.8nDOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12446 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton writes: >A highly polished metal surface would be a poor IR radiator. Another >example would be the silvered surface on Thermos jugs. It is necessary to >reduce the IR radiation and a Thermos would not be much good without it. >If the heat calibration of the supposed gas phase cf device is done >before cleaning, as is the case, then the emissivity during calibration >would be higher than in actual operation. This would give a very large >error, on the order of a factor of two or more in the apparent heat >generated. That is because the cleaned metal surface will be hotter for >the same energy input as the IR radiation would be much reduced. > >Of course the solution would be to do the calibration after cleaning but >this is not possible to gas phase cf advocates because the cleaning >process is thought to be the same as the hydrogen loading process. I >recall that the first time I read a gas phase cf paper, a paper by >Panatelli, the thing that most impressed me was that the procedure for >supposedly loading in the hydrogen was identical to the procedure we use >here at NASA to clean our metal surfaces and when the metal reactor >surface is cleaned it will heat up. Thanks for this clear explanation. Now I understand much better your point, and it seems to me that you have raised a very serious objection to BLP and similar results. At the moment, IMO, it certainly looks like you have slain, or at least seriously wounded, the BLP dragon. Thanks for the enlightenment on this issue. Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:18:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA21962; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:04:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:04:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105145231.0070b16c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:52:31 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"4bT2O2.0.2N5.RzDOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12449 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:55 11/5/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >What I am short on is nickel electode material and good KOH. Are you going for the Mills experiment, Horace? In that case you need K2CO3. EarthTech would be glad to donate some material to you. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:31:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25223; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:24:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:24:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34610DD4.2F07 bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:22:44 -0800 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up References: <199711051446_MC2-26F0-E170 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TgXvf2.0.1A6.KGEOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12450 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] > Somehow, it seems to me it is a > bad idea to take time off from work, mount an expedition, and spend hundreds > of dollars to resolve a question that Greg could resolve for $20 in postage > this afternoon. An expedition seems disproportionate. I agree, Jed; however, one of my former co-workers, who witnessed my SMOT fiddlings, is working on the Sydney 2000 project (Olympic transportation) and visits downunder frequently (AAMOF he's there now). I don't know how often he gets to Adelaide (about 1000 km ATCF from Sydney); but, I have emailed him to ask if he is interested. He was enchanted by the "apparent" rollaways. He's a brilliant, young EE and not nearly as fringey as me. No reason not to take a look if it can be done for free on a weekend, eh? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:35:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09480; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:29:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:29:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:26:01 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: scientific folly Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711051628_MC2-26ED-A7B8 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"aPNa31.0.pJ2.5LEOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12452 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Lawrence E. Wharton writes: I think that there is quit a bit of misunderstanding here. I am not arguing that the observed cf effects are not real but rather that they are not nuclear and are instead due to a combined chemical and thermodynamic reaction. I do not misunderstand. I just think you are wrong. The nuclear aspect of cf is probably the greatest impediment to further advances in the field. If so, that is a political problem. You cannot make the tritium and helium vanish away just because it is perceived as an "impediment" and it upsets conventional scientists. For that matter, you cannot make it go away just because it proves your hypothesis is wrong. Many of the bigtime cf advocates like Author C. Clarke have argued for such an approach . . . He does not! You'll have to take my word for it. When Los Alamos reports tritium and SRI's autoradiographs come out black, Clarke does not dismiss this evidence the way Lawrence Wharton does. I wrote that Wharton's hypothesis violates thermodynamics, especially the Second Law. He responds, reasonably enough: That is the whole idea - the second law does not work when evaluated to higher order. Yes, I understand that, but the Second Law is a large impediment, as you put it. I do not think any scientist will agree unless you can show compelling experimental evidence. The CF evidence does not supports this hypothesis one bit. Every calibration shows that CF calorimeters work exactly like other calorimeters used in other applications. As far as anyone knows they never violate the Second Law. If they did, they would be useless. The textbook listings for the heat of formation of chemicals would be meaningless. The numbers would change every time you run the experiment. The effect is clearly much greater in flow calorimeters. Incorrect! It is just the opposite. Flow calorimeters inhibit the effect. This was pointed out two of the top people in the field, Fleischmann and McKubre. Wharton has not read the literature. The type of calorimeter does play a role in inhibiting or enhancing CF effect, but other factors like the choice of cathode material are far more important. Good palladium alloyed with silver when carefully prepared will produce a huge effect in any kind of calorimeter. Bad palladium, platinum, or palladium with light water produces no effect. A joule heater in the cell produces no effect. How on earth can Wharton's ECET theory explain that? Why do the thermodynamic properties of these systems change radically when you substitute one cathode metal for another, or when you run the electricity through Nichrome instead of electrolysis? Does Maxwell's demon look at the metal and go on strike? I remember a quote in an early issue of infinite energy in which Jed says that CETI never got much excess energy out of their cells until they switched from static to flow calorimeters. This is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. CETI must use flowing electrolyte or the beads in the middle of the pack will overheat and melt, or boil off the electrolyte, dry out, and lose continuity. CETI has always used flowing electrolyte. However, years ago, Patterson employed an intravenous fluid pump at a low flow rate, a few milliliters per minute. That was enough to keep the beads intact, but you cannot do flow calorimetry at that flow rate. The fluid does not mix and most of the heat is lost from the hose by the time it reaches the outlet thermocouple. Patterson did not try to do flow calorimetry. He did only static calorimetry based on the cell temperature. He ignoring the heat that was carried off by the moving electrolyte. He saw up to 500% excess, based on static calorimetry alone. Later, he increased the flow rate enough to do both static and flow calorimetry. That is to say, the cell heats up compared to a calibration curve and the inlet and outlet temperatures are also measurably different. Both methods confirm that the cell is producing massive excess heat. A smaller effect could also exist in static calorimeters . . . As I said, the effect is often much larger in static calorimeters. But in any case, how on earth could ECET work there? How can the heat migrate from the room into the hotter body? How does it penetrate the walls of a thermoelectric envelope calorimeter? I can imagine some kind of transport of heat in something like refrigerator fluid - in a flow calorimeter. But I cannot imagine how any form of ECET can make Pons and Fleischmann's cell boil in a static calorimeter for months on end, keeping it 80 deg C hotter than the surroundings. . . . but it should be consistent with the NHE findings that a static calorimeter producing apparent excess heat when placed into a flow calorimeter will give no excess heat in the flow calorimeter. The only valid example of that the NHE has discussed was a case in which room temperature changes produced a bogus effect in an air cooled static calorimeter. When the cell is far hotter than the highest air temperature fluctuation this cannot happen. The nuclear effects are far below the amounts needed to explain the excess heat. Incorrect and irrelevant. The best helium studies show that helium production is commensurate with a plasma fusion reaction. Furthermore, *any* definite level of nuclear products, like helium or tritium, proves that the CF must have a nuclear component. It may be ZPE or collapsing hydrinoes or energy leaking in from Mars for all I know, but it also involves changes to the nucleus. Wharton's hypothesis cannot account for these changes. Therefore it cannot explain the reaction. In cases such as Claytor's tritium production the result is likely from hot fusion. Says who? Claytor and others tell me that hypothesis (which is popular on s.p.f.) is many, many orders of magnitude impossible, based on what we know of hot fusion. Even Claytor admits that his technique is of scientific but no practical interest. So we can wave our hands and dismiss this scientific evidence? And what about the tritium from other CF experiments, including electrochemical ones? EPRI says the nuclear evidence is 40 orders of magnitude greater than we would expect from systems of this type. Wharton thinks he can dismiss all 40 zeros! He should hope that EPRI burns their autoradiograph films. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 13:41:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09415; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:29:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:29:33 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:25:46 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Facial expressions Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711051628_MC2-26ED-A7B6 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gCWvd2.0.0J2.yKEOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12451 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz Think it is the medium that leads to some misinterpretation. There is no way that we can use easily use over the internet the nuances of facial expressions that we primates are so used to, and apparently dependant upon to distinguish slight (but important) differences. ;-)X Primates do depend on sight more than most species. Our vision is better than most. This is probably because we are evolved to swing through trees. That's how we got such good binocular vision. Facial expression conveys much important social information BUT it is not essential. Blind people can be quite sensitive to social nuances and other people's emotions. They sense emotion by tone of voice, breathing, timing and other clues. Perhaps they would find it easier if they could see, but I do not think so. We have no trouble picking up emotions in telephone conversations with people we cannot see. Talking on the telephone was a novel experience in 1880, and children find it disconcerting, but they soon grow used to it. I do not think that visual telephones would add much to the nuances of social interaction. If Swartz had talked to Steck on the telephone he would have understood that Steck's comments were sarcastic, and not meant to be taken literally. Blind people also key in on the content and choice of words, just as we do when reading this text. English offers a fantastic array of choices, words, and nuances for every occasion. The art of expressing social nuances and subtle gradations of feelings in writing was dying art until recently. The boom in e-mail is reviving it. Perhaps this is contributing to the boom in movies based on English literature by Jane Austin and Shakespeare. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 14:04:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02265; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:57:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:57:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:54:10 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Emissivity Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711051657_MC2-26F0-F07F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"nn93K.0.JZ.KlEOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12453 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I do not know much about the Mills gas phase experiments. I know not understand the emissivity hypothesis that Larry Wharton has been discussing. Perhaps this effect plays some role with the Mills cells. I suppose the U. of P. or the power company would have realized that before they plunked $10 million into the company, but you never know -- people do make mistakes. If I were in their shoes, I would double check with something like a Seebeck calorimeter, which is immune to this class of problems. I have studied other gas phase calorimeters and I am sure it plays no role with them. For one thing, Wharton discusses "a highly polished metal surface" which comes in contact with hydrogen. Most of the gas cells I have seen are lined with Teflon on the inside to prevent contamination. Furthermore, Mizuno performed extensive and repeated calibrations and dummy runs over a period of years, but he saw no significant changes in the performance of the cell. Different types of gas (deuterium versus hydrogen) give different performance. Changes in gas pressure also affect performance, but not much. To avoid these problems, when Oriani replicated Mizuno, he built a Seebeck calorimeter (a thermoelectric envelope around the cell). This is immune to changes inside the cell or in the cell wall performance. Changes in emissivity would only get the heat out more quickly, or slow it down. It would all come out eventually. It is measured after it radiates from the cell walls. Oriani confirmed Mizuno's excess heat. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 14:17:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06560; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:10:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:10:36 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971105220957.008f9208 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:09:57 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"E1u0V1.0.Pc1.QxEOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12455 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:55 AM 11/5/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 4:46 PM 11/4/97, John E. Steck wrote: >[snip] > >Any suggestions for a source of suitable KOH or source of suitable >electrodes for verification of endothermic properties? Can't order from >chemical companies that give the third degree. (Residential.) > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Strem Chemical sends me chemicals and did not ask (or assume) if I was residential (I'm in a farm and forest zoning classification). Their address: Strem Chemicals Dexter Industrial Park Newburyport, MA 01950-4098 Orders: Phone: 1-800-647-8736 Fax: 1-800-517-8736 E-mail: info strem.com Web Site: http://www.strem.com Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 14:19:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03812; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:01:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:01:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:57:54 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711051700_MC2-26F3-2699 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SEJh_1.0.Kx.2pEOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12454 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Terry says he knows a guy near Greg who can pop over there: "No reason not to take a look if it can be done for free on a weekend, eh?" Sure! That's a different story. Heck, if I was an hour away nothing could stop me. Greg would have to install a deadbolt lock to keep me out. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 14:28:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10443; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:22:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:22:01 -0800 Message-ID: <3460F17E.4172CF3B microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:51:51 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: Simple RMOG OU Proof ? References: <199711050811.AAA08704 denmark.it.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GjrmE1.0.UY2.46FOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12456 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dave Dameron wrote: > > Hello Hamdi and Greg, > At 08:05 AM 11/5/97 +1030, you wrote: > >Hamdi Ucar wrote: > >> > >> I think a simulation on rubber suspended ferrite rod experiment will > possibly show the magnetic flux around the air gap is increasing when > strength of opposing poles increase. So the suspended core (while helping > closing the loop) will be attracted eventually to the positive direction of > the magnetic gradient. This can not be interpreted as OU effect because it > can be explained with conservative terms. > >> > > > >Exactly my point. There is NO magic here. NO new physic. Just a NEW > >design of a flux gate generator which uses a, until now, unknown > >effect. > >... > >Its the INCREASED inward attractive force that makes the Rmog OU. > > > >As to where the extra energy comes from????????????? > > > > I wrote on Oct. 26. > >> > I have more thoughts on the energy. Call the magnetic energy transferred to > the disk KE = U(x) where x= distance from the center of the flus gap. U(0) > is maximum and U(-5mm) is less, without any DNMEC effects. Also U(x) = > U(-x), the energy used to climb out of the fluxgate is the same as gained > going in. This was Greg's answer to Butch. Correct. Energy gain in equals energy loss out + frictional losses + hysteresis losses + eddy current losses in the steel bits of the circuit. > Assume, with the DNMEC that the energy U(-5) has been increased by DeltaU. > Then going from x=-5mm to x=0, the disk gains energy, with the switch off, > like the non DNMEC case U(0) - U(-5), an additional positive amount, and > requires U(0) to > "climb" out, with a net gain of DeltaU. If this was the case, the RMOG would > run if DeltaU > frictional losses, etc. Correct. > However, the gain in energy, DeltaU > seems to be coming from the rotating disk itself inducing current in the > coils. NO. The energy comes from the ferrite itself. The aligning domains. > Unless this efficiency is >100%, then the drag is > than the DeltaU > and the RMOG will stop. The drag can be such that the energy taked from the > disk at x=-5mm is even greater than the non DNMEC case, and the RMOG is > connected as a generator/eddy current brake. With the simple test with 2 > magnets, it seems that you have to supply the added energy from the greater > repulsion of the magnets with the ferrite (lower reluctance with smaller air > gap). Could someone do a quick field simulation of this? I am working on the shorted coil QF sims now, will be up today. > Greg, do you think there is an additional source of energy? A thermal > collection similar to the idea in the Dragone paper? A nuclear effect, the > "N" in DNMEC? The energy source of the RMOG is the same as the PMOD and the SMOT. A weak aligning H field produces a stronger B field. With ALL other energy systems, the H and B fields are locked together and we can't use the increased B field energy produced by the aligning ATOMIC dipoles. ALL of my research has this ONE basic theroy at its heart. How to transfer the energy in the spinning electrical charges (electrons) of the Irom atoms into External work. > Thanks for any more suggestions and giving out all your thoughs and ideas. > -Dave << > > I don't know if the extra energy is "thermal magnetic", or how much is > coming from the rotation -> coil emf, but if it is thermal, then Greg may > not call it OU, like a heat pump? If the emf builds due to added attraction, > then turning it off when the fluxgate leaves will produce this delta. Of > course all my comments are speculation until I get my Rmog to work like > Greg's. When it does, I will post it quickly with some excitement! You need to modify to the Mk3 design with its balanced magnetic thrust loads. I will post more Mk3 design specs by the weekend. > -Dave > Greg, in your Mk3, are the stators still made from steel except the coil > cores and magnets? Hi Dave, Thanks for the excellent post. Good to see someone is starting to understand the Dmec effect in the Rmog. Except for the magnet and ferrite coil core, the rest of the magnetic circuit is steel. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 15:01:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07172; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:50:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:50:23 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: , Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:47:09 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcea3c$bfe7ad20$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"WFtwP3.0.-l1.dWFOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12457 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 3:04 PM Subject: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up >To: Vortex > >Terry says he knows a guy near Greg who can pop over there: "No reason not to >take a look if it can be done for free on a weekend, eh?" Sure! That's a >different story. Heck, if I was an hour away nothing could stop me. Greg >would have to install a deadbolt lock to keep me out. I installed several of those just in case. :-) The neighbor's 2 "Rothweller" dogs are also there for backup. Mean critters too. :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Jed > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 15:06:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07391; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:53:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:53:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105175038.006cfff0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:50:38 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: References: <971105103501.ZM22801 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> <3.0.1.32.19971104190955.006c889c world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qVZd_.0.Np1.jZFOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12458 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:21 AM 11/5/97 -0800, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >1.23 V is the free energy. 1.48 V is the enthalpy (heat at constant >pressure). The units of potential (volts) are not those of enthalpy (joules). Might multiply by q, and specify under what conditions the assignments hold. ================================================================= >Any cell voltage above 1.48 V while dissociating water is due >to power absorbtion by some process somewhere in the cell (eg. electrolyte >electrical resistance, resistive films on electrode surfaces, concentration >gradient potentials at electrodes). Usually this ends up as dissipation as >heat in the cell. You might also include activation polarization and hydrogen overvoltage which although low on platinum can be higher or very high upon, and as, other materials might electrodeposit on the surface. ================================================================= >BTW, some people who have posted recently seem to thing that internal cell >processes somehow affect how one calculated electrical input power. If any >"black box" has only two electrical terminals, then the electrical power >into that box is IV, pure and simple. The internal processes, no matter >how nonlinear and time dependent, only affect what V and I are. But is is >easy to measure V and I. > More difficult to measure the distribution of the electric field intensity which IMO is the more relevant parameter. For example, the quasi-1-dimensional model of loading indicates that it controls the loading in several ways. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 15:26:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03071; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:22:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:22:13 -0800 Message-ID: <3460FF9A.EB2E2172 microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:52:02 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT Magnetic Anomaly & Ou Proof References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RISac1.0.ml.Y-FOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12459 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > Do the second of the SMOT simple OU Proof tests at : > > > http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson/smotouproof.html > > What is the point of the differential ramp test? That the SMOT ramps have real frictional losses which can't be thrown away. With the N Gauge tracks I use, a slight nudge will cause the ball to roll no more than 15mm. That same nudge will however move the ball up and down 4 linked ramps and deposit it 500mm away. If we establish a field gradient equal to the start and finish along a level track, the ball given a slight nudge will roll again only about 15mm. Sorry to labour on the same point, but energy had to come from somewhere to move the ball through 500mm of lossy track. I am sure that the level track set-up, if we were in space and had No losses, would move the ball from the start to the end. But we are not, the rolling losses of the track are real. You can't ignore the track losses. The Simple Proof shows that the linked SMOT ramps DO provide energy to overcome the frictional losses. > Is it established > logically that this reveals a true energy differential and not just an > efficiency differential with regard to a rolling ferrous ball? The energy > distribution of the fields could well net out symetrically while a rolling > ball sees different dynamics from different directions. Assuming constant > track frictional losses, symmetry could be measured by carefully measuring > the force on a static ball at numerous points through the array and > summing. I think the rollthrough experiment *could* be saying that the > fields are anomalously assymetrical, or it *could* be saying that it's more > efficient for a ball to roll through one way rather than another. Which do > you want to bet it is? Anomalous. > Tesla's homopolar patents show how eddy currents can cause this behavior in > those devices. Spin it one way, it's draggy. The other way, it's much > easier. > > To prove SMOT OU, just show good level rollaways, that's all. Will do. > - Rick Monteverde Hi Rick, I don't understand WHY you object to the Simple OU Proof. Rollaways, Rollarounds. There are other ways to skin this cat. The frictional losses are real. Please explain WHY the Simple OU Proof (linked & level ramps) is invalid. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 15:32:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06682; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:29:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:29:03 -0800 Message-ID: <34610138.669141A3 microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 09:58:56 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Greg Watson shares the blame References: <199711041701_MC2-26B9-B690 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RzFK63.0.5e1.w4GOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12460 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Greg - > > > Yet given these same start and final field densities, > > the SMOT will quickly draw the ball up the ramp > > and let it drop off to rest at the starting level. No > > rollaway needed here. > > Now this is starting to worry me again; in the above statement you imply a > claim that the behavior described indicates anomalous or OU behavior when > clearly it does neither. > > You say that "Yet given these same start and final field densities...", but > they are not the same. The ball at the start is somewhat free to roll > either way, perhaps just barely within the fields enough that we can easily > start it *towards* the stronger fields. And yet at the bottom of a ramp > without rollaway capability the ball is clearly held with much more force > than it experienced at the start point. So the first statement is false, > and the second, "...let it drop off to rest at the starting level" doesn't > have the relevance you seem to be trying to give it. Just because it ends > up at the same gravitational potential doesn't mean that it isn't in a > lower energy state in this system - it most certainly is. Therefore, the > conclusion "No rollaway needed here" is not true. > > Have I misunderstood this somehow? Was this a mistake or typo, or do you > really believe that just because a ball rolls up a ramp and drops down > stuck in the field at the same gravitational potential that it's either an > anomaly or OU? > > True level rollaways *are* needed to prove SMOT OU. > > - Rick Monteverde HI Rick, You took my comment out of context. The statement was part of the two ramp set-up (4 x linked, 1 x level). No, I don't believe a climb & drop is a clear OU example. But if the same ball on the same now level track will now not move in a field gradient going from the first to the last field density, then something is going on. Energy had to come from somewhere to overcome real frictional losses. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 15:48:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12248; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:41:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:41:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:40:12 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT Magnetic Anomaly & Ou Proof In-Reply-To: <3460FF9A.EB2E2172 microtronics.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"TLiZY2.0.E_2.dGGOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12461 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > > Please explain WHY the Simple OU Proof (linked & level ramps) is > invalid. > >From my own experience it is quite obvious that the ball is in a lower magnetic potential at the end of a SMOT so you can't say that this test proves OU. It is intriguing and has propelled many of us to spend a lot of time with these things but it is not proof by any means. Good luck with your robust proofs. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 16:34:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA28679; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:26:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:26:52 -0800 Message-ID: <34610E83.41D9 interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:26:24 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: NASA- Podkletnov effect status Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ukR6b2.0.s_6.AxGOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12462 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Interesting comment of gravity modification work: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/BPPWrkshp_STAIF_PrePrnt.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) Ronald J. Koczor, and David Noever (NASA MSFC, Huntsville, AL), Experiments on the Possible Interaction of Rotating Type II YBCO Ceramic Superconductors and the Local Gravity Field: Presents the status and interim results of experiments being conducted at MSFC to investigate claims of gravity effects in the vicinity of rotating superconductors in strong magnetic fields (Podkletnov 1992). Only static measurements have been completed to date, with inconclusive results (change of less than 2 parts in 10^8 of the normal gravitational acceleration) (Li 1997). Work continues toward measurements with rotating superconductors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 16:41:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA00059; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:38:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:38:23 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:33:09 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105175038.006cfff0 world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"cMQmr2.0.r.z5HOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12463 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Humor: M. J. Schaffer tells us EXACTLY how to do free energy.... see flag in text below from Vortex: On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > At 10:21 AM 11/5/97 -0800, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > Right down there!!! He said it! VVVVVVVVVVV > >1.23 V is the free energy. 1.48 V is the enthalpy (heat at constant > >pressure). > > The units of potential (volts) are not those of enthalpy (joules). > Might multiply by q, and specify under what conditions the assignments > hold. > > ================================================================= > > >Any cell voltage above 1.48 V while dissociating water is due > >to power absorbtion by some process somewhere in the cell (eg. electrolyte > >electrical resistance, resistive films on electrode surfaces, concentration > >gradient potentials at electrodes). Usually this ends up as dissipation as > >heat in the cell. > > You might also include activation polarization and hydrogen overvoltage > which although low on platinum can be higher or very high upon, and as, > other materials might electrodeposit on the surface. > > > ================================================================= > > >BTW, some people who have posted recently seem to thing that internal cell > >processes somehow affect how one calculated electrical input power. If any > >"black box" has only two electrical terminals, then the electrical power > >into that box is IV, pure and simple. The internal processes, no matter > >how nonlinear and time dependent, only affect what V and I are. But is is > >easy to measure V and I. > > > > More difficult to measure the distribution of the electric field > intensity which IMO is the more relevant parameter. For example, > the quasi-1-dimensional model of loading indicates that it controls > the loading in several ways. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 18:16:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27281; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:10:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:10:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <346110A3.6D49B9F3 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 03:34:43 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science papers (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9iTAI.0.Bg6.NSIOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12464 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thank you much Todd, they are great. I will put it on the wall. (I find them non-sense, but it is possibe that somebody find them interesting.) :-) hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 18:21:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20841; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:10:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:10:42 -0800 Message-Id: <34611699.A6A577A2 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 04:00:09 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7SROx.0.Z55.YSIOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12465 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thank you Mitchell. I did not yet found the eprint of Dixon. I am wondering how he decided the gamma radiation is local, belong to our galaxy (unlike the Cosmic Microwave Background). Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 18:25:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23929; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:31 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3460FF9A.EB2E2172 microtronics.com.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:57:48 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT Magnetic Anomaly & Ou Proof Resent-Message-ID: <"WAtq62.0.Ur5.adIOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12468 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg - > Please explain WHY the Simple OU Proof (linked > & level ramps) is invalid. Because in the first case, the standard linked ramp array, you have more intense gradients in the field which are strong enough not only to break friction but to get the ball to climb up ramps. We know this uses energy to overcome friction. A magnetic field is a potential energy well. When things go tumbling down that well, they can overcome the friction they encounter along the way, climb 'ramps' of other lesser potential (i.e. gravity), etc. But they will not, barring some input of energy from some other source (like magnetocaloric or spontaneous ball demagnetization or something) ever rise back out of that well to the same level or up and out again. They will stay stuck down below the edge of the well to the extent they used up energy overcoming friction and doing work of some sort. So in the SMOT in the first part of your second proof example, the ball ends up stuck in the fields at the end as usual - assuming this isn't a rollaway example. The difference in the force the ball feels between the start point and the ending stuck point is the difference in energy lost due to friction. In the second case you've picked two arbitrary points where the flux *is* the same at the 'start' and the 'end'. But there's no gradients in between large enough to pull the ball. The energy profile of the fields between the two points is different from that of a SMOt array that does pull the ball. The ball is allowed to see steeper gradients there so it moves. The arrays are different between the two cases - it's comparing apples to oranges. Neither of your two "proofs" show conclusively that the field's net energy distribution is anomalous or exhibits a broken symmetry. I haven't shown any proof that they *don't* here and in my other message, but you're using the examples as proof of OU or at least anomaly. If I can show that they don't necessarily logically show this and not something else, then the examples can't stand as proof. There must be no other explanation for the behavior than the one that locks in your proof. I have offered other reasonable explanations for the observed behavior, so I think the case against the "proof" is made. It could still be a good demonstration of what *may* be due to anomaly or OU, but it's not the only explanation. A true proof is really something special, something irrefutable. The one truly easy, nearly measurement free, astonishingly simple ***PROOF*** of the SMOT's anomaly and apparent OU is: A TRUE, RELIABLE, REPLICABLE ROLLAWAY. Please Greg, I wouldn't generally urge you away from research, experiment, and disclosure, but at this point please...please stop fooling around with this stuff, adding graphics and stuff to your web site to try and make the case for an anomalous SMOT. Just send a working rollaway SMOT ramp to Jed or Scott and all will be right in the world of SMOT. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 18:27:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23890; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:27 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105093904.0070b7fc mail.eden.com> References: <345F99D3.FD1FEB53 microtronics.com.au> <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:08:05 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Resent-Message-ID: <"kNy0w.0.3r5.YdIOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12467 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed - > Are there any other > volunteers who live reasonable close to Greg? I'm about $750 away here in Honolulu. I think it's a bad idea though, it's up to Greg to spend a tiny fraction of that and send units to EarthTech, etc. It's been what now - eight months? This is ridiculous. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 18:33:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA29448; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:29:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:29:29 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34610138.669141A3 microtronics.com.au> References: <199711041701_MC2-26B9-B690 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:25:27 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Greg Watson shares the blame Resent-Message-ID: <"0uFGL1.0.2C7.6kIOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12469 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg - > You took my comment out of context. Sorry, I thought something like that might have happened. > But if the same ball on the same now level track > will now not move in a field gradient going from > the first to the last field density, then something > is going on. Energy had to come from somewhere > to overcome real frictional losses. See my other message on this, I don't think this proves anything either. The rollaway is the objective proof we need. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 18:37:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23803; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:19 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711051543.HAA30813 mail1.halcyon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:16:54 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: {off topic} Rick M. & Hawaii Isl's. :) Resent-Message-ID: <"5252T2.0.ep5.PdIOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12466 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fred - > How fast are they moving? I can't tell because of the altitude. But somewhere between 25 and 50 kts, in the direction I'd expect of the prevailing winds above the inversion layer here. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 19:11:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA01361; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:07:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:07:19 -0800 Message-Id: <34612510.FF65DC96 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 05:01:52 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Magnetic Anomaly & Ou Proof References: <3460FF9A.EB2E2172@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nvn4m1.0.9L.bHJOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12470 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > Rick Monteverde wrote: > > [snip] > > To prove SMOT OU, just show good level rollaways, that's all. > > Will do. > > > - Rick Monteverde > > Hi Rick, > > I don't understand WHY you object to the Simple OU Proof. Rollaways, > Rollarounds. There are other ways to skin this cat. The frictional > losses are real. > > Please explain WHY the Simple OU Proof (linked & level ramps) is > invalid. > > -- > Best Regards, > Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson Unless precise quantitative measurements of losses are done, any arguments based on losses are very speculative, just the Newman case. Suggesting and proving something are different things. Yes, careful examination of losses is enough to suspect the anomaly on SMOT, but to prove the anomaly and the OU roll away or very precise measurements on power figures are needed. Please keep thinkin g with scientific norms. "Science at home" souldn't be "home rated science". ;-) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 19:42:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08956; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:36:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:36:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34612CB4.29B0EFBD verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 05:34:28 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Magnetic Anomaly & Ou Proof (correction) References: <3460FF9A.EB2E2172@microtronics.com.au> <34612510.FF65DC96@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pM0dh.0.rB2.diJOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12471 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I did not want to make an objection to any specific setup as (linked & level ramps) but a general comment on methods based balances of unmeasured loss and gains. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 20:30:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA15477; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:26:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:26:01 -0800 Message-ID: <34614432.B03FBA08 microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:44:42 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Marbles, Bowls, Smots & DeadLocks Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------DC0D0069C8EFF07E69BB994F" Resent-Message-ID: <"1EI_B3.0.On3.LRKOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12472 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DC0D0069C8EFF07E69BB994F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I have attached a Gif of Rick's bowl idea. Its self teaching. My SMOT Simple OU Proof is based on the theory that the difference in the start and end flux density, in a well adjusted SMOT ramp, represents the energy losses in going from the start to the end. Thats just simple physics. C of E as Jed would say. If, HOWEVER it can be shown that the flux differential represents a SMALLER loss than that achieved over a level track (less than the SMOT ramp), then we CLEARLY have a magnetic anomaly if not OU. As to people who wish to smash through deadlocks, I can assure you the police and the legal system in SA are very effective. I choose what I wish to give away and what I wish to keep secret. Every actual device is composed of theory and constructional elements. I understand how a transistor works, but I would never be able to build one. I give away my devices basic theory and test set-ups to verify it is real. The trade secrets of actual detailed construction are mine. That I intend to make money from my work has always been made clear. If you want the detailed constructional information, put your money on the table and lets talk. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson --------------DC0D0069C8EFF07E69BB994F Content-Type: image/gif; name="bowl-marble.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bowl-marble.gif" R0lGODdh9AGeAvcAAAAAAICAgIAAAICAAACAAACAgAAAgIAAgICAQABAQACA/wBAgEAA/4BA AP///8DAwP8AAP//AAD/AAD//wAA//8A////gAD/gID//4CA//8AgP+AQGwAAlQAAgAAAAAA AGMUOf8BXDwAAFwAAhEAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAAAAB/uhwAANgAW7gAW/9/uLz//yYA W7h/t1wAXQoAAAEAAAAAAKQAABIAW2MAAFy/9woAAAEAAAAAAFcAAD+E7NAAACMAWwC/9zcA AOUAAXm/+Qy/9/QAAC4AW1e/9wCE7OwAAAAvN0YAAEoAAC4AAicAAD+/9wABJz8vN1ABJ0c7 +gAABAAAALca+QAAAAAAAQAAChA7+gAAADwAAP9501AvN0c8QTf//wAAAD8vN4w2PAMAALca +Q+C5wAAAAEAAFwACgABPwAACFkXJxR/t5QAWwcAW/9/uKD//+IAWxR/t6wAW8IAW/9/uLj/ /7AAWxR/t8QAWzUAW/9/uND//2EAWxQAQdwAW24AW/8AQej//8EAWxQAQfQAW9wAW/8AQQD/ /xgAWxQAQfQAWyUAW/8AQQD//5wAWxEAQQEAAAAAAJgAAAF/ugAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAEBEgAA AAAAAIgAAACAFgAAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEwAAFwAAAAAABgAAAAAYQUAAAMAAIQAAAQA YbQAAEAAWwAAAHAAACYAYQ8ACJwAGwAAYfIAAAB/uAAAAMgAAAB/uwAAAGIAAC1sd2JyYWIu ZUQAcFi/97gAACAAXfgAAF0AWwF/t1wAAAAAACAAAFgAAAAAAAACAKgAXUcAWyB/t1gAAAAA AAUCAAAUAAAUCFCHJAAT2AAUAFCHMJgBFwAFFAIAAAAEkhoAAAAAAAAUAACHcgCHWgAAAAAA AcgAAGYAABd/UNh/Uy8UD26HoGQBFwABL8gAAKAAAJAAAAgAAA8AAAEAANgAAAAAAPgBL0gA ZaoAABd/UEh/Uw55KRrGGuwFfy8RrAoNAiwAAAAA9AGeAkAI/wAdCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHD hxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjypxJs6bNmzhz6tzJs6fP n0CDCh1KtKjRo0iTKl3KtKnTp1CjSp1KtarVq1izat3KtavXr2DDih1LtqzZs2jTql3Ltq3b t3Djyp1Lt67du3jz6t3Lt6/fv4ADCx5MuLDhw4jPAgBgcLFjxg4cC3xMWXJihZUnM5a8WHNk yAM5g75MWnDn0qhTK+18WrXrna0Tjn7NMDZttpVz694d0vbnxr4XUqbamvXo08Y9I8wse7bm x353S5eu2nJt58qFbwYdPLD1htPD6/++rbg7RPPmD6Yfm/yh6OXDC34nj3f+yfXA4+IPDXn9 fvo5QWfdcJkxhxx0mP2HkoIKmtVgfgkCaBdzLu334GAWYlfXgZYZtx13GgL2nX0EzZehhBBG WF+IKPInX4gkvtiiQ/h1J+CFUOFI243wgcfijNf5KGN2Keb4I5AqCokkR/8hmKRTOqIYY49L lvTglE1F+RqWLx5Z5YIXcgmUlomJ6eKXR5nZJY0faudkRWSK1WB6aj6HJld1lohlbG/q6Z6X ZFHIH4zxSRTnnVnlqV6fnwFKZIW8jcnoeZMiKqKjE+VmJYkeVnqom5VGVKilpHapqEnipXoq SKOW6qpKgr7/Kuusi57Znp+N/vZeh7/1Ct+qtAYr7LDEFmvsschWB+J2yiXXaXNE2tjfrb22 hx53yWYLJ6baXhQrUjVyC+u1lDIVI4OtUhQqTnk2KS6TgPom7U3rugvutZ+yqeq+/E5H6bpF fRukdkIxCuxz/SYcabcWcejcwQkqLLGmDFcsUr4WZzvxxhhjZFtwOnZ8WHHWTqvrh4RGqyGH Kttq8oG+okzwZMiCjPLDHEuc8c462czzz3mJDPTQRBdt9G2FQjzorwGGe1y+Ix6q9NFTdYig 1SS3Cdy0LJvIrJ2/Lgu2aFlf97TYXkc8aHxXYy021XDHLTfY6kId8ni5bjT11gv3/8an0HPX RJ2PLOeNdd6GdxqvtG8jjF3bWjdHZ9mNRk725H+fjfjhiAfe1t4dge756KQbZuC7SX4KuK9s eou6oSC2RLLr5D76p0ZXvu6y7aKmnGns9705O8LN+l4t14S6redsWbPYPPFn8r02rpIrXuLM x0NfZOXasw18qGmnbjL30NJsPt1Uki888rKFhivMEBYevfTTl589+aXnvyH8MDsbuf4ADKAA B0jAAhrwgAGjGI7kZbyGeQl+m0of7H7nwN4V72KLE9y8Wne7WslOd7hj3svSdcGTtc0zBfqR 907IurXd7IWVU9y8IJii/pEwho5z0YBWZrnx+cyFN4vh+P9a6CcaFpFZ3lvelIanw6TFLon3 y88KrZfCJX4PhkZEoBa14iEiRm9XQ5QR/94TxfiNcHvl2t3fxJerE2bxZPd7Y/beeDkU+u+C dYQj70zoxeyAkXdr5GNk5njHPcbxa9Tb4gfNBUJFOvKRkIykJCcZrI8574x8VN70nOQfJH6N WuB74tPsCMgu4i9zDeQkJm2oxC/ysIxDImS4ToktVurRi+uzGh49uUt0kdKExvukMH/ZR0oa EytThCEO9eiwZi7qRpCT4TMZ10zk2ZBHODydLqepTAJ5k4z2SaYsL2fNWpWMnGHrJjTRmcIc alOO0uRbPEl4OiF+M5z3DKLAHOn/xK2s7pgADahAB0rQghr0oAhNqEIXytCGOvShEI2oRCdK 0Ypa9KIYzahGN8rRjnr0oyANqUhHStKSmvSkXISiB9GI0oFtzoeInJ8/Gxk6nB2SloZsKYZo qlOe7PNSPO0pTDaWFmrVVIVBrWTOAAal51FuTsBzUFKJab+eLVV0s6rTGBO5Ukt+5ao37NyT dPpPllb1c44q2Uq3yEQlcfV3U63bv+QSpU4icKvtVKIocxlXeHUwNbPsCwR1qVa+/DSEbqXP iYT6VyEt9kuBPWug+ooYTzG1rJU9UvjwVz/iUHZHj63ZA2Pq0ix9FrBpPe2S0EWxqqnWdFB9 banChFWa/2A2OlqVbcUUxVQJpuS2VdlT7nzJ0FNZVp6l5aB+RGim5801pMDqZ2Kx553eSpax awphb1fX2rf69oPWTSd2wVTb6nUXsdMlHN6OqtvxriSs7i3uZs3qt/hWaX2cbd4waVm7nNr3 vwAOMFgY18QdXnJZrzwe5HIIKgFLNbxJAa5SIewT4bZ3JPUaZUwo7FN8Sli536Xvhvsr0xKP eHJpvIrBNHvgD+vNbRy7Lqqam8E0edhvYE2YYC8c4RvmWGEOlmuQA2hU/xqLwHY0sNq0N6Th rbNwoMyc2XDWr9JYca3cTNSPVTVk2z6Ox12mlYvDTOYylxQ9sIHTmMzsWGVCL/+PdVwwfncY Ma4RL49ifWYr2xi1OlfRznGWH5uJDOZBGxpIZAPVgu355xU6LpQUipScFVhNGeJLbUpm9Asr PTZKHxajGxTv9dxHavOdl7k1wox8sqvXVe+Zwfrqrqz5+rjGvLrUgzy0rnd9UWc6TJbFLFth 14RXmA7bjFTdYyCZCMVjY++PuHzWLW9aQiq1tauFrN0d5XhTBuY02zDV87C1vV9s87KYQxsz r9fN7na7+93wjre8E2gqZ3LT2NV0Jz3FCUt9R7OcQuyRwBoNcHmWE9zm3C8d85nNcA/czfWG ccD3/WRhktPi80www8VJ8Yv7u7zBA3l9522kFC9QdyT/Tm9jPXLbrWL5t+8KtVvVDeJY1hyZ 5a4hvsuH3+4FU5Mti7W0o+nnFhoYzeejNv2YzFVVSnza+T0ut53Mvml21um7g7XOfz0/mpP8 62APu7z1y8OonfGpxn50wjOtzaK3fZlSRCSM7Xxv9GHzmpzT+hH72OjlVW9pgO8068K6zZjN juF+jC1VLex3pcNXqT/x+oS4VejyqPzm77Up30Eo+b2QSeYWrFsY7/XkXhI2n/HEdpLpXHeD 2/P1hi9wsVkY8XFGGetZTmZMCS7wfHfcmlg8G+uB6XCVinH01MM7iW9/7SYjfvCVFzuitkz9 6lv/+tjPvva3z/3ue//7XJa+//jHT/7ym//86E+/+tfP/va7//3wj7/850//+tv//vjPv/73 z//++///ABiAAjiABFiABniACJiACriADNiADviAEBiBEjiBFFiBFqhlfZZiFzhZqmQnXcRt qOFtt8J1j8dYraJfRNR5QxV931VYy4Z8G0gSKhiDUTGDNPgUIKh/K8aCKiZy5NckaAV+QjiE RFiERniESHh9UgFcSHVMP9YTRmVJuYNuq7FX7ARfReZdd/KEc2Fh81VnJsZItLdM+xRI1uZh PAheV5VVdqVsLNZ1aUgvcWVdIsOFj7Qq50WFNgdUYDVePqiFIdaDeRh4bSY5yXVSf/hy1IUW hadem/8HRD2ViIt4iLiRWtUGiAPUfGOlh4YoE1BFF3cziQTUTraUdf5TduxiifuzLaKYUevl ZZdXJm+IWxxmg0ZRgiw3Woo1i57nTaTkbLSIOYNoZJxIGqF1F050HLhmizOlXMcoJbwYZN5m dZQ4I5G1iqSiiegTiJCFVMnDjJ4Yh6C4aa/IjdPHYjaFSuAYQdn4cLpYLNd4ayJWhaKFecOS ITAoYz0Gj/ZiMfjYjzgojr2oijzDWgwkkKyCkJNHeQqJWs9lFetIV58YOLTVkDU1W8QFQHgY kRWEJrllkRgpLpKIYSBJFIOzLalVksRSkZjSNyQZNDXWYCt3UMbFJZTDdJz/pYHYmJNvRWEc STU1aZBNOJNo9WgZVIsqWTobiU86qY+MWI5GiYt6Fol19WnFeJUSCTFSiVJ7Y5WK+BE2c2BN o5UcBmC1NYwYlCpEKYNeCYZih5ba1ZYZMZFzCZUo+ZPuJZfwsi+E83dVxpYjaX56WYmBqYNb eYOIKVKDxT5vd3uN55aJCRt0Z4bFRkwykzqRmZmauZmc2ZmeOVOF6YgY9Jl3+YEHl3NLk4XJ 1yZulI96p5kGI2oMBm74Im1hI1NHl0pJqUUn2VQJNmC7uSVoWGENtIlDoTM2UZZWpZwzsYPB +YixCCnIaY5NBVdJeJ3YmZ3auZ3c2Z1FuHTq9ZyP/zmToLcpS+WUI4aeWNlhSMhIpmJjh4mJ 8hk81TifY0mESDKFa7GDyfmdrtgf9XmL/nmAB5l9pCmgB5qK2VlKBcmcYPmF9ulXcel9YfFD e8gwVaRgCLc1UKdzyaZgmaQ1qFlv7UiJsYWXpLeGJOpCv1h1ueeFR0SZd+eioRShlmKhLCqd 4JegYekvCYonX/ajyyWkcIGiRHqkSJqkSgpbmuMxSCaHD8RqTgqXD8lu/AZElpalgTcedqlX c1dptYl6uemFo9KYXWOkDYVOiaM5nIJ25PieS9ZpgCZlbvKYF+c0tSeneBOaIJVpeuqSUQl4 ewqX1ME5gMqhWwqmiuZ0uf/kcyK0pE8JqZJKjJ1Yl6gTK1j1h4O5l13mlZEWo+ojKGbXSW+D Z2andkmXk4c1KQPiajkKibCXa53FZ+I5Oocqj4Z6pqVqShnWJ4tGq7NKq1+Gp4aoZEDHqlLG doLmUTeWTrk6mVr6p5DGNNs4qpOmKV2Kpcn4TmLapNK6q7VKUXwqmvc5qeZ6ruiarorkM2OE Sa5XppjzqolTPGWXdxVHjWt6LiOkJn1HiF5KNzO6eraJqO6optuorbekr796r8jKTOEWd41X sN5ae/A6VcnKmKzXX3jHc8VHr5fJsdNIhQOLbraUkRsrQSvmeI+KbP5FdTzpfCLqmly3mhcK rCX/9EPj5jsj66HA5Dnyoq5AG7Tj+HSDOq5CO6EBB0eph6ZH27RO+7RQG7VSO7VUS5MrG3pr ibUqImGqE1VN+bUc9E/aKIcdSUFfOXLr+aDOJ0gs64Jnp5pq9LBIxkpgJHevNHVXxLZrq3yy 2qObYYpBWmCCF0XkAk+8VIp6G0teZaFq5XIQC6KCl3eq57D9dpziybT3GK5Vu7nMem7v2qjp s03y47d0xz2bmoLOBWkZV3DHR23UNLH/2jkBS3ylC3et+7pB5K+vdqqCunvIurAel1KVm3ir FyF8FXUgq3lpC4chG21N9D4jarNKt7dXdnWr5K445YbDG3s9SzAdSDMl/2u3ycuzI4W50cm5 6Ju+6ru+7Nu+YBdp+uoV5oteWmuj3Eu2kEJvNZt5++uBw7RtO3dN0QZtprlwgtuaDIpwcDas ocpn3TZ04rt2wYY20fuChgNsIxi49gZOPFKZnCjAwHjB4WuZaQi/W1u72DKrqduE54SbZGp0 KLgcy9iILwvDMZxEUih8dyuzeVvDjGq9PWy7e0Z1p0d8LsMncdqu30iIKhWfJUqcN6q57ntk 7+iMMZmLLIUx88seSdW1YRigrUipX2y2cfuhjStKeeZKv6SNBpywEcxs/3u9CXzGDgy4m9ex 07a4fptr7XqGhFTH1XZ4cuy4rTvBZVy9yZaBfv8suVv8KmNbg1K8SFM8yQHlnZZ8yZicyZq8 yQtKyZ78yaAcyqI8yqRcyqZ8yqicyqq8yqzcyq78yrAcy7I8y7Rcy7Z8y7icy7q8y7zcy778 y8AczMI8zMRczMZ8zMiczMq8zMzczM78zNAczdI8zdRczdZ8zdiczdq8zdzczd78zeAczuI8 zuRczuZ8zuiczurcUkaLy+UZxsDMrfrko6A1hvvbyJTksh2Kz0sYVPzMVqIKfKgLIPVU0P8W yf4HjiIot/oMtQqdjsUnugjdf/8MyhX9yRftyRlNyRv9X71pGq5pmJdEGHBrmPU80XmJ0v3J ySzd0i790i4NW0Jlh/b/SJ2PK9NpmmMriEa85aDEWVZtmIk6XYX/Q3ah19F+nLRPB5lnu5JD zYH39r19KcYmuVcNDIJYqNKQ3IdAdXnu8sj7CMh/bMipWiQf/ZQqimgE2b/Qa7+We225WVUo xnhLQdPJIiYNLbJGhNQvlosAOS5crZFTeIItqdXsyKlZG3ExZrWvc1yJXRhgOjHlC9QMuT+B Dc8kFZh0CZrTydRSapxn5mKbvZ/torp/x87qpp+ViJVkZEbZCl2SN9qRKsaFNI+IqIKKN6St s6zL67Nee4ha0s5NzdZqQVxBfVeJ1rull3hXnJ41vdpWjNn6IyAh6sAeHK8a9NikLWTqqZRz /zrWdjytqfjcRcndNk06LueLtzazSYu/YFzeZNzdoObTEvrekO2Nf6GcfE1eXkdjSDOUO0bV Al5UTsyK9j0y0agX23q4Ib2QQpng5y2LB/4WK5xNYzyQXlOgw93bJB2PyPh8psThCp7gHk4e eG3YvBmTJU7QEC5gn7jiEgLj9tW88rjhu2g2K4KRWnhZKK5lE255rgK3/q3j8CzckqnjzlnF RA7ajCYnPZ5SRv3BTy6/+A2eTt6O7vjj9wXhylfg+ovlTO7W3YjjR5w8niVaSu7U6cXbF34v x/LXb46ObS7mkTflTt7c9Yjjsl3Xdv5VGdktX13YJZe5YHvXiwPn7v85YYWuLYF+2gGp6H/S 50WakrfK52KW20WD6T0oK6U9N5ruWo6850DJkJJO5/Uc6flTkf0M5uQtN0tZnVvIWgb06pbe jWuN3CJp5PSL4V3753eo6l/+4RoOV6gOUEEJO1Ra3x/+451uUD0tlOMy4q0eXrpuNM/+jm36 2lo+219MTYuOUNc+VslNrd/O7QIr7j3dayxZpfI952WhjmF77BsVlLOYYdotVci7qPHduTEX v/d866RtRQV6qfsNNEtphufr7hxIeMlO7mR1N60t3QO+XGRZ8K7Oeabd6iFX7aXpQBzv7HFC zxpPksO+nBVf6gIEOoNJ2W267YB58iiP6+z/hWIJCeASn5ZK4+WdCnKnW5r8EuET2kg6P2hD P2X0LYqiPqVFH6zn1/P/0vBle/PmtfQrSn9UH+kiv+/DrZY1b/GTffS0g58w9/Hx5vQnRvZM D4Fmz8Uxz2ZX78xrH81oP8w4umGnXNLEfVR3n7eo13D/9pp7V8r6nIEjrMff6PUJaMLSlVfS VIYats6QH/mSP/mUX/mWf/mY3yJzz4RAy5F47/Gdv+CBKsQs6mNWSEVZLeIRWOmBT7eepMG1 q7i+u8aH3/aHVtq616Lt/a+mP4a5v1aIP+pgb1VAD+pEP5xi+JvAOd2sXzAt/tY6xmt0feQR vtEPB8Vqre3ZbeOq/49jIz3GwW/q5onUZ+3clTqVY1n86yjZYe6bEzTz7n/+L3Hc7c8S1hoe xT/2xdnupkWoMP3/AAFA4ECCBQ0eRJhQ4UKGDR0+hBhR4kSKFS1exJhxogMHCjl+BBlSZEGR JU2eRJlSJceBK0EKdMkSQEyaKTW2LAmz5k6eMnWOnLnyZ0+iRXPifDlU6E2LRl0qDYkUJUGn VXdKPRnRJFSrNrFmDfo0bFeyKr9+pFq2KtOKat2+3ToWbVq4cDcCpcm1LlC9c8XuBTwXIVi2 EgMfRnxVrtmgdBO7Ndizb9TFj2ue9Vn5cOG7lj1/Bk35MubQakkTJqy59FLOGVe/hh377f/k o7JtUx5ctrXh2719//ZNWzRwz7shEkeeXPlypzr7OoZt/CFz6tWtX1891ONR6QyxfwcfXnx4 vQ7Hn0efXv360ezdv4cfX7b0jqrl38efH3n3haZ/chVOv/xOK66yABOzD0H+chMPKgATFPC+ Ay2DacIJ13pwQQIjzKs8AyHkEL7IMmvsIBLjaomk2mRikaTIXFQxRuhEuzDE3gh80EYd/XKu xPp+rDDHH+tT7T8fiUyKRSB9VCrIIlXckT0hO6wxys1GFCytEYNcckYiU/TySyPF9EvMmXo0 M80VlbQyvSmnCrPNLDXcUE4773wzqTqDoxPKO/8E9LU341SsT0L/A0U00fUyNE5RRx+FtMM1 I6W0Uksfq/JSTTflFM5OPwU1VMZEJbXUUDM1NVVVdUR1VVdfla9VWGeltVZbb8U1V1135bVX X38FNlhhhyW2WGOPRTbZYbUDkTUUf9sTN7KwxLBZZWGVKlo4NdMWU+GylRU3E5sL91pQZTyL LjB79BNcrKhNTU8k9SR03HXl8vNZwejdd951ze0VXWZNTMhMI0skeFwUt7SXQe60zK3g1KAc DCeLnQR4VzCRPFhepP71KeSLD4bQ3ZA5HpixsSA+k90E3VUXY6pGzljXexE+WeQM+7152ydX ZldnoEtOWWgLm6TY5YatrVnUj59u2Tu+/5JG+EWFp04YZ4O/Ldpfh7EWGOqq+226VqiHIzPF hR0Ud+gAYWzspbbfHimqtlVO9ytm7Za3bL//7vZvwQcnvHDDD0c8ccU/ZfqyxR/ns3FprQqc xLO7qpw1eO2aHHJFD/VW8pNZ3g860I3K3HNWo/aK4aoLZlDsOEd+nfQ5Xb896nz5ffbyrX+H nWThU1eduqC3LZP2L1E+/t4k1xY7Z+efHn1M6vXtvWPHMGZzXqOr575497bzuW+amefZyd07 7xxc75ffl7RD3Y9f+6vh71vo9LUWX0p8J+uY17QGMtK962fYM+CYwIc/LuXsYbXjH8h4FBaT 1W9sAuyf/7gzsf/zdVB9MYOgfTDjOwdGTGkn5NrXTOi6dhVNYefLoKmIZ5dy1eV0MfTcDCFT w8DwEId+E90PhThEIhbRiEdEYhKVuEQmNtGJT4TiEmNmwyDihXFVJJduDuTD6qBpSLPBYpmu dKQdihF1YfSUpIrCxTR+kUIUDCNtFKgYyjWOi14kynOCOEfAeGhIH1TT3NS0PjINcmZM8pLV era5sAVyOB8EkSJp96FDLvJIkCQk3PJWyUk+cGNK82TaOHm/FrVMSXikFyg3Z8hN3ux109Jd Aw+Jsu6hDU3he54XZTk2XD6Sde/TIyLhOKdTmtKNXkmeKfOWJA8WU4wjJKMch7mk9/n/Um1/ fFIp+fdFaF4Tm7V0Jh71WMpqPu+bvTwjw5I5y2Oa85brY+Er1ym/2hWynSfCEgA1ebRkOtKM koxlNOV5NzOu6Z2zG2YnwWI5e4KyNtdDZT9bODGGxkWihDSig9CIHTZGsWkd9WhIRTpSkpbU pCdFaUpRCsIJklClL0VMylRpTJDC1Kae0qUydXdTnvZRduR0mTl7OlSiFtWoR0VqUpW6VKY2 1alPhWpUpTpVqlbVqlfFala1ulWudtWrXwUr5EzIE40uNIujuicYLRoTPrIVizXKKRULKtTs QLONF/Kjgub6RoI6sK8BtKcAWzm0fj4ssBU80UONCbbDBtOF/zoFJzXjek/cZeabXVpmAxV7 ucoy1mr721j1uMktOJb2gt5L5D7Nt1hYSmuX2SMnNiHbJcoK87KDQmRsNevH0BqUSxG9KFBp +iFq3paS8NOscfeqzbTC6JzqiyybPvnLaRZXZmSkUW7/qd27/ta7rK2jL/G3ond6TZvVXetr L2vRg5r2maRdrxWfq0/dsu56rlUgcN04I/W2lZnY/a91WTs/9Ba3I+99rjMV27298Teb4dRu R5FWzHEa92IUBvDUUqlgcSWWgTCDr36le0l6du3ALKErWlRc2DyxzLQCXaiIvSu9/9G3lkFF MGpJnF6SWdbH9ZrmTKPLHB3GdKNhNf/WDWNTUyQ32clPhrKEqpgpWTGZjjTs4Y4nxdcry7fL t7Fyovy7lDU+2K15PPJajRzdMKsVQ8sVlJn/wiFIhjKePA4tIGs7SlEqma6qzeQ+Y+lP4SrY Qy6mZM9ECWE+E/q8jKpzYIlZyEbGM9GAFHSE1Otb4YaYutPN8EW32aoGH6+cI95vhC99YuWS V6fEbWmCZc3cMQvYrAnuJq3/V9/RmpV79NP0cG/dXt4mraIVBuh23eoR1YJtwIj2dJBDTWl4 uq3O6hyYKz095PwG9IFpSvZ8EcpQY8M5rG3Wa5Rrhu41q9vd74Z3vOU9b3rX2973xne+9b1v fvfb3/8GeMD/BT5w4FDLriFi93xEl1eyptk/pUn4w9EG8V3fOtiQ4mGt40xxji4m4t0N051n vGjMetvZrwy3ZwFdbQG7UtLkRrRyw73Kkl/a5NVWaKXDRtp/5TxrF3752lh5aCFbuMhvTnEu he0i5i7vusgceXLR2eu92RprJ356rL2c9f4+m5ZsFraay5tr2k7Y1mMOH0Rz23XaovW1Uzc7 2zVu5Cn6etBNz2c9pSlZiKXS5s+eZLRh7vdJAfTmgNc2e6fd65p/2/DUfjSk7RvpGWMboxsW t+Sp3XdSLtnhNvp4mT9qx8/3NPRoHj3BVb961rf+q29j2tyTHl7xolr0qR/ynL2M/9a04i33 E9897zH32FQnVKAuvV1j67lB1Ewa8p8VbdeCGVvwNTOyLM38qIs9Wvfqq4XLDzz3qa9jxTe3 2X5NfuNH6XF0ZcnRDY/bQduuaqov3n5fNz94dVb/wvK/7JO/Ptt6O+iaNaEqr/+zmPiaoP/r PVkbwEGbowdkQPPDP/maLm4DGuZhvzQ6wNmTDApywMWiP+vBEWlbr7wSkt0SQRjjtQPUr7oj wFTTsZdZOu7ipvHCLy0LwBa8rxM0Ph7ksOzCQFGjwQCzQBE6rRwbPsDKqW77KRy0JRLrwb76 KxASJ2kzQcgzLKO7MezTsBJiJ/fzsZxYMXwqMefrO8xjPGO1S6zt671uG8PCQzwP5L4krDqj giH8OD3Xu47tKb3k2EM+FMRBJMRC9ChDQcREVMRFZMRGdMRHhES2mJtIpMRKtMRLxMRM1MRF nMRN9MRPBMVQFMVR5ERDNMVTRMVUVEWpCggAOw== --------------DC0D0069C8EFF07E69BB994F-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 20:55:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19633; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:51:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:51:33 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711060451.WAA17411 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment In-Reply-To: from "Schaffer@gav.gat.com" at "Nov 5, 97 10:07:09 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:51:28 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VDGTe2.0.ho4.KpKOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12473 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > I offer some background on electrostatically confined fusion, including > "fusors" and other "brand names". Excellent introduction to the field. Thanks! -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 20:55:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19977; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:38 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711060453.UAA22448 sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"yQtxJ.0.zt4.GrKOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12475 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick- > >Well... are they hard to build? I'm sick of SMOTs. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Here is the info as given in the ESJ article. Does it look buildable as written? Do you see anything missing or unclear? Looking foreward to your comments as well as anyone else interested in the fusor. Regards, Michael ---------------------- Information on a Fusor Generator This device can be used for the study of plasma ball energy that occurs during nuclear fusion. This fusor unit is not a self sustaining nor an over-unity energy device. For complete information see R.W. Bussard patents and the Electric Spacecraft Journal, Issue 22 that R. Hull supplied the information and photographs for the article. Fusor Air Generator Parts List: Stainless steel welding wire (0.025" 608) or, tantalum wire. Desiccator vacuum chamber 18" to 24" in diameter with clear top to see the fusion. One high voltage feedthrough. A needle valve for the vacuum. Vacuum pump capable of producing an atmosphere of 200 microns. Neon sign transformer rectified to give the negative grid a bias of between 100 and 3000 volts dc with currents kept below 30ma. These limits also restricts x-ray emission. This fusor unit only contains air. Spot welder. Parts for Fusor Neutron generators: Will require much lower pressures so nuclear gases, such as deuterium may be pumped in. With the above fusor air unit, filled with deuterium and operated at 14kv, is capable of generating 300,000 neutrons per second. Assembly: Spot weld two concentric geodesic wire grids as follows. The outer wire geodesic grid is between a basketball and a beach ball size. It must fit in the vacuum chamber. It should be grounded or biased between +120 and +160v. The inner wire geodesic grid size is between that of a golf ball and softball. Each geodesic grid is made of six ring circles of wire all the same size. \ / ---\/--- / \ Top View of a Geodesic Grid Spot weld 3 rings on axis spaced 60 degrees apart at the intersection, at top and bottom pole. Side View (no diagram). Spot weld 3 rings diagonal 45 degrees off axis. The smaller geodesic grid is centered inside the larger. Attach the HV insulator to the grids and feed the wires out to the neon transnformer. The spacing between the grids may need to be adjusted. Operation: With voltage applied, ions will be attracted to the inner grid. Those ions that don't collide with each other or the wire grid simply pass through the other side of the inner grid, only to be drawn back by the "potential well", recirculating until they eventually collide. The experimental results will depend on the voltage and the gas used. Plasma balls with or without bugles, glowing sheaths or quills, and pulsed anomalous glow discharges are some of the phenomena which may be created with fusors. (see photo's in ESJ) Non-nuclear gases, such as air and helium, will produce the same visual effects as deuterium and other neutron-producing gases. Furthermore, some gases which do not react in thermonuclear situations can produce neutrons in fusor reactions. A neutron detector will be needed to gauge the extent of any deuterium-deuterium fusion occuring. A simple neutron detector consists of several sheets of indium foil hung 3/4" apart in clear polyethylene container filled with water or paraffin wax. Water or wax will slow the neutrons down so they can be absorbed by the indium, which produces a secondary emission. This detector is good for exposures of about one minute in duration. Future Fusor Work. Richard W. Bussard and his associates are continuing the reseach effort. Area to study are as followed: Deepening and narrowing the "potential well" inside the inner grid. Methods to increase ion collisions inside the potential well and decrease collisions on the grid wires; magnetizing the grids, pulsing the ions at resonance frequency, concentrating ion formation with non-metal grid, alternating the voltage to the grid, and other means. Methods of collecting the neutrons for direct conversion to electricity. To eventually achieve a self-sustained fusor to power conventional loads. Good Experimenting, Michael Randall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 20:57:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18764; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711060453.UAA22342 sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"yGn0y1.0.2b4.TrKOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12474 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer wrote: At 10:07 AM 11/5/97 -0800, you wrote: >I offer some background on electrostatically confined fusion, including >"fusors" and other "brand names". >>According to Farnsworth's research he acheived a 30 sec. self-sustained >fusion reaction on Dec. 28, 1965, according to his wife that was a witness >to the event. In Farnsworth's Fusor Mark III-Mod.6 (Patent 3,386,883) at 170 >kv and 70 ma at vacuum 10-6mm of hg with a mixture of tritium and deuterium >as fuel, he acheived a 1.55 x 10 10th neutron count. This input power is >about 12 KILOwatts, the fusion output is a bit under 50 MILLIwatts. This >is _not_ "self-sustained" fusion. Ooops! Sorry for my error. It was two separate statements. Farnsworth achieved, several times, a self-sustained fusion reaction between 30 sec. to 1 minute. And he also achieved high neutron counts. I couldn't find the data on the self-sustaining fusion experiment other than the time length. Regards, Michael >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 20:58:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18844; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:54:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:54:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:53:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711060453.UAA22541 sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"jaJwl3.0.Lc4.zrKOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12476 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> It seemed to me to be a nice practical >>HS or college physics experiment to "see" the fusion reaction as it occurs. >>It was reported to look like a star. > >It will, indeed. Interesting post Michael. Thank you for the energy calculations and comments :-) Regards, Michael From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 21:10:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22574; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:08:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:08:07 -0800 Message-ID: <34615096.3EDE gorge.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:07:34 -0800 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Mills' experiments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"q28H03.0.aW5.q2LOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12477 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: >If the heat calibration of the supposed gas phase cf >device is done before cleaning, as is the case, then the emissivity during >calibration would be higher than in actual operation. This would give a >very large error, on the order of a factor of two or more in the apparent >heat generated. That is because the cleaned metal surface will be hotter >for the same energy input as the IR radiation would be much reduced. >...the procedure for supposedly loading in the >hydrogen was identical to the procedure we use here at NASA to clean our >metal surfaces and when the metal reactor surface is cleaned it will heat >up. >...the presence of hydrogen is necessary. Without it >there is not much cleaning. Perhaps my earlier question was not sufficiently clear. If I understand correctly, you (NASA) applied heat (presumably electric resistance heating) to a metal "probe," and placed the "probe" in a low pressure hydrogen atmosphere, which resulted in cleaning the surface of the probe. That is, the surface of the probe which was subjected to the hydrogen atmosphere, which surface presumably is also the active surface of the probe. The above operation caused the (cleaned) surface of the probe to "heat up," or "be hotter for the same energy input as the IR radiation would be much reduced." The "same energy input" being (presumably) the (resistance) heat intentionally applied by you. This applied heat must have originally (before cleaning) been at a higher temperature than, and some finite distance from the "dirty" surface, and travel through the metal mass of the probe. The only way I can imagine how this higher surface temperature would have an effect on the calibration of such a probe would be if the probe in some way depended on measuring the relationship between the temperature of the internally applied heat source and the temperature of the exposed surface of the probe. In the case of a gas phase reactor vessel, the presumably "cleaned" surface must necessarily be the surface facing the interior of the reactor. If THAT surface "will be hotter for the same energy input," or "get hotter," one must ask, "what energy input?" I naively assume that the energy generated by a gas phase reactor is generated INSIDE the reactor. Or, is there an externally applied heat source at a higher temperature than the original "dirty" interior surface of the reactor? This is the question I was attempting to ask in my previous post. ?? Do gas phase CF reactors utilize an externally applied heat source, as in the case of NASA's "probes?"?? If they do not, there would seem to be little relationship between a gas phase reactor and a "probe." If, however, there is a reaction between hydrogen and "hot metal" which will cause the metal to "heat up" further, I think vortex would like to know more about such a reaction. For instance, 1. Is the mechanism by which hydrogen "cleans" metal known? 2. What metals? 3. What tmeperature and pressure? 4. Is there any possibility that the subject metal might actually "heat up," even if not subject to external heating? Thank you for reading. Tom Miller From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 5 23:48:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA08652; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:43:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:43:33 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:43:27 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: [off topic]Mars Pathfinder Dead?! (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"l-TEQ.0.u62.YKNOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12478 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A mile - hi salute to sojourner! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:01:49 -0500 (EST) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: ekwall2 diac.com Subject: Mars Pathfinder Winds Down After Phenomenal Mission Douglas Isbell Headquarters, Washington, DC November 4, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1753) Diane Ainsworth Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 97-255 MARS PATHFINDER WINDS DOWN AFTER PHENOMENAL MISSION After operating on the surface of Mars three times longer than expected and returning a tremendous amount of new information about the red planet, NASA's Mars Pathfinder mission is winding down. Flight operators at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, made the announcement today after attempting to reestablish communications with the spacecraft over the last month. With depletion of the spacecraft's main battery and no success in contacting Mars Pathfinder via its main or secondary transmitters, the flight team cannot command the spacecraft or the small rover named Sojourner that had been roving about the landing site and studying rocks. "We concede that the likelihood of hearing from the spacecraft again diminishes with each day," said Pathfinder Project Manager Brian Muirhead. "We will scale back our efforts to reestablish contact but not give up entirely. "Given that, and the fact that Pathfinder is the first of several missions to Mars, we'll say 'see you later' instead of saying goodbye," he said. At the time the last telemetry from the spacecraft was received, Pathfinder's lander had operated nearly three times its design lifetime of 30 days, and the Sojourner rover operated 12 times its design lifetime of seven days. "I want to thank the many talented men and women at NASA for making the mission such a phenomenal success. It embodies the spirit of NASA, and serves as a model for future missions that are faster, better, and cheaper. Today, NASA's Pathfinder team should take a bow, because America is giving them a standing ovation for a stellar performance," said NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin. Since its landing on July 4, 1997, Mars Pathfinder has returned 2.6 billion bits of information, including more than 16,000 images from the lander and 550 images from the rover, as well as more than 15 chemical analyses of rocks and extensive data on winds and other weather factors. The only remaining objective was to complete the high-resolution 360-degree image of the landing site called the "Super Pan," of which 83 percent has already been received and is being processed. The last successful data transmission cycle from Pathfinder was completed at 3:23 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Sept. 27, which was Sol 83 of the mission. "This mission has advanced our knowledge of Mars tremendously and will surely be a beacon of success for upcoming missions to the red planet," added Dr. David Baltimore, president of the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA. "Done quickly and within a very limited budget, Pathfinder sets a standard for 21st century space exploration." The Mars Pathfinder team first began having communications problems with the spacecraft on Saturday, Sept. 27. After three days of attempting to reestablish contact, they were able to lock on to a carrier signal from the spacecraft's auxiliary transmitter on Oct. 1, which meant that the spacecraft was still operational. They locked on to the same carrier signal again on Oct. 6, but were not able to acquire data on the condition of the lander. At that time, the team surmised that the intermittent communications were most likely related to depletion of the spacecraft's battery and a drop in the spacecraft's operating temperatures due to the loss of the battery, which kept the lander functioning at warmer temperatures. Over the last month the operations team has been working through all credible problem scenarios and taking a variety of actions in attempting to recover the link with Pathfinder. With all of the most plausible possibilities exhausted, the team plans to continue sending commands and listening for a spacecraft signal on a less frequent basis. "Basically we are shifting to a contingency strategy of sending commands to the lander only periodically, perhaps once a week or once per month," said Mission Manager Richard Cook. "Normal mission operations are over, but there is still a small chance of reestablishing a link, so we'll keep trying at a very low level." Although the true cause of the loss of lander communications may never be known, recent events are consistent with predictions made at the beginning of the extended mission in early August, Muirhead said. When asked about the life expectancy of the lander, project team members predicted that the first thing that would fail on the lander would be the battery; this apparently happened after the last successful transmission September 27. After that, the lander was expected to begin getting colder at night and go through much deeper day-night thermal cycles. Eventually, the cold or the cycling would probably render the lander inoperable. According to Muirhead, it appears that this sequence of events has probably taken place. The health and status of the rover is also unknown, but since initiating its onboard backup operations plan a month ago, the rover is probably circling the vicinity of the lander, attempting to communicate with it. The rover, which went into a contingency mode on Oct. 6, or Sol 92 of the mission, had completed an alpha proton X-ray spectrometer study of a rock nicknamed Chimp, to the left of the Rock Garden, when it was last heard from. The rover team had planned to send the rover on its longest journey yet -- a 165-foot (50-meter) clockwise stroll around the lander -- to perform a series of technology experiments and hazard avoidance exercises when the communications outage occurred. That excursion was never initiated once the rover's contingency software began operating. Now known as the Sagan Memorial Station, the Mars Pathfinder lander was designed primarily to demonstrate a low-cost way of delivering a set of science instruments and a free-ranging rover to the surface of the red planet. Landers and rovers of the future will share the heritage of spacecraft designs and technologies first tested in this "pathfinding" mission. Part of NASA's Discovery program of low-cost planetary missions, the spacecraft used an innovative method of directly entering the Martian atmosphere. Assisted by a 36-foot-diameter (11-meter) parachute, the spacecraft descended to the surface of Mars on July 4 and landed, using airbags to cushion the impact. The spacecraft's novel entry was successful. Scientific highlights of the Mars Pathfinder mission are: * Martian dust includes magnetic, composite particles, with a mean size of one micron. * Rock chemistry at the landing site may be different from Martian meteorites found on Earth, and could be of basaltic andesite composition. * The soil chemistry of Ares Vallis appears to be similar to that of the Viking 1 and 2 landing sites. * The observed atmospheric clarity is higher than was expected from Earth-based microwave measurements and Hubble Space Telescope observations. * Dust is confirmed as the dominant absorber of solar radiation in Mars' atmosphere, which has important consequences for the transport of energy in the atmosphere and its circulation. Frequent "dust devils" were found with an unmistakable temperature, wind and pressure signature, and morning turbulence; at least one may have contained dust (on Sol 62), suggesting that these gusts are a mechanism for mixing dust into the atmosphere. * Evidence of wind abrasion of rocks and dune-shaped deposits was found, indicating the presence of sand. * Morning atmospheric obscurations are due to clouds, not ground fog; Viking could not distinguish between these two possibilities. * The weather was similar to the weather encountered by Viking 1; there were rapid pressure and temperature variations, downslope winds at night and light winds in general. Temperatures were about 10 degrees warmer than those measured by Viking 1. * Diversity of albedos, or variations in the brightness of the Martian surface, was similar to other observations, but there was no evidence for the types of crystalline hematite or pyroxene absorption features detected in other locations on Mars. * The atmospheric experiment package recorded a temperature profile different than expected from microwave measurements and Hubble observations. * Rock size distribution was consistent with a flood-related deposit. * The moment of inertia of Mars was refined to a corresponding core radius of between 807 miles and 1,242 miles (1,300 and 2,000 kilometers). * The possible identification of rounded pebbles and cobbles on the ground, and sockets and pebbles in some rocks, suggests conglomerates that formed in running water, during a warmer past in which liquid water was stable. Engineering milestones of the mission included demonstrating a new way of delivering a spacecraft to the surface of Mars by way of direct entry into the Martian atmosphere. In addition, Mars Pathfinder demonstrated for the first time the ability of engineers to deliver a semi-autonomous roving vehicle capable of conducting science experiments to the surface of another planet. The Mars Pathfinder mission is managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, DC. The mission is the second in the Discovery program of fast track, low-cost spacecraft with highly focused science goals. JPL is managed by the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. -end- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 00:06:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA11566; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:04:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:04:42 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:04:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971106030407_-391111175 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"Lx04R2.0.dq2.OeNOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12479 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-05 04:59:58 EST, you write: From: hamdix verisoft.com.tr (Hamdi Ucar) >I just figured out the possibility the hydrogen atoms or molecules with >fractional quantum energies may contribute to the cold dark matter which >postulated to form galactic halos and fill the intergalactic space. > There are some claims that the X and EUV radiation coming from >unidentified sources may been produced by this hydrogen atoms. This is all covered in the writeups at the Blacklight Power Website: http://www.blacklightpower.com Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 01:16:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA19036; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:09:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:09:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:09:30 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment In-Reply-To: <199711050340.VAA04705 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FoeZE.0.Mf4.IbOOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12480 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Richard Wayne Wall wrote: >>-=snip=- My method of research >>comports closely with the Scientific Method, sorry to say. >>-snip- >>consistant. And, I take no offense at being tagged a cold fusion >>wannabe. %^) >>-snip- >> You know those *dangerous* plutonium power supplies in >>those risky space probes. Guess how they get direct power conversion. >>By the way B 11 is an 80% isotope readily available in sea water. >> -snip- >> >>No artifact. See above. BTW, don't sweat 300,000 neutrons/sec. Not >>much of a dose. The key is they're there and easily detected. >> >>Yes, I'm deeply involved with it. >> >>RWW >> Sounds GREAT RWW,... DO you have a VCR you could send for this?? Very Interesting... What would be the price of your video recodings?? Do you have an address (net/web) for MORE?? Which VCR #'s do you recommend? (I can afford a few.... maybe not all though) How MANY VCR's are there ANYWAY?? Thanks for your help! -=jse=- dreaming of your easily detected 'dose'(s) / vcr'(s) :) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 01:29:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA16639; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:25:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:25:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack centuryinter.net Message-Id: <34617D1D.371FE12B mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 03:17:33 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Puthoff aol.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wheel of Orrfyeus (sp?) References: <971027230849_-1259156607 mrin42.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8MDVx1.0.v34.OqOOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12481 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Puthoff aol.com wrote: > > Hal Puthoff wrote: > > "Jack, > > I finally got around to sending you a copy of > the article on the above topic. ... " > Hi Hal, Do you think that Sir George Airy's hypothesis that "if, however, the magnitude of the force should depend not on the position of the body at the instant of the force's action, but on its position at some time preceding that action, the theorem [Conservation of Energy] that we have stated would no longer be true," might explain Greg Watson's SMOT? Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 03:24:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA24306; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:19:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:19:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:18:30 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Solar Mystery /ROSS/SOHO (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"QKm5_1.0.hx5.kUQOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12482 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross, this would appear to support your aether theory wouldn't it? Compressed (condensed almost) spiting back out to the surface flares? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:11:24 -0500 (EST) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: ekwall2 diac.com Subject: Solar Mystery Nears Solution with Data from SOHO Spacecraft Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC November 5, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1547) EMBARGOED UNTIL 1 P.M. EST Bill Steigerwald Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-5017) RELEASE: 97-256 SOLAR MYSTERY NEARS SOLUTION WITH DATA FROM SOHO SPACECRAFT A likely solution to one of the major mysteries of the Sun has emerged from recent observations with the European Space Agency/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) mission. The new findings seem to account for a substantial part of the energy needed to cause the very high temperature of the corona, the outermost layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Since the corona's temperature was first measured 55 years ago, scientists have lacked a satisfactory explanation for why that temperature is three million degrees while the visible surface of the Sun is only 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit or about 6,000 degrees Celsius. It is physically impossible to transfer thermal energy from the cooler surface to the much hotter corona, so the energy transfer had to be in the form of waves or magnetic energy, but no measurement to date had found adequate energy to account for the coronal temperature. "We now have direct evidence for the upward transfer of magnetic energy from the Sun's surface toward the corona above. There is more than enough energy coming up from the loops of the 'magnetic carpet' to heat the corona to its known temperature," said Dr. Alan Title of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center, Palo Alto, CA, who led the research. "Each one of these loops carries as much energy as a large hydroelectric plant, such as the Hoover dam, generates in about a million years!" "We now appear to be closing in on an explanation as to why the solar corona is over 100 times hotter than the solar surface - - the solution to a 55-year old puzzle," said Dr. George Withbroe, Director of the Sun-Earth Connection Program at NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. "These results underline the importance of long- term study of the changing conditions on the Sun from the superior vantage point of space." Energy flows from the loops when they interact, producing electrical and magnetic "short circuits." The very strong electric currents in these short circuits are what heats the corona to a temperature of several million degrees. Images from the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) and the Coronal Diagnostics Spectrometer (CDS) on SOHO show the hot gases of the ever-changing corona reacting to the evolving magnetic fields rooted in the solar surface. The observations with SOHO's Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) provided long-duration, highly detailed, and well calibrated time- lapse movies of the magnetic fields on the visible surface or "photosphere" of the Sun. These revealed the rapidly changing properties of what Title calls "the Sun's Magnetic Carpet," a sprinkling of tens-of-thousands of magnetic concentrations. These concentrations have both north and south magnetic poles, which are the "foot points" of magnetic loops extending into the solar corona. Like field biologists who study the populations and life cycles of animal herds, the SOHO researchers analyzed the appearances and disappearances of large numbers of the small magnetic concentrations on the solar surface. "We find that after a typical small magnetic loop emerges, it fragments and drifts around and then disappears in only 40 hours," Title said. "It's very hard to understand how such a short-lived effect could be driven by the magnetic dynamo layer that is over 100,000 miles beneath the surface of the Sun. This may be evidence that unknown processes are at work in or near the solar surface that continuously form these loops all over the Sun." Professor Phillip Scherrer of Stanford University is the MDI Principal Investigator. MDI was built at the LM Technology Center and is a project of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research. The new observations were made with several instruments on SOHO, which is stationed about 900,000 miles (1.5 million kilometers) sunward of the Earth in interplanetary space, where it has an uninterrupted view of the Sun and of the solar wind particles blown from the Sun. SOHO is operated from a control center at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. SOHO was launched on Dec. 2, 1995 aboard an Atlas-IIAS expendable launch vehicle from Kennedy Space Center, FL. -end- NOTE TO EDITORS: Images to support this story can be found at the following internet locations: ftp://pao.gsfc.nasa.gov/mewsmedia/SSU http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/ssu/magnetic_carpet.html Information about the SOHO spacecraft and its observations may be found at URL: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 04:48:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29507; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:38:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:38:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971106073541.006ce05c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 07:35:41 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Debye temp In-Reply-To: <3461f038.21416706 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"uS4Os3.0.zC7.yeROq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12483 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:57 AM 11/5/97 GMT, >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >> As mentioned before, the active materials are NOT rhombohedral, >>and the papers are in the literature, including extensive >>xray spectroscopy papers. > >Ok, according to my hypothesis (with credit to Horace Heffner and >Charles Cagle), the basic criterion that needs to be satisfied, is >that there be a minimum of relative motion between nuclei involved. >This leads to the following list of further criteria. >Vibrations must: > >1) Be parallel (i.e. the same spatial orientation). >2) Have the same frequency. >3) Have the same amplitude. >4) Be in phase. > >(zip) >> >This essentially leaves three paths open for further investigation: >1) Use a base matrix that is already rhombohedral (Sb or Bi). >2) Make use of existing crystallographic databases to find crystalline >compounds containing H that are rhombohedral. >3) Try to figure out exactly which additive trace elements along with > H will skew an fcc or bcc lattice sufficiently to reduce the > symmetry of a cell to the minimum. > > Thank you Robin for sharing this. Hope you are correct. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 06:14:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08566; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:06:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:06:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:02:22 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Global warming Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711060904_MC2-26FC-4897 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"X2PBH1.0.g52.6xSOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12484 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Here is part of a message that Arthur Clarke sent me about global warming. You can learn more about this at the web site. Clarke believes the evidence for global warming is "sketchy and incomplete." I myself have not studied the problem so I have no opinion. People say it remains an open question. Perhaps they are correct, but on the other hand people say that about cold fusion and they are wrong. The Collins and Pinch book "The Golem" showed that many scientific debates end with a whimper, not a bang. Questions are not resolved; people lose interest instead, or they die. Fleischmann and I fear that the cold fusion scientists will die and the field will disappear, because the pace of progress is slow and opposition is intense. Clarke was surprised to find himself in agreement with William Happer. The statements at the web site seem to me to be intemperate and politically right wing. If the scientific objections to the global warming theory have merit I suppose these people have a right to be intemperate. Clarke and I usually lean to the left, but not always. He supports nuclear fission. So do I, with grave reservations. It is better than coal. I have attached some of my thoughts about global warming. - Jed Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:31:59 -0500 From: S. Fred Singer ssinger1 gmu.edu Subject: NEW BOOK LAYS OUT THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING NEWS RELEASE Contact: Carl Close, October 30, 1997 (510) 632-1366 NEW BOOK LAYS OUT THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING Although Governments Rush to Raise Energy Taxes, Global Temperatures are Actually Headed Down OAKLAND, California--In recent weeks, as delegations from 150 countries prepared to discuss stringent and mandatory measures to combat global warming at a December meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, environmental activists and their bureaucratic allies have tried to stifle public debate by claiming that the evidence was "compelling" and the science "settled." But according to physicist S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Program and chairman of the U.S. investigation into climate effects of the supersonic transport (SST), the science on global warming is neither settled, nor compelling, nor even convincing. In Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (Oakland, California: Independent Institute 1997), Singer presents a comprehensive assessment of scientific controversies on the climate change issue. Most disturbing, he says, is that the proposals being put forth at Kyoto are based on forecasts from flawed computer models of the Earth's climate, and not on actual observations. Although the models are improving over time (and their warming forecasts growing smaller), they still cannot simulate clouds, predict the occurrence of El Ninos nor adequately account for the climate effects of volcanic eruptions. In effect, he says, modelers are holding up a black box and saying: "Trust us. It's in there." Many atmospheric scientists are not so sure. While global average temperatures have increased about 1 degree F in the last century, almost all of this occurred before 1940 and is considered by most atmospheric scientists--including respected Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, former chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--to be a natural recovery from the "Little Ice Age," a period of much colder temperatures between the years 1450 and 1850. In the last 50 years the temperature increase has been negligible; in the last 20 years, according to global satellite data, temperatures have actually fallen slightly. Singer points out that the Earth's history, both recent and geologic, shows evidence of many natural and unexplained temperature fluctuations. Even over the last 3,000 years of recorded history, some of these changes were larger and more rapid than those forecast by the models. What is more, there is no evidence that recent droughts, floods, snowstorms or other severe weather-related phenomena are at all related to global temperature. Since 1950, the severity and frequency of hurricanes has actually been decreasing. . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Hot Talk, Cold Science will be difficult to dismiss, though many in their rush to establish international agreements and poorly conceived policies and regulations, will undoubtedly wish to do so."--Frederick Seitz, past President, U.S. National Academy of Science. "Hot Talk, Cold Science dares to point out that 'the Emperor has no clothes.' Is there evidence to suggest 'discernible human influence' on climate? Of great interest, this book demonstrates that the evidence is sketchy and incomplete."--Arthur Clarke, space scientist and author of 2001: A Space Odyssey. "Hot Talk, Cold Science carefully reviews the scientific, economic and policy literature on global warming, and provides a welcome, reasoned assessment of the facts and uncertainties. I strongly recommend this important book to any citizen."--William Happer, former Director of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, and now Professor of Physics, Princeton University. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate By S. Fred Singer Foreword by Frederick Seitz (Oakland, California: Independent Institute, 1997) 120 Pages o 24 Figures o 14 Sidebars o Appendix o Index $14.95 Paperback ISBN 0-94599-75-5 . . . ************************************* Visit our redesigned and expanded web site at http://www.his.com/~sepp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jed's thoughts: I think Gene agrees with [Clarke] that the evidence for global warming is sketchy and incomplete. I myself do not know enough about the subject to judge. Maybe I should read "Hot Talk" and educate myself. However, I do have an opinion about global warming. Nobody else seems to look at it the way I do, which surprises me. . . . I think that it is a shame the environmentalists have latched on to global warming. They should not invest so much of their reputation on it. They should not emphasize it so much. It is a weak reed. What will happen if the tide of scientific opinion turns against the theory? I am an ardent environmentalist. I fully support the goals needed to reduce the threat of global warming -- but for different reasons! Even if global warming does not exist we should conserve energy. There are plenty of obvious, immediate, critical reasons to do this. People in the third world are dying for lack of energy. It costs too much, partly because we Americans hog so much fuel. And we use too much fuel for our own good. Everyone knows we do! The air in Atlanta is filthy. The quickest, best way to clean it up is to improve efficiency. CO2 may not be a problem but everything else that accompanies energy generation surely is. We have hundreds of good reasons to reduce fuel consumption, and thousands of ways to do it. We do not need a bogeyman global warming crisis in the distant future. . . . The environmentalists should stop talking about a potential threat in the distant future, and concentrate instead on the here and now. They should stop trying to make people feel guilty, and stop trying to punish society. Our greatest social reformer, FDR, would have been appalled at their tactics. The way to reform society is to make people feel good about themselves. You enlist them in a moral crusade that will lead to practical benefits for themselves and their families. Show people how to save money, live more comfortably, and cut pollution and they will *flock* to join your movement. . . . Compact flourescent lights, improved insulation, heat pumps, rooftop water heaters and other energy saving equipment has been in widespread use in Europe and Japan for decades, but you seldom see these things in the U.S. We are burning up money for no reason. Hybrid gasoline electric automobiles were invented in 1905. . . . They would double fuel efficiency. (See Sci. Am., October 1997, p. 70). . . . I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but I do think the political power of the oil companies makes our political leaders drag their feet. They hate to budget money for conservation or educating the consumer. They love to budget money for more oil exploration, and they are willing to fight another $100 billion war with Saddam Hussein over oil. . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 06:29:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23983; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:23:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:23:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:19:12 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Asti Workshop Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711060922_MC2-2702-28D1 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"fYli53.0.fs5.kBTOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12485 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Here is more from William Collis about the upcoming cold fusion Asti Workshop. It looks like a stellar lineup of participants! You gotta hand it to the Italians -- they do a great job in CF. I wish I could go. If Peter Gluck or Bart Simon make it to the meeting we'll have to ask them to file a "stringer" (freelance) report here on Vortex. - Jed Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium loaded Metals 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 Dear Colleague, I am pleased to report there has been excellent response to our invitation to the workshop. The hotel is nearly full so if you have not confirmed your attendance already, please do so now. If you are presenting a paper please specify the title, and if possible, bring a copy with you to the workshop for copying and distribution. The workshop has received significant sponsorship and the press conference and truffle prize-giving will go ahead as planned. If you would like to nominate a candidate for the truffle prize please do so. Participants may be interested to know that the Cincinnati group may be bringing their LENT-1 kit to the workshop. Check out the workshop web site www.netcity.it/coldfusion for the latest details. Yours sincerely Bill Collis (Local Organizer) PARTICIPANTS (as of 3 November 1997) Please inform me of errors or ommissions! Mr William Collis Eneco Ltd Dott. Francesco Scalfari ASSTA Dott. Ing. Alfredo Mancini Orim srl Dott. Roberto Irsuti 21mo Secolo Scienza e Tecnologia Ing. Vito Cela Fiat Avio SpA Prof. Carlos Sanchez Lopez Universidad de Madrid Dr. Francesco INFN, Frascati Dr. Peter Glueck? Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Cluj-Napoca, Romania Prof Felice Iazzi INFN, Torino Prof Tullio Bressani INFN, Torino Dr. S Veronesi Universita di Siena Prof Robert Huggins+1 Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Germania Dott. Ing. Guido Clerici Societa' Industriale Accumulatori Dott.ssa A. Rizzo Universita di Bologna Prof Giuliano Mengoli IPELP - CNR Dott. Ettore Ruberti ENEA Ing. Fausto Lanfranco Fiat-Hitachi Excavators Mr Bart Simon UCSD Dott. Diego Macerata Centro Ricerche Fiat Prof F. Premuda Universita di Bologna Prof L Daddi Accademia Navale di Livorno Dr Jean de Lagarde Prof. Martin Fleischmann University of Southampton Prof. George Miley University of Illinois Dr Fulvio Frissone+2 Universita di Catania Dr M. McKubre Stanford Research Institute Dr Jacques Dufour Shell Research SA, Paris Dott. Antonio Spallone INFN Frascati Prof. J. P. Biberian+1 Universite' de Marseilles N. Asami Institute of Applied Energy H Kaminura Institute of Applied Energy Uehara Institute of Applied Energy Prof J.P. Vigier Pierre & M Curie.. Prof G. Preparata? Universita' di Milano Mr S Gleeson+2 Cincinnati Group Mr P Mobberley+1 SPONSORS Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Asti. Eneco Ltd. 21mo Secolo Scienza e Tecnologia. L'ACN - L'Accessorio Nucleare srl Associazione per lo Sviluppo Scientifico e Tecnologico di Asti. Orim srl. WORKSHOP PROGRAM Wednesday 26 November Arrival at Hotel Villa Riccardi. Thursday 27 November Presentation of Papers Round Table Discussions Friday 28 November "Colloqui sulla Fusione Fredda" Press Conference and Prizegiving at the Cassa di Risparmio di Asti. Luncheon Banquet at the Hotel Reale. Excursion. Saturday 29 November Presentation of Papers. Round Table Discussions. Sunday 30 November Presentation of Papers. Departure. HOW TO GET TO VILLA RICCARDI Four international airports serve Asti. Genova is closest (1 hour by car) and being on the Mediterranean Sea does not suffer from fog which may be common in winter. The other airports are about 95 minutes distant by car. To the east is Milan which has two airports, Linate and Malpensa. To the west is Torino's Caselle airport. >From the west (ie Torino) exit the A21 motorway at Asti Est and proceed east on the main road to Castello Di Annone. >From the other airports exit at Felizzano and take the main road west. From Castello Di Annone follow the road south to Rocca d'Arazzo. You can also take a taxi from Genova or Torino airports to the town centre and then a direct train to Asti station. Villa Riccardi's fax and telephone number is +39-141-408565. The address is Via al Monte 7, Rocca d'Arazzo(AT). From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 07:10:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA01353; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:01:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:01:39 -0800 Message-ID: <3461CDE6.41E8 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:02:14 -0600 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 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Cold Fusion Authorities] Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"-hh3X3.0.2L.IlTOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12486 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!mr.net!netnews.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!129.240.148.41!nntp.uio.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Authorities Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:23:34 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199710311833.NAA61990 pilot004.cl.msu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <199710311833.NAA61990 pilot004.cl.msu.edu> On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Richard A Blue wrote: > Fleischmann and Bockris may indeed be authority figures whose > opinions on electrochemistry are to be given special weight. > However, as authorities on nuclear reactions they rank well > down on the scale of authoritativeness. Last time I checked, > the subject of most controversy here involves some rather > doubtful claims concerning nuclear reactions. I would > suggest that those distinguished Professors of Electrochemistry > have no special standing in that field. Their pronouncements > on cold fusion should be treated accordingly. I think that is me you are replying to. Sorry to disagree, Dick, but I do. Way back in 1989, as I remember, Douglas Morrison heard Fleischmann talk at CERN, shortly after t = 0. He wrote something like, "There is no doubt that Fleischmann is a first-rate scientist". It is true that F is not a nuclear physicist, but any first-rate scientist would bring his experience of how science is done to bear, on any topic, whether he/she is an expert in that field or not. This leaves unexplained some of the grosser mistakes he and Pons made, such as lack of controls, their bumbling with neutron and gamma spectra etc. I still say (admit), though, that I take more notice when a known first-rate scientist says something, than when Joe Blow says it. I can then go on to wonder why, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary (as here), the FRS persists in his claims; and with respect to Fleischmann and Bockris, I simply don't know. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 07:41:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24265; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:31:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:31:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3461D4A4.1650 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:31:00 -0600 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 Subject: Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin (part 2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7E20S3.0.3x5._AUOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12487 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Since the reports by Miley and the patents by CETI also refer to Ni-H2O systems, I will quote from my Ninth Miley Critique, October 23, 1997, correcting my mistakes about recombination: I apologize for offering up yet another tedious epistle in this series, named in order for my own convenience in keeping track of what I've done. Jed Rothwell recently described George Miley's results: "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis," (First Preprint) and "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis," (Second Preprint), fall, 1996, Fusion Studies Laboratory, U. of Illinois, 103 S. Goodwin Avenue, Illinois, 61801-2984, 217-333-3772, g-miley uiuc.edu. Recombination of O2 and H2 in the electrolyte, catalyzed by the large 32 cm2 area of 1,000 closely packed Ni coated 1 mm beads, would act to lower any output power. Such recombination is well established to have invalidated most claims of excess heat in nickel-light water cells, as reported by three detailed, thorough theoretical and experimental studies in 1995. I'll summarize Mily's description, adding questions. Miley makes it clear that calorimetry was not the main focus of these runs, so I am raising these questions mainly for pedagogic reasons, to indicate what should be included in careful attempts at replication and searching out possible artifacts. Since his team made a variety of types of beads, which all produced excess heat, it is difficult to claim that the quality of bead metal coating is the critical factor for success. No special source for high quality Pd or Ni was claimed. If high heat output can be reliably replicated for thin film systems, then that would comprise a significant advance in cold fusion research. Up to now, unsuccessful experiments are often dismissed with the claim that inferior sources of palladium were used. Hopefully, Miley's beads would be made available for replication efforts by independent researchers. In fact, low cost excess heat kits could quickly be made widely available at a low cost. Flow rate of 1-molar lithium sulfate electrolyte in light water: "~11 ml/min", ~.2 ml/sec. The beads occupy about .5 cm3. It would take about 5 seconds to move 1 cm3 of electrolyte through the cell. Digital flowmeter as source of impurities and electric potentials? How accurate? How constant? Any fluctuations? Any color changes? Bubbles? Composition after two weeks? Changes in trace D2O levels? Amount and nature of gases evolved? Any evidence for recombination of H2 and O2? Gunk deposited on inner walls of system? Amount and composition of solid debris in system? Weight change of 1000 1mm Ni plated beads? Color and surface changes on beads? Chemical assay of dissolved Ni (initially about 2 milligrams for Run #8, 650-A Ni film) from all beads to exactly determine any changes in composition? Amount of dissolved H2 and O2 over time? Total amount of electrolyte in system? Table 4a: 100 ml electrolyte. Composition of electrolyte reservoir? Entering electrolyte temperature: "approximately 60 degrees C" ""60-70 degrees C". How accurate? How constant? Run time: 310 hours. Temperature rise: "less than 0.5 degrees C". Complete graphed data of two-week run data? Accuracy? Any heat bursts? Any long-term drift? Type of thermisters? Quality of electronics? Electronic glitches? Precise location of thermisters, on top, outside tube, inside tube, inside center of flow, exact distance from cell? Any checks for different results from these locations? Possible source of electric potentials? Initial loading: Exact loading times? Graphs of initial voltage changes, until "equilibrium voltage level of 2-3 V...about an hour...A quantitative measurement of the loading was not attempted..."? Other measures to verify loading? Auxilliary heater: Power? Exact history of output? Possible source of trace impurities? Possible source of elecric potentials? "The pump and preheater consume an additional 5 W..." Pump: power, constancy, source of bubbles, source of impurities or electric potentials, mechanical energy imparted as heat to system? Voltages and currents: "~2-3 V, with several mA of current, giving an electrical input power of approximately 0.06 watt." How accurate, constant? Exact graph for two-week run? Any spikes? Long term drift? Resistance of cell, exact graph for two-week run? Amount of H2 and O2 that should be evolved if recombination is zero? Integrated electric input power for two-week run? Resistance of electrode leads, and their contribution to excess heat? Positive outputs: "in all cases" How many cases? Distribution of data? Was most heat output from steady output or spikes or bursts? Level of background fluctuation in data? "...only considered to be accurate to +-0.4 W." "...output of 0.5+-0.4 watts. Calibration corrections due to heat loses and flow-pattern variation indicated a positive excess heat." More details about heat losses and flow-pattern variation? Second Preprint mentions "Over a dozen experiments...Positive, but often very small, increases in temperature across the cell, ranging from 0.1 to 4 degrees C, were observed in all cases." Table 1, Summary of runs, gives values for two runs in round numbers, like "2 +-0.5 W", while four runs, with different composition and thicknesses of the metal films, have exactly the same excess power, "0.1 - 0.9 W". The electrolyte will after some time store up a level of dissolved O2 and H2. Is it possible that a level will be reached in which suddenly the cell starts to catalyze recombination with a vengance, generating excess heat from the stored-up O2 and H2 in the electrolyte? Rothwell's claim that Motorola researchers in 1995 found hours of "heat after death" production in their CETI-type cell after its input power was turned off sparked an idea in my mind today, during a wonderful group meditation this morning here in Santa Fe, "What if that heat output is from the recombination of stored O2 and He in the electrolyte? Can anyone give me the name of the laboratory, or the researchers, or any details about this report? I would also welcome being sent copies of more recent reports that discuss CETI cell power output in detail. CETI, Cravens, Miley, Little, Claytor,or Merriman could check out this scenario by setting up a cell with Pt electrodes to electrolyze a slightly acidifid H2O electrolyte with recombination prevented by enclosing the electrodes in open glass cylinders, until the electrolyte has built up various levels of dissolved H2 and O2, and then running that electrolyte through a CETI cell, with and without electric input power, to measure the output heat. Also, try a cell filled with tin shot for a control. Another possibility to be checked is that in a successful, high heat output run, there might be an electric potential leak into the electrolyte from the thermisters, auxiliary heater, pump, or digital flowmeter, causing a 10 to 100 V potential from the titanium end electrodes to the leak site, thus puting an unknown amount of electrical energy into the electrolyte, generating a high level of dissolved H2 and O2 and possibly other reactive chemicals, which would then react in the cell to generate spurious, substantial excess heat. Yet another possibility that has to be checked is that hot spots in the complex geometry of packed beads may produce segregated, stable streamlines of hot, low-density electrolyte, perhaps with altered composition and viscosity, within the cell that extend far enough from the cell to hit the output thermister, generating an excess heat signal that is higher than the actual average temperature of the whole flow at that point. Anyone who has stirred cream into coffee can appreciate how complex and stable the flow patterns can be. Only a focused intention to uncover such artifacts will discover them. The CETI patent, first filed Dec. 4, 1995, is presented in complete detail in Infinite Energy # 12, Jan.-Feb., 1997. With a flow rate of 640 ml/min, 10.7 ml/sec, 5.0 V, .48 A, 2.40 W input, the temperature rise is 5.4 degrees C, giving an excess heat of 10,079%, a hundred-fold gain. An identical control loop simultaneously ran a control cell filled with "solid spherically shaped tin shot of about twenty to forty mesh in diameter." It lost 0.3 degrees C, and so had heat loss 13.4 W. Thermocouples were positioned within inlet and outlet tubes. "Corrected" estimates for the run resulted in a claimed excess heat of 108,120%, a thousand-fold increase. The dimensions, volume, and number of beads in the three-cells-in-series design were not given. Only very summary data for a single run was given. The length of the run was not specified, nor the integrated power input, nor the detailed temperature graphs for the whole run. No measurements of evolved H2 and O2 are described. It is probable that the control beads, "tin shot", were coated with Sn, which is not as effective a catalyst of recombination as nickel. Were the electrolytic and the control thermocouples in exactly the same locations in their outlet tubes? Were this a substantial result, readily replicated, by now there would have been resounding reports of successful replications by many teams of this simple device with its incredible levels of output power. I imagine that the CETI network has become frustrated, puzzled, and disenchanted by their own experiment. The experiment seems simple, foolproof. Yet, high heat output has not been replicated by others. If I am wrong, and detailed written reports exist, I would appreciate having them sent to me, so I can offer a balanced appreciation. Are there features in the attempts at replication by Scott Little and by Barry Merriman that would prevent recombination and other artifacts from operating to generate apparent excess heat? The effect is simply not understood. No nuclear products have been found, such as D, He-3, or He-4. The natural response of a team caught in the process of collective folly is to hunker down, cease searching for artifacts, release incomplete descriptions, equivocate, bargain for time, apply spin control to negative reports, offer strictly in-house controlled demonstrations to unqualified appraisers, and keep the muzzle on those few outside scientists who are allowed to attempt replication of the patented cells, while finding enough funding to either establish the inital effect, or find a new, more productive experiment. This is probably the case with BlackLight Power, and may be starting to be the process with the Cincinnati Group. Little listed 13 claimed positive excess heat results with Ni-H2O, many by eminent laboratories. We see then that a multitude of interesting, convincing positive claims in the cold fusion field may be all invalidated. As my friend Sondra, an acapuncturist, told me tonight at Luby's Cafeteria, "It looks like in science, sometimes you prove you're right, and most of the time you prove you're wrong." I said, "That's real science, for sure!" It is needful to be very cautious indeed in evaluating claims in this field. I will close by quoting from Evan L. Ragland's Preprint of ICCF6 paper, from Infinite Energy, #10, Sept.-Oct., 1996, about his D2O with .1 M LiOH "triode" 80ml open cells with Pd or Ni cathodes. He does not here explain how he calculates input power, so recombination may play a significant role: "Patent...filed 05 June 1995...assembled and calibrated by Dr. Dennis Cravens...Tuesday 01 August...stabilized excess heat was calculated at 267%...02 August...restarted. Maximum excess heat measured was 40%...03 August...null results. Bipolar triode and fibrous nickel cathode tests were also inconclusive...November...inconclusive...14 December...200 degrees Fahrenheit...Efforts to repeat the anomaly went empty...23 December. The test was fraught with unexpected complications, miscalculations, and learning; however all new instrumentation worked precisely and excellent records were logged. The vexatious problem was absolute absence of any evidence of excess heat...13 March, again without evidence of excess heat...21 March...excess heat generation was observed...200% of input. Gain gradually increased to 500% with operation and better informed control. The reactor was in continuous operation until deliberately shut down on 23 August 1996." As is now well known, both Little and Tinsley, with the active and full cooperation of Ragland, failed to find any excess power with this system. Obviously, there were artifacts operating in 1995 and 1996, but what were they? If an unknown artifact produced months of up to 500% excess power in this fairly standard electrolysis setup, then the thoughtful armchair appraiser, which is after all, most of the scientific community, is reasonably going to conclude that artifacts are involved in all mysterious excess heat results for light and heavy water alike. Witness the recent thoughtful appraisal by Dr. Bennett Miller [Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov], an astrophysicist, after perusing hundreds of pages of research, submitted by Dr. Robert Bass [rbrtbass pahrump.com]. Miller was simply not persuaded. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmforall earthlink.net 505-986-9103 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 07:46:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13198; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:33:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:33:37 -0800 Message-ID: <3461D561.7D75 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:34:09 -0600 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 Subject: Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin (part 1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nw13_2.0.uD3.EDUOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12488 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 1, 1997 Dear all, Yesterday, I wrote re Swartz's report: The field of light water-nickel electrolysis reminds me of the wreckage of Star Fleet, scattered through space, after the Borg attack. Swartz has arrived at the scene like the Enterprise, almost the only survivor. Can he prevail, when so many have failed-- months ago, I jotted with my red ballpoint, "References 1 to 7-- all bad." Swartz responded with a fair question: Though I am neither a great fan of Star Trek or acupuncture to which Mr. Murray takes fond interest, I have reviewed the references #1-7, and Mr. Murray's comments are IMO more glib than supported by fact. Would like to know what Mr. Murray's credentials are to handwave dismiss seven independent investigations that passed peer review? Also, in addition to references 1-7, additional nickel excess heat has been confirmed by NASA and by two separate labs at MIT where the investigators have not published their work. Murray: I am clearly unqualified in terms of education, employment, and experience. So, my critiques can only stand on their intrinsic value. My basic strategy is to examine the myriad details in the reports, and also to gather ideas from other critics, not all of whom are hostile to cold fusion. A year ago, I was naively enthusiastic, and attended the Second International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Gradually, I have found that a strategy of always looking for artifacts is operationally very productive. I am still hoping to find a paradigm-popping breakthrough, and certainly have no lifelong allegiance to existing scientific views. I like the Chubb theory, but it's beginning to look to me like a solution without a problem. It is necessary in playing the scientific game to assume the mindset that criticism is not attack, but is invaluable support, is not rejection, but is true appreciation in the most practical form possible, in our common quest for useful, actual truth. Five of Swartz's references were included in a powerful theoretical and experimental criticism by Zvi Shkedi et all (1995) [abstracts below]. These five are, along my comments on some of them: #1. RL Mills & SP Kneisys (1991): Claims by Mills are tainted by a unique crank "Theory of Everything", always a fatal symptom. The well-known NASA replication by JM Niedra et al (Feb., 1996) admittedly did not allow for spurious excess heat from possible recombination. Mills, having funded his Blacklight Power with over ten million dollars, no longer seems to be pursuing electrolysis work. #2. VC Noninski (1991) #3. R Notoya, Y Noya, T Ohnishi (1993,1994) #6. RT Bush & RD Eagleton (1994): I quote from my recent post: Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo et al: SIMmer data stew for dubious brew October 19, 1997: R Bush and R Eagleton, "Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes," Trans. Fusion Technology, Dec., 1994, 26, p. 344-54, has a more adaquate pyrex closed cell with an internal platinum black recombiner, at 1.0 mA/cm2, but gives no data about the run history, except to say that the total excess heat for Cell 53 is (4.0 +- 0.8) X 10exp19 MeV. He does give four SIMS graphs: for mass 57 vs 56 we, after the obligatory doubling of the graphs via zerox, find pre-run values, about 60,000 to 300,000, ratio .2, and post-run, 200 to 6,000, ratio .03. So, the pre-run ratio is many times more anomalous than the post-run. Now, that's efficient research! No need to even run the electrolysis! This is a much more significant result than the claimed transmutation of rubidium to strontium, eh? Kidding aside, Bush and Eagleton deserve credit for publishing the only pre-run SIMS data I've heard about. #7 M. Srinivasan et al (1992, 1993) These last two references were not listed by Shkedi, for good reason: #5 T. Matsumoto (1990, 1993): Surely one of the most creative theorists in the field-- I shall never forget his photographs of "Mini-Black-Holes". #4 T Ohmori & M Enyo (1993): Again I will quote at length from my recent post: A number of remarkable electrolytic transmutation reports have been given by a group of researchers at Hokkaido University. I will examine these by focussing on a recent work by T Ohmori, M Enyo, T. Mizuno, Y Nodasaka, and H Minagawa, "Transmutation in the Electrolysis of Light Water-- Excess Energy and Iron Production in a Gold Electrode," Fusion Technology, March, 1997, 31, p. 210-218. It derives from earlier work, T Ohmori and M Enyo, "Excess Heat Evolution During Electrolysis of H2O With Nickel, Gold, Silver, and Tin Cathodes," Fusion Technology, Nov., 1993, 24, p. 293-295. I will call these "Transmutation" and "Excess". I spent some days picking over "Excess" in November, 1995, five years ago, finding so many flaws that I left a message on Ed Storms' answering machine suggesting that it might be a deliberate hoax. Even the abstract has a typo, confusing K2CO3 as K2SO4. Apparent excess heats were claimed from 0.2 to 26%. No attempts were made to determine the loading, if any, in the unusual cathode metals. With a low current density of 8.3 to 25 mA/cm2, the runs fall into the range thoroughly debunked by Zvi Shkedi et al, Bose Corp., "Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells, Fusion Technology, Nov., 1995, 28, p. 1720-31. They did not even bother to cite "Excess" in their 15 references. Shkedi ran four light-water Ni cells at 180 to 600 mA for up to 4 days a run with an average power accuracy of 0.6 mW. All released H2 and O2 were carefully recombined and returned to the cells. Assuming 100 % Faraday efficiency, as did most studies of this reaction, he found apparent excess power of 15 to 37 %, reduced to zero when the actual recombination efficiency was factored in. Shkedi also ran, but did not describe in detail, 154 palladium D2O cells, with the same null results. Confirming was a report by JE Jones et all at Brigham Young U., "Faradaic Efficiencies Less Than 100 % during Electrolysis of Water Can Account for Reports of Excess Heat in "Cold Fusion" Cells," J. Physical Chem., 1995, 99, p. 6973-79. They also did not cite "Excess" in their 20 references. They used low current densities of 1-2 mA/cm2. "Excess", as did other similar studies, seemed to find more excess heat with K2CO3 than with Na2CO3. Jones wrote on page 6978: "In agreement with a recent report (20) showing that different electrolytes produce differing bubble sizes in aqueous solution, our experiments show that the difference between NaCO3 and K2CO3 as electrolytes probably is due to differences in interfacial properties of the solutions at the electrodes. The H2 bubbles were smaller when K2CO3 was the electrolyte than when Na2CO3 was the electrolyte in the same cell. Smaller bubbles allow better mobility of gases in the electrolyte and contact between the electrolyte and the electrode surface, thus allowing more frequent reaction of dissolved gases. When detergent was aded to the Na2CO3 electrolyte, the bubbles became much smaller, did not adhere to the electrode, and resulted in about the same rate of apparent excess heat as was observed with the K2CO3 electrolyte." This shows how subtle and unexpected the artifacts can be in these deceptively simple experiments. "Transmutation", submitted Jan. 29,1996, blindly builds on this sandy foundation. Five fused quartz (SiO2) cells were run a week at 1 A between Pt mesh anode and Au cathodes, 5 or 10 cm2 area, with Na2So4, K2CO3, KOH, K2SO4, or H2SO4 electrolytes, a current density of 100-200 mA/cm2. Page 211, "The counter electrode was a 1 X 7 cm 80-mesh platinum net...The working and the counter electrodes were placed at the bottom of the cell to minimize the temperature gradient in the electrolyte solution by vigorously stirring with H2 and O2 bubbles evolved from these electrodes." Hardly a more ideal set-up for promoting recombination and reducing Faradaic efficiency could hardly be devised. Of course, they found apparent excess heats of 4 to 22%. Page 212, "Measurement of the current efficiency was made repeatedly at a given time during the electrolysis, the result of which was 100.6, 100.1, and 101.1%. This fact shows that there is no conceivable possibility of the recombination of H2 and O2 as another cause of the excess energy production." Interestingly, they found about the same results for Na2SO4 and K2CO3, I suppose, because of the "vigorously stirring". More exciting, they found, (abstract) "In every case, a notable amount of iron atoms in the range of 1.0 X 10exp16 to 1.8 X 10exp17 atom/cm2 (true area) are detected together with the generation of a certain amount of excess energy evolution." AES was with 3.0 keV electron beam energy at 2.5 A current. One of the 12 runs with Na2SO4 was graphed twice, showing one O, two Pt, and three Fe peaks. They estimated Fe atoms occupied 44% of the top surface, about 100 Au layers, exposed by 5 minutes of Ar+ ion bombardment time. An EPMA image, scale not given, shows the Fe was distributed uniformly over the entire electrode. They estimated the Fe on this electrode was ~17 micrograms. On page 214, "Figure 8 shows the relationship between the total amount of iron atoms and the mean Rex [excess heat] obtained in evaery electrode/electrolyte system. Although the data were rather scattered, there seemed to be a linear relationship between these two parametaers. This strongly supports the notion that iron atom production is related to excess energy evolution." This seems to me a good case of attempting to extract correlations from random fluctuations. One of the highest heat values has one of the lowest values of Fe atoms. The straight lines drawn through the points seem very arbitrary, and for the cathode areas 5 and 10 cm2, are given the same slope, although the input energy density is obviously half for the larger area, implying half the slope. Moreover, so much is left undone. Why not a simple chemical extraction and assey to determine the exact microgram amounts of Fe on each gold plate? Why not introduce controlled trace amounts of Fe into the electrolyte to study deposition patterns and the accuracy of the measurements? What is the precision and sensitivity of AES in this setting? What might be the estimated errors of all the numbers claimed? Why not collect evolved H2 and O2 and recombine them to settle the Faradaic efficiency issue? Now, we come to the Holy Grail of cold fusion transmutation research-- isotopic anomaly-- put in the singular, since only Fe-57, normally 2.1% is the most substantial claim, 14.5%, seemingly a 7-fold increase. The usual ratio of Fe-57 to Fe-56 is 0.023 . SIMS is used with a 12 keV, 100 nA O2+ primary beam. Page 214, "The SIMS measurement was made with an electrode after the electrolysis in the Na2So4 solution...spectra of Na+, Al+, Si+, K+, Ca+, Ti+, and Cr+...Fe+. This is probably due to the high sensitivity of SIMS for these elements. The spectrum of Cs+ is attributed to a trace of cesium that remained in the vacuum chamber itself." So, it is not clear if this data refers to the same electrode studied by AES. It is not said whether SIMS was done on other plates, and whether any such data was comparable. Also, we know from the EPMA image that the Fe distribution is in tiny spots. Since SIMS operates by vaporizing micron size areas, it is crucial to know how many spots were studied, how they were selected, and how varied were the resulting data sets, 1 to 200 amu. So, clearly, we are being served a generous portion of data stew. Page 216, "The isotopic content of magnesium, silicon, potassium, calcium, titanium, chromium, and iron...Table 3...As one can see, the isotopic contents of the elements other than iron are in agreement with these natural isotopic abundances within the limits of error. Therefore, these elements can be regarded as the impurities accumulated from the electrolyte solution." Well, in that case, why doesn't the Fe have the same source? They argue that the Fe produced is "at least one to two orders of magnitude" greater than all Fe sources in the solution and the electrodes. However, this production data is highly suspect, based on estimates from AES data, not based on direct chemical extraction and physical weighing, not checked by adding controlled Fe sources to the electrolyte, not qualified by error estimates, and with no pre-run SIMS scan of the cathode. Furthermore, a huge source of impurities, including Fe, is totally ignored, the SiO2 cells in which electrolysis operates for a week. Jed Rothwell in Infinite Energy #11, Nov-Dec., 1996, in a long, detailed review of McKubre's EPRI Final Report, page 64, in the box "Fifty Sigma Results" quotes McKubre's EPRI Perspective, "The conditions in the successful cells were not entirely under experimental control because the closed cells slowly leach silica and other materials from the anode and the cathode and its supports as well as from the cell walls..," and, from the box, "Overkill Example," "Other solid parts are Al2O3, SiO2, and PTFE [Teflon], which are considered in this analysis to be nonreactive." Nonreactive? So, indeed, in "Transmutations", the actual Fe present can readily be accounted for by obvious impurity sources. In a feeble way, the issue is mentioned, page 215, "The content of the particles with mass number 54 is also increased to some extent-- perhaps because of the mixing of Cr-54." Table III has a footnote about Ni-58 in Fe-58. The argument is pressed that the ratios of FeO for mass 73 and 72 confirm the ratio of mass 57 and 56, in Fig 11. "Although the plots are scattered, these two ratios can be seen on the whole to be in agreement. Therefore...not due to FeH+ formation. From this fact, one may safely say that "heavy iron" was produced and that its production was the result of some nuclear transmutation ocurring by the light water electrolysis." Whew! We just barely got by that one! Now, "Transmutations" does contain a veritable pot of data stew, Fig. 9, the entire SIMS spectrum of the uppermost layers of the gold after electrolysis in the Na2SO4 solution. Suitably doubled by zerox, it is a wonderful sight, a Himalayan vista, the main reason I selected this work for study. Prominent peaks, with notes: Na-23 100,000 intensity counts. Cs-133 10,000 (Ni-58)2OH? (SiO)3H? The Cincinatti Group's four ICP/MS scans by Robert Liversage offer no clues. >1,000 counts Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Cr, Fe-56, TiO. Could Fe-56 be (Si-28)2 or CaO? >100 counts Mg, "Fe-57", FeO, ZrO (106), Au, some others. Could Fe-57 be (Si-28)2H or CaOH? ~50 counts O2, Zr-90, Rh, In, Br, Kr, Pd, Xe, Gd ?? Why isn't there more S-32 from the Na2SO4? Given all the possibilites for diatomic molecules, hydrides, nitrides, and oxides, there is plenty of room to prove just about anything. That's why data stew is so seductively tasty. Hey, experts, since we have O2, why not Si2? That'd explain away a lot of Fe! "Transmutation" establishes to my mind the amount of attention we should pay to the other recent papers by this team on transmutation. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 07:56:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18831; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:52:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:52:58 -0800 Message-Id: <3461D705.AD9A844E verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:41:09 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Solar Mystery /ROSS/SOHO (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FJR2i3.0.7c4.OVUOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12490 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Humour: >From the NASA release: "It's very hard to understand how such a short-lived effect could be driven by the magnetic dynamo layer that is over 100,000 miles beneath the surface of the Sun. This may be evidence that unknown processes are at work in or near the solar surface that continuously form these loops all over the Sun." We already know moon is artificial, but the Sun, the proof is above! They did a perfect heating system to fit the solar system requirements using high technology dynamos and magnetic energy transfer. 100,000 miles far away!. This had to be the dream of Te sla! Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 07:58:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA28187; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:53:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:53:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3461CD9C.4F696D52 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:01:01 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM References: <971106030407_-391111175 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rFnMc2.0.Gu6.ZVUOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12489 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: VCockeram aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-11-05 04:59:58 EST, you write: > From: hamdix verisoft.com.tr (Hamdi Ucar) > > > I just figured out the possibility the hydrogen atoms or molecules with > > fractional quantum energies may contribute to the cold dark matter which > > postulated to form galactic halos and fill the intergalactic space. > > There are some claims that the X and EUV radiation coming from > > unidentified sources may been produced by this hydrogen atoms. > > This is all covered in the writeups at the Blacklight Power Website: > http://www.blacklightpower.com > No, the CDM idea are not covered on BLP papers. They are analysing the cosmic EUV and X-ray radiations for possibility of these specific hydrogen atom could be sources as I stated on my next sentence. Although my idea can be considered as a natural result of this possibility, but their PDF files does not offer it (explicitly) as a solution to the missing mass (CDM) problem. Thank you for your interest. hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 08:18:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02426; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:10:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:10:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971106075807.00c13bc0 esa.lanl.gov> X-Sender: claytor_t_n esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 07:58:08 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: scientific folly Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"U6W8u1.0.qb.WlUOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12491 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: >The nuclear effects are far below the amounts needed to explain the excess >heat. In cases such as Claytor's tritium production the result is likely >from hot fusion. He accelerates deuterium atoms into the target with 2Kev >and that is enough energy to cause hot fusion. That works, no doubt about >it, but just calculate the cost of the tritium produced and one sees that >it is many orders of magnitude too high to be of any practical use. Even >Claytor admits that his technique is of scientific but no practical >interest. >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > Just to clear matters up since this pops up from time to time, we see no "conventional hot fusion" at these voltages (2kV) and non is expected to be detectable. As verification, the experiment was placed in Steve Jones underground neutron detector with about 15% eff and no neutrons were detected over background ( 1c/h) within 2 sigma. This indicates that there was much less than 7 source neutron counts per hour at energies over 500 keV. This was at the typical operating pressure of 300 torr so the average energy of the deuterium was much less than 2kV. Yet in one out of three cells there was a measurable( >5sigma) amount of tritium. These results were reported at ICCF-4. Tom. http://www.nde.lanl.gov/staff/claytor/claytor.htm Thomas N. Claytor Claytor_t_n lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 08:20:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA24883; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:13:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:13:25 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:09:08 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: ARIES study Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711061112_MC2-2702-3E0E compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"u-y011.0.e46.aoUOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12492 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Robert Krakowski kindly sent me a 64-page book and a Fusion Technology paper about the ARIES study. The paper is: R. A. Krakowski et al., "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," Fusion Technology, Vol. 26, November 1994 The book has the same title but a longer abstract and much more detail. It was published by Los Alamos National Laboratory, LU-UR-93-4217, December 8, 1993. The project was supported by the US DOE, Office of Fusion Energy. Much of the technical detail in this report is over my head but the economic and engineering conclusions are well stated, although the authors use too much unnessary jargon. Here are the authors and the abstract: R. A. Krakowski, C. G. Bathke, R. L. Miller, and K. A. Werley Abstract Lessons from the four-year ARIES (Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study) investigation of four commercial magnetic-fusion-energy (MFE) power-plant embodiments of the tokamak are summarized. These lessons are derived from the physics; engineering and technology; economics; and environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) characteristics of these conceptual tokamak power-plant designs. This summary of ARIES lessons is intended to provide a general indicator of the requirements of economically and environmentally attractive fusion power. The integration of fundamental tokamak physics with conceptual engineering models through a cost-based systems methodology has been especially thorough in ARIES. The resulting quantitative tradeoffs among tokamak plasma physics, plasma engineering, and a wide range of supporting reactor engineering disciplines, and the enhanced interdisciplinary understanding of the impact of constraints leading to optimal tokamak reactors are major contributions of the ARIES Project. A general conclusion drawn from this extensive investigation of the commercial potential of tokamak power plants is the need for combined, symbiotic advances in both physics and engineering before economic competitiveness with developing advanced energy sources can be projected. Comparable advances for materials are also needed for the exploitation of ES&H advantages related to passive safety and reduced radioactive-waste burden. Although the above-mentioned integration of physics, engineering, economics, and ES&H components is an ongoing process limited by present understanding, and although many of the ARIES assumptions remain to be verified experimentally, a preference has emerged for following the path of second-stability-regime tokamak physics towards an optimal (i.e., cost-competitive, operationally tractable, ES&H-acceptable) commercial end-product. The feasibility of this optimal tokamak reactor cannot be assessed, however, until experimental results confirming the necessary physics, engineering, and materials underpinning the ARIES designs become available. Research and Development (R&D) along several independent lines, therefore, would be prudent to assure the necessary advances needed for an economically competitive system with which to harness the nearly unlimited supply of nuclear-fusion fuel in a safe and environmentally benign configuration. While a moderate extrapolation from the existing tokamak data base using presently (or easily) qualified engineering materials will not attain this goal, ARIES has provided a clear indication of the potential reactor merits of the second- stability-regime tokamak plasma with both high confinement efficiency (Beta) and high overall current-drive efficiency (i.e., both low total plasma current and high bootstrap- current fraction); an important related condition is the need for a plasma that sheds a majority of the heating energy through radiation channels so that heat loads on plasma-facing components can be more equally distributed for the more-compact, high-engineering-gain reactor that would result. Here are some conclusions about economics, which take no special expertise to understand. This is why industry does not do hot fusion research, and why the government should have abandoned it years ago. I translated some of the jargon in square brackets. I'll be darned if I know what "N-Stamp" means. "C-Stamp" apparently means "money," in plain English. Economics: All the ARIES designs are not economically competitive with respect to Advanced Light-Water (fission) Reactors. The ARIES designs are uneconomic because; a) they recirculate too much power (i.e., QE is too small); and b) the fusion power core is too massive and expensive [(i.e., MPD [Mass Power Density] is too small, and the unit costs of key FPC [Fusion Power Core] components are too large]; and c) without direct-energy conversion the net thermal-conversion efficiency is no better then for present-day fission or fossil power plants, despite the need to invoke significantly advanced power-conversion cycles . . . Lastly, the ARIES studies have shown conclusively that tokamak-based fusion power cannot use enhanced ES&H [environmental, safety, and health] merits to make an end run around the economic issue. In short: a) materials with enhanced ES&H characteristics are unconventional and expensive; and b) LSA [Level of Safety Assurance] "credits" in fact may not exist, since the safety-related "N-Stamp" and the added cost it represents more than likely will be replaced by a "C-Stamp" (C = Capital) at the request of those wishing to protect the increased plant investment being projected by all ARIES designs, and the revenues that must be generated. These conclusions that ES&H merits are a necessary, but not (economically) sufficient, condition for an attractive fusion reactor relative to advanced nuclear fission is predicated on the assumption that fission power favorably resolves public perception, licensing, waste, and fuel-cycle issues, at least to the extent assumed by ARIES. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 08:37:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA31845; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:34:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:34:28 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:34:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711061634.IAA12975 iceland.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"e_Vxv1.0.Un7.J6VOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12493 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vince- At 03:04 AM 11/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-11-05 04:59:58 EST, you write: > From: hamdix verisoft.com.tr (Hamdi Ucar) > > >I just figured out the possibility the hydrogen atoms or molecules with >>fractional quantum energies may contribute to the cold dark matter which >>postulated to form galactic halos and fill the intergalactic space. >> There are some claims that the X and EUV radiation coming from >>unidentified sources may been produced by this hydrogen atoms. > >This is all covered in the writeups at the Blacklight Power Website: >http://www.blacklightpower.com > >Regards, >Vince >Las Vegas Nevada Yes and the site has lots of his theory, experiments and business plans. I am just starting to read about electroylsis methods. Thanks again for sending his earlier electroylsis experiments. He seems to be going into gas phase reactions. I wonder what was wrong with the electrolysis methods. He demonstrated a Pout to Pin of 17.6! That sounds good to me. Maybe the gas phase is even higher? Regards, Micahel From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 08:54:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10437; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:48:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:48:46 -0800 (PST) From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711060453.UAA22342 sweden.it.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:51:58 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"3_QBH1.0.-Y2.fJVOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12494 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Michael Randall wrote; [snip] >>>According to Farnsworth's research he acheived a 30 sec. self-sustained >>fusion reaction on Dec. 28, 1965, [snip] >Ooops! Sorry for my error. It was two separate statements. Farnsworth >achieved, several times, a self-sustained fusion reaction between 30 sec. to >1 minute. And he also achieved high neutron counts. I couldn't find the >data on the self-sustaining fusion experiment other than the time length. I have doubts about the self-sustaining claim. Robert Hirsch was Farnsworth's main collaborator. Hirsch became director of the US DOE fusion program in the peak energy crisis years of the mid 1970s. Those were years of almost "anything goes" at DOE, and many off-the-main-track ideas were funded for preliminary investigation if they showed any promise at all. Farnsworth & Hirsch's work was known, yet no one was claiming self-sustaining fusion from it. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 09:09:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA06672; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:01:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:01:21 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105141220.00711a2c mail.eden.com> References: <971105112401_-1241288001 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:01:06 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"MgtvJ3.0.9e1.WVVOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12495 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 11:26 11/5/97 -0500, Tstolper aol.com wrote: > >>How would the emissivity of the metal filament in a gas-phase BLP cell, or >>the emissivity of the interior surface of the container in which the filament >>was placed, affect the calorimetry? > >Good thinking! I don't think it could. BTW, do you know how they are >making this particular calorimetric measurement? Scott, The calorimetry that I have seen involves mearsuring the temperature of the metal reactor surface and the outside surface of the cell. Then the Stefan-Boltzmann law or an appropriate set of calibration data could be used to calculate the power output of the reactor electrode. Since the power flux radiated is given by Power Flux = emissivity * Stefan-Boltzmann constant * T^4 the error in the power flux is directly proportional to the error in the emissivity. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 09:27:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12632; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:24:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:24:49 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105141220.00711a2c mail.eden.com> References: <971105112401_-1241288001 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:28:58 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"jp5UR1.0.F53.WrVOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12497 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It seems that some people here on Vortex have missed Larry Wharton's point about hydrogen, emissivity of a metal surface and attempts to measure excess heat production in high-temperature, low pressure hydrogen environments. Let me summarize in brief: At low pressure and increased temperature, heat transport is dominated by radiation. Convection and conduction by the gas decrease at low enough pressure. At the temperatures employed by Piantelli and Mills, most of the radiation is in the IR, so the appearance of the surface to our eyes in visible light is not relevant. In the Piantelli experiment and in the diagrams of Mills' experiments that I have seen the calorimetry consisted of measurements of the temperature rise of the heated reacting surface. This is a valid measurement of power release only if the heat transfer mechanism remains constant throughout the calibration and operating conditions. Larry's point (and the same point was made to me by a perceptive colleague when I excitedly showed him the Piantelli paper when it first appeared) is that hot hydrogen, and especially atomic hydrogen, change the surfaces of metals, including their IR emissivity. I would add that potassium or other catalyst vapors in the Mills cells might change the reacting surface, too. Therefore, this simple calorimetry technique is unreliable in the specified environment. In particular, hydrogen cleans metal surfaces (widely known effect). If the cleaning lowers the IR emissivity, then the heated surface's temperature will increase, even if there is no additional (anomalous) heating. There is no way to distinguish this effect from a true anomalous energy release in the simple system I have described. the solution is rigorous calorimetry. Oriani described a Seebeck calorimeter that surrounded the reaction cell. Then one measures the actual heat leaving the cell. It seems to me that this is the right approach to take, though I have never done it myself. Even Seebeck calorimetry probably has its pitfalls. Larry's discussion of NASA's cleaning of Langmuir probes was meant to show that Larry has some knowledge about hydrogen-metal surface effects. It was not meant to sidetrack the discussion. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 09:30:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16897; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:21:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:21:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971106122443.00abf100 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 12:24:43 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming In-Reply-To: <199711060904_MC2-26FC-4897 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"p2Fvd2.0.x74.DoVOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12496 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:02 AM 11/6/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Clarke and I usually lean >to the left, but not always. He supports nuclear fission. So do I, with grave >reservations. It is better than coal. First, I grew up in Pennsylvania. I never saw the words "coal mine" in the newspaper unless they were followed by "disaster" and preceeded by "another" or "latest." Strip mining coal was thought to be a big improvement, since it didn't risk so many lives, but then they found that the leechates from the disturbed overburden killed everything in the area. Nasty stuff. And I now live in New Hampshire, where there are serious problems due to acid rain from coal burning plants in Ohio. Almost any energy source is better than burning coal. Second, the problem with global warming studies is that we are just beginning to understand what causes Ice Ages, and the carbon dioxide levels in the atomosphere early in this century are now believed to be typical of Ice Ages. (Whether the mini-Ice Age was caused by volcanic activity, the Maunder mininium in sun spots, or something else is still a topic for debate. In fact the most recent theory I heard associated it with burning wood for heating--the idea is that deforestation, especially of fir trees in northern lattitudes, increased the amount of heat radiated away.) Right now the best fit of theory to facts says that global warming from human actions exists, but that it almost exactly balances the global cooling from the start of the current Ice Age, and that the mini-Ice Age occured when the cooling got ahead of us. Finally, not all nuclear power plants are the same. It is as if we lumped all fossil and organic fuels together. Wood, coal, natural gas, and oil each has different risks and different technologies. (Most fossil fuel plants heat water, but there are gas turbine plants and fuel cell plants as well.) In the case of nuclear power there are: BWRs (boiling water reactors) most built by GE and very safe--as the water boils it reduces the criticality, (negative void coefficient) so there is no risk of a runaway. PWRs pressurized water reactors safe as designed by Westinghouse, but not quite as safe if built by B&W. Guess who built Three Mile Island. (The B&W reactors use fuel carriers which allow 2% more fuel burnup, since they are made of zirconium. But they lower the time constant of the reactor from hours to minutes.) HTGRs High temperature gas cooled reactors. I think the only one currently operating in the US is in Colorado. (Fort St. Vrain?) They use usranium oxide fuel pellets wrapped in graphite, and cooled by helium. Good design, and very efficient, but expensive to build right, since helium can leak through concrete easily. AGRs British version of the HTGR. The British also built some Carbon Dioxide gas cooled reactors. I think all of them are now retired. CANDU stands for Canadain Deuterium. Uses unenriched uranium as a fuel, and works quite well, but the investment is substantial, mostly in heavy water. MSR Molten Salt Reactor. This not only uses a very different design and fuel, but it is a breeder reactor. The fuel is Thorium 232, which absorbs a neutron to become U233, which fissions nicely. The neutron economy of the design is critical, since fissioning U233 doesn't produce as many neutrons as U235 or U238. But the big advantage of this design is that most of the disaster scenarios just don't apply. The fuel is already melted, and will only reach criticality if it is flowing through a very carefully shaped graphite core. Non-proliferation worries though, as it can also be used to produce plutonium. (However, if you do have inspectors, cheating is very easy to catch, just look at U238 and P239 levels in the molten fuel.) RMBK Russian design that uses a graphite moderator and water cooling with no containment building. The prototype is really Hanford, Washington, but that is now shut down. Very dangerous, especially since the graphite core can burn if the coolant is lost. (Chernobyl) LMFBR Two types of liquid metal fast breeder reactors. (Well three really, but all the modern ones use Sodium not Mercury as a coolant.) First is the loop cooled type favored by the French in their Phoenix and Super Phoenix designs. Dangerous, and the breed Plutonium. The French are now starting to build more conventional reactors to burn the excess plutonium. Would I rather have a coal plant or a Super Phoenix as a neighbor? Tough call, but I'd go with the Super Phoenix. At least normal operation wouldn't kill me. The other type of LMFBR is the pool reactor where the reactor core sits in a big vat of molten sodium. Basically the opposition to the Clinch River plant the TVA tried to build killed the nuclear industry in this country. And given a choice, I'd rather live next to a coal plant than even 500 miles downstream from one of these. The Environmental Impact statement for Clinch River envisioned tens of billions of dollars of damage spread over most of the southeast if there was a leak in one of the heat exchangers--even if the nuclear fuel had not yet been installed! Imagine dumping 8000 tons of sodium into the Tennessee river, creating enough NaOH (lye) to kill all life in the river, its tributaries and in the surrounding soil for decades. Why demonize LMFBRs so? Because the decision to put molten sodium and water into a steel heat exchanger guarantees cracking. And any crack that lets the sodium and water come in contact is a disaster. Even if the controls and systems prevent the sodium from getting into the outflow, these beasts have positive void coefficients. Read can go BOOM! big time if there is a coolant leak. Not TMI boom--that wasn't even noticable outside the containment. Not Chernobyl BOOM, the fire and the radioactivity release killed more people than the initial explosion. A Karaktoa or Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinitubo sized BOOM! Even worse, water/NaOH contamination in the sodium pool is worse than no coolant at all. Remember that hydrogen is a moderator. The Fast in the name has to do with fast neutrons, and U238 can be fissioned with fast neutrons. But P239 can take fast or slow neutrons, and the slow neutrons which do get absorbed by the U238 to create P239. So water getting into the coolant can not only increase criticality, it also increases the amount of (nuclear) explosive present. Without water getting in the core, the explosion will be limited to a few Megatons. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 09:49:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20306; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:40:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:40:06 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:37:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971106123750_1113013899 mrin47> To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: collis netcity.it Subject: Re: Asti Workshop Resent-Message-ID: <"UaJg_.0.Cz4.o3WOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12499 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, Thanks for posting the good news that the 1997 Asti Workshop has attracted enough papers, attendees, and sponsors to go forward. A Dr. Francesco is listed, from INFN, Frascati. Francesco who? Francesco Piantelli? I share your hope that if Peter Glueck and Bart Simon make it to the meeting, then they'll post a summary here. Maybe Biberian will, too, since he's contributed comments before. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 09:50:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20245; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:39:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:39:51 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:37:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971106123746_341880082 emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Calorimetry of Gas-Phase Cells Resent-Message-ID: <"oxQZN3.0.By4.Z3WOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12498 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott, You asked about the calorimetry of the gas-phase cells. Sorry, but all I know about the calorimetry that they're doing comes from what's been posted on the BLP website as of a couple of months ago. It's said to be thermopile calorimetry, which I don't recall hearing of in discussions of calorimetry before they mentioned it. It looks like a method suited to high temperatures, though. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 09:56:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18842; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:46:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:46:46 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:41:16 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Mills' experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"wrSZZ.0.1c4.2AWOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12500 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In answer to Tom Miller, >If I understand correctly, you are saying that the cleaned surface >will "heat up" because it does not radiate IR as effectively as when it >was dirty. I assume that heat energy is being applied to the metal, >(at a higher temperature than the temperature of the metal before the >cleaning process was begun) but that the metal surface is unable to >radiate this energy away as efficiently as it had been able to when >"dirty." > >One might assume that NASA was intentinally applying heat energy to the >probes they were cleaning. Is this assumption accurate? Yes that is right we would heat up the probes to clean them by applying an electrical current to a filiment inside of them. They would be hotter when they were clean because they did not radiate IR as effictively. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 10:11:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25069; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:08:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:08:05 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:07:08 -0800 Message-Id: <199711061807.KAA24053 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Solar Mystery /ROSS/SOHO (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"dfxSl.0.U76.3UWOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12501 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Ross, this would appear to support your aether theory wouldn't it? >Compressed (condensed almost) spiting back out to the surface flares? > Yes. This is one of the very important observations that I have been following. However, this article doesn't address a really wierd thing that a group of researchers tracking SOHO have been finding. Not only is there enough energy to heat the corona, but the manner of the heating is also anamolous. In the post you copied (thanks by the way, I may have that in my in basket but hadn't read it yet), they mention "magnetic loops". Of course those are just bursts of aether breaking out through the surface of the photosphere of the sun, just like blurps of steam breaking out of the mud pits in Yellowstone. The thing that is not understood is that the heating is in part due to the EM forces we are familiar with (ie, those are just a curvature in the spacetime acoustic nodes due to the flow of aether locally in this case. Magnetic fields are due to shearing stresses in the spacetime manifold, hard to describe in words). However, in '96, researchers noticed something else wierd. The velocity dispersion of O and H ions in the corona were the same. What this means is that; 1) Either the magnetic fields either magically shut off when the two ions got up to the same velocity, despite their charge to mass ratios being 1 or 2 to 16 for O and 1 to 1 for H. 2) Or, the ions are being inertially accelerated. This is because with those velocities, the ions are not in termal equilibrium, H being at 6M degrees and O at 100M degrees. So that velocity dispersion is the signature of the source of the heating. And that signature is **inertial**. but only gravity is supposed to be able to couple to Mass. Ergo, something is still wierd beyond what that post said. I heard that further tests were being conducted and that a paper would tell of the findings in the spring of 97, from a different spectrometer. I also heard that a similar phenomena was observed for a variety of ions, but, to date I have not heard of a paper being published. The notion that an inertial acceleration is causing this is of course, heretical. So such a paper would be held up for a while even if they did try to publish it. >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:11:24 -0500 (EST) >From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov >To: ekwall2 diac.com >Subject: Solar Mystery Nears Solution with Data from SOHO Spacecraft > >Donald Savage >Headquarters, Washington, DC November 5, 1997 >(Phone: 202/358-1547) EMBARGOED UNTIL 1 P.M. EST > >Bill Steigerwald >Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD >(Phone: 301/286-5017) > >RELEASE: 97-256 > >SOLAR MYSTERY NEARS SOLUTION WITH DATA FROM SOHO SPACECRAFT > > A likely solution to one of the major mysteries of the Sun >has emerged from recent observations with the European Space >Agency/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) mission. > > The new findings seem to account for a substantial part of >the energy needed to cause the very high temperature of the >corona, the outermost layer of the Sun's atmosphere. snip From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 10:31:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29622; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:24:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:24:00 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711060453.UAA22448 sweden.it.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:20:33 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"75FPf.0.hE7.-iWOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12503 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael - Thanks for the report on the fusor. A search on Penning traps fetched a few experiments being run in universities and at Los Alamos on this sort of fusion. Sounds like it's wide open enough for an advanced amateur to have some chance of discovering something here. I bet Richard's blasting ions in a cage with a big Tesla coil! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 10:32:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27660; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:19:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:19:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:12:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Hydrogen cleaning Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8KBD81.0.2m6.leWOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12502 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., An aspect of hydrogen cleaning for metals, treatment for metals, modification and-or annealing of metals: The metal may or may no contain surface or volume oxygen or other elements reactive with or to hydrogen. Heating in hydrogen atmosphere causes water formation [in the case of oxygen] and sometimes the reaction is catalysed, to a degree, by the metal. A sort of 'energetic hydrogen scrubbing'. J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 10:35:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA32313; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:33:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:33:11 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:34:03 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"C3d0y1.0.du7.ZrWOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12504 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 5:04 AM 11/5/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >No need to delve into omnipotence at this juncture. :-) > >Regards, Frederick Gee Fred, at our ages "... potence" of any kind is a blessing, except maybe the impish kind. Agree with Scott, though, you do have one fertile brain! Surely you must still have a drill press? One problem is measuring energy in. Could turn off all the circuit breakers in the house except a circuit with only the drill press plugged in. Then use house Wh meter. (Wife won't mind for a few day will she? 8^) Could use ammeter and voltmeter, but who wants to watch them? Another problem is maintaining tension. Could use big rubber band on drill press handle, or maybe a weight on a string? Measure heat out by amount of water boiled. One problem there is heat from drill motor is lost. Could establish "idle speed" baseline power requirement and subtract. Getting out in left field there a bit. Instead of "recombination" problems, now you have "baseline energy" problems. Instead of two plates maybe use metal rod in hole in metal plate? Seems like a submersible DC motor with a metal to metal brake is maybe a better idea? Has to run at 100 C though. Or a good dynamomter? Scott has such I think? Scott is maybe already setting a new record for number of balls juggled (concurrent experiments) at one time though? This does seem like a good experiment for an amateur to figure out how to do. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 10:36:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA32395; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:33:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:33:21 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:34:06 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"F2FCq3.0.wv7.krWOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12505 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:29 AM 11/5/97, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Hi Vortex and Welcome Horace, > >I just figured out the possibility the hydrogen atoms or molecules with >fractional quantum energies may contribute to the cold dark matter which >postulated to form galactic halos and fill the intergalactic space. > [snip] >Regards, > >hamdi ucar Hello Hamdi, Yes! Watching the cold dark matter segment of the Stephen Hawking's Universe series, now being broadcast here on the public braodcasting system (PBS) in Alaska weekly, I couldn't help but wonder about the same thing. If CDM exists as per the Mills theory, there must be quite a bit of it about. However, I have my own amateur musings about the universe and big bang. It seems to me that in the universe now neither mass nor energy is created nor destroyed, that both are constant, with the exception of mass/energy borrowed by vacuum fluctuations, even when examined on a small scale. "Conversion of mass to energy" seems to me to be a misnomer, if special relativity is correct. That is because as mass accelerates, gains energy, it gains a corresponding amount of mass. In other words, (Delta E) = (Delta m) c^2. There are similar mass gains to be expected in every form of potential energy storage, chemical (atom or new molecule loses weight when photon generated, that mass is equal to the mass of the photon emitted, less mass change of atom due to recoil, as from any reference frame), nuclear (kinetic energy of nuclear constituents), EM fields (fields have mass dependent on velocity of observer) etc. (Gravitational potential energy, though, does seem exceptionally problematic.) When an atom bomb goes off, the "lost mass" is not lossed, it is still present in the form of photons. Photons have momentum, and thus mass. Further, when mater/antimatter particles annihilate, the result contains the same mass and energy. The mass of photons created plus resultant particles equals the mass of the original particles in any reference frame. If the above is true, then the universe should now have approximately the mass it did at creation. It may have even more, because the expansion of space itself requires the expansion of the vauum, which implies an increase in the quantity of vacuum fluctuations, but that is another issue. It seems to me the break in symmetry at the big bang, resulting in more matter than anitmatter evident, might have simply been caused by a great matter/antimatter anihilation and generation of outbound photons. At the conclusion of such, most of the antimatter must end up in black holes due to the fact that that which did not would have been annihilated, i.e. converted to photons. Note that the outbound photons from the initial bang can not be observed because, on the whole, they can not interact because there is no matter to interact with, and they are all moving away from the know universe. Once in a black hole, matter and antimatter could not annihilate their "mass" because resulting photons could not escape. Thus the initial black holes could not release their mass even though they are a matter/antimatter mixture. This scenario implies that there exists in black holes a mass much larger than the mass of the visible universe, and that much of it is antimatter. How does the matter escape from black holes to make jets? As two or more black holes collide their gravitaitonal interaction, along with mass swept from space, causes disruptions of their singularities. As the black holes approach each other, tidal effects are gradually enabled. This is partially due to the fact that matter and photons directly between the primary masses of the holes experience (comparatively) zero net gravitational pull, thus are free to move inward, and to exhibit tidal effects, even while still within the Swartzchild radius of the respective holes. The net result is the black holes are then stretched into a ring. The resulting new torroidal body has a new Swartchild radius (if that term is applicable to torus, as the poles may be open), and a new physical radius approximately equal to the diameter of the mutual orbit. There is a "free" path for matter and photons to move toward the inside of the torus, and, if the poles are now open to the Swartzchild envelope, there is a free path through the poles of the torroidal object for jets to issue forth. How's that for a flight of fantasy? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 11:24:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06235; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:15:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:15:39 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971106130923.ZM6561 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:09:23 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM" (Nov 6, 12:34pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"hEiDW3.0.IX1.KTXOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12506 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 6, 12:34pm, Horace Heffner wrote: > Yes! Watching the cold dark matter segment of the Stephen Hawking's > Universe series, now being broadcast here on PBS > How does the matter escape from black holes to make jets? Ah.... so now we see the culprit that got you back on vortex! ha ha. I am enjoying the Hawking series too. Black Holes are the topic of the next show! Should be very interesting. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 12:34:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19220; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:23:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:23:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971106142129.00697a2c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:21:29 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971105141220.00711a2c mail.eden.com> <971105112401_-1241288001 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"HDiE41.0.9i4.eSYOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12508 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:28 11/6/97 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: >Oriani described a Seebeck calorimeter that surrounded the reaction cell. >Then one measures the actual heat leaving the cell. It seems to me that >this is the right approach to take, though I have never done it myself. >Even Seebeck calorimetry probably has its pitfalls. In the U of Penn report, called "University Report" on the BLP web page they mention that a Calvet calorimeter was employed to measure the heat output from the gas-phase experiment. I believe the Calvet calorimeter is, in fact, a Seebeck envelope. Thus, nominally, emissivity of the various metal surfaces in the experiment would have no effect on the Calvet 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) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 12:35:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19093; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:22:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:22:19 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment. Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:17:50 -0700 Message-ID: <01bceaf1$0e5e24c0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"IMkKs3.0.Fg4.tRYOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12507 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: Snip > Turn off the power to the house. The wife > won't mind for a few days. Not much potent-ial there, Horace. :-) I was thinking more in terms of a force-distance i.e.., torque device, on the stationary "plate" or a cup with a signal going to a digital monitor. With a weight on the motive shaft-plate and an rpm count, you should get a decent idea of the energy going in. You need the hydrogenous material,preferably water. The setup need not be any larger than what Scott has on hand for the Ragland cells etc... The couple to the "drill press" can be a splined shaft with axial freedom. Not as fancy as Watt's "mechanical equivalent of heat" setup, but, had he had the electronics that are available today, he may have done it differently. :-) Best Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 12:59:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23641; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:45:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:45:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34621D77.B2191497 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:41:43 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0742X2.0.Gn5.UnYOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12509 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > [snip] > It seems to me that in the universe now neither mass nor energy is created > nor destroyed, that both are constant, with the exception of mass/energy > borrowed by vacuum fluctuations, even when examined on a small scale. > "Conversion of mass to energy" seems to me to be a misnomer, if special > relativity is correct. [snip] Hi Horace, Things become simpler (even obvious) if assume matter is nothing but a structure composed from stationary electromagnetic fields. (Ross, please wait I finish my paragraph. before your comments! ;-) ) So don't bother with miscellaneous m to e and e to e co nversions. Everything is electromagnetic waves, and only one energy definition is sufficient for all physics. (In this scheme, gravitation should be also described in electromagnetic terms.) Yes, this logic is not new of course, but what is new is finding new solutions of Maxwell equations allowing propagation of EM waves at arbitrary speeds from zero to infinity (in vacuum). Zero means not moving and pure electromagnetic particles (PEP) coul d be defined. Also c is not a speed limits for particular (superluninal) electromagnetic waves. There are several papers on this subject that I acquired form xxx.lanl.gov server. If these solutions are possible, relativity is needed to be rewritten, and black holes may not so black of course (without needing quantum theory). Singularitiesdoes not exist possibly, and I believe there is no singularity inside black holes. Nature prov ide a suitable structure for balancing extreme pressures and dynamics could sustain the spacetime even at these extreme conditions. This logic seems to me natural because, as the energy density increase, more powerful forces and compact structures can be created. There should be no energy shortage inside black holes. :-) As black holes conserve their mass and their gravitational forces, expressing the gravity in electromagnetic terms will suffice to prove black holes conserve the spacetime in its center, because electromagnetism need to be defined in spacetime. On other w ords, electromagnetism is defining the spacetime. I can allowed to say this because as everything is (assumed) electromagnetic, spacetime is *exculsive* to electromagnetism. > How's that for a flight of fantasy? For me, black hole dynamics is one of the most obscure and complicated area of the theoretical physics. I never able to figure out how warmholes/wormholes are possible, how are the time-cones when black holes are forming, etc. What I am agreeing with common knowledge on black holes is they are really weird things and phenomena even that we could not imagine is occurring there. Jets, quasars, Tev gamma rays and other energy forms. Even the neutron stars have very strange propert ies that we can postulated with our current knowledge. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 13:21:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02018; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:16:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:16:54 -0800 Message-ID: <34623296.E39B8B39 microtronics.com.au> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 07:41:50 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: Adams Test V4.1 with NIB Magnets References: <971106124538_-1845027285 emout04.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Z_IZn.0.wU.1FZOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12511 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: JNaudin509 aol.com wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have updated my web site with my latest report about the Adams motor V4.1 > using NIB magnets at : > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/admsv41.htm > > Sincerely, > > Jean-Louis Naudin (11/06/97 17:46 GMT) HI Jean-Louis, Yes, you are right, NeoDyms are not the answer. In an Adam's type motor, the magnet is like a wall that you push (magnetically) away from. The magnet is the wall and the field of the coil is the hand. As the coils field builds up a opposing flux, it attempts to dealign domains on the pole face surface of the magnet. The amount of dealignment determines how much flux the magnet losses and how soft the wall is. At low field densities, the ferrites are as hard as a NeoDym, but without the larger ferromagnetic attractive forces. The use of NeoDyms or ANY magnet type is determined by the - H field the magnet will work in. You calc the max flux density of the coil and then pick a magnet type which will achieve a say 20% reduction in its field density at the max operation flux. That way, you achieve min cost and min ferromagnetic attractive forces and their associated bearing losses. The energy in a Adam's type motor comes from the coil energy. Normally going to a stiffer magnet will not increase output, unless as above, the magnet is being operated way down its B/H curve due to high coil generated flux densities. Wish I has your machine shop. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 13:29:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA07801; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:56:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:56:50 -0800 Message-Id: <34622085.6AD93C07 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:54:45 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Galileo - Countdown to Europa 11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SO8ZZ1.0.dv1.DyYOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12510 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There is less than one hour to Europa 11 Closest Approach Nasa site show a a real time simulated view of the satellite from the spacecraft. Very cool.. (even "worm tracks" can be seen. :-) ) http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/countdown/ Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 13:39:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02903; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:23:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:23:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711062120.QAA02831 relay1.smtp.psi.net> From: "George Holz" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:15:18 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"w80BH1.0.Dj.pKZOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12512 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: No, the CDM idea are not covered on BLP papers. They are analysing the cosmic EUV and X-ray radiations for possibility of these specific hydrogen atom could be sources as I stated on my next sentence. Although my idea can be considered as a natural result of this possibility, but their PDF files does not offer it (explicitly) as a solution to the missing mass (CDM) problem. The BLP site clearly implies this connection . Look under Astrophysics / Intestellar Medium / Dark Matter The reasoning here is that with the large amount of CDM expected , that some fraction should become excited allowing a spectral search. Mills shows that the extreme uv background spectrum found corresponds to expected hydrino lines. George Holz george varisys.com Varitronics Systems From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 14:21:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA13619; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:13:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:13:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <346231A5.C9F220D7 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 00:07:49 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM References: <199711062120.QAA02831 relay1.smtp.psi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jhGhq1.0.dK3.D4aOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12513 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: George Holz wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: [snip] > > The BLP site clearly implies this connection . > Look under Astrophysics / Intestellar Medium / Dark Matter > The reasoning here is that with the large amount of CDM > expected , that some fraction should become excited allowing > a spectral search. Mills shows that the extreme uv background > spectrum found corresponds to expected hydrino lines. > Hi George, Thanks for giving the full path. I had downloaded their theoretical articles two months ago but not accessed this section. Yes, you are right. The astro1.pdf is exactly investigating the same thing, And their findings provide strong arguments for this po ssibility. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 14:42:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04284; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:36:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:36:57 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Blue Myths Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:34:11 -0500 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: <19971106224013047.AAD67 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"cqKbm3.0.q21.7QaOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12516 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, Dick Blue has accused Jed on promulgating a "myth" about the existence of cold fusion. In one case there is a citation of a videotape of the P&F boiloff experiment. Jed responds to this with citations of specific artifacts and events visible on the tape, which support calibrations and comparisons pointing to a valid experiement. These are not mentioned by Blue, who deals in generalities. In other posts, Blue does not discuss specific papers and findings, but again uses generalities and sociological arguments. If Dr. X got good results, why isn't he doing Y? It appears that it is Dick Blue who is busy creating and maintaining a myth, the myth of the non-existence of CF phenomena. Jed has his advocacy position, plain for all to see, but he makes references to specific events and papers, so his position is in principle falsifiable and therefore "scientific". Indeed, various people have taken him to task and he has responded in specific terms. I am not aware of such specific responses from Blue. It seems if Jed talks about A, Blue refers to B. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 14:46:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02880; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:31:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:31:23 -0800 Message-ID: <19971106223046.11896.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [206.150.170.165] From: "Peter Aldo" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:30:45 PST Resent-Message-ID: <"bQTLy3.0.ri.vKaOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12514 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello all, I second this idea. I offered to buy Greg a plane ticket to Athens, Ohio and get an independant lab (Stirling Tech where I work) to test his device but he didn't respond. Someone visiting him would be a much better idea, however. I would pitch in money for this and even volunteer to go myself if Greg likes the idea. Peter Aldo > >>The day I started posting openly to this group, I gave up the >>ownership of my research. > >Fine, but why are you fiddling around with SMOT tests and the like instead >of working on the devices (e.g. RMOD) which you claim will run continuously >all by themselves? > >It's been quite a few months now since you announced your success in this >endeavor and it is frustrating not to have any visible proof of your >success. We played along with the early SMOT tests, hoping that some >incredible anomaly would manifest itself. None did. Our SMOT tracks were >miserably ordinary. > >If you've really got something, Greg, it has to be something very special >that your particular embodiment has captured. It is high time that the >world found out the truth behind your claimed success, Greg. In fact, I'm >surprised that Jed hasn't started accusing you of letting innocent people >starve in underdeveloped countries by witholding potentially vital energy >technologies from commercialization. > >I propose an official Vortex committee visit to your house to observe the >RMOD device running all by itself continuously. We could all pitch in and >buy an elected Vortex member the necessary airline ticket...sort of like >the way s.p.f. sent Tom Droege to Griggs place...only this time we'd do it >better by preparing the representative beforehand with agreed-upon >observations and tests to perform. > >Robin, how far are you from Greg? Are you willing? Are there any other >volunteers who live reasonable close to Greg? > >Greg, are you willing to entertain such a visitation? If successful, I >guarantee you it would launch a wave of multi-lab experimentation into your >research > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 14:48:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04244; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:36:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:36:49 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Rich Murray Scorecard; Arata & Zhang Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:21:28 -0500 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: <19971106224013047.AAC67 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"u9FZN3.0.921._PaOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12515 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo, Rich Murray has lamented the lack of good papers about AE reactions. I sent him a photocopy of Vol. 23, special issue, of the Japanese Journal of High Temperature Society. This society is the Japanese equivalent of the American Nuclear Society, and is a peer-reviewed journal. They saw fit to devote an entire issue to the Arata & Zhang paper. Rich initially spent two hours looking at it, focused of four pages dealing with calorimitry, and concluded that it was so poor as to invalidate the rest of the findings in the paper. I pointed out that Rich grossly misread a diagram of the apparatus and misrepresented the nature of curves of output data. He incorrectly applied calibration data showing a small level of variability in the calorimitry as invalidating graphs showing substantial excess energy output over thousands of hours in one case, hundreds in another. All this is contained in a detailed analysis I posted here. Rich admitted he misread the diagram of the apparatus. He then posted a list of four categories of possible errors in calorimitry which again show misreading of the apparatus diagram, as he talks about thermistor errors when thermocouples are used, and the possibility of debris clogging clean circulating cooling water, separate from the pool of electrolyte in the cell. His list of errors are without merit in the A&Z case. He has not shown any significant error in the essentials of the A&Z calorimitry, which show substantial excess heat produced in cells containing Pd-black, which also show the presence of 4He and 3He in a specially built QMS. Neither Rich nor I am qualified to evaluate the QMS data shown. Mitchell Swartz is qualified, and he has published the A&Z findings in his journal with favorable comment. The reviewers of the Japanese Journal also find no fault in the substance of the data, for they published the paper in their journal. Now Rich has been given a quality, peer reviewed paper showing substantial excess heat in a Pd-D2O2 system, with the presence of nuclear ash in the form of 4He and 3He. He has misread the data given him and made erroneous critical statements. The score I see is A&Z 1, Rich Murray 0. I think a formal retraction of his critique to his distribution list would be appropriate. He has frequently claimed a yearning for reassurance that the o/u phenomena are real, yet lamented confusion over a "data stew". I think he can gain reassurance from the A&Z paper if he would actually study and understand it, and think about the implications of each element from the viewpoint that it represents quality work and the confusion might be in his head, not in the work itself. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 15:16:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13434; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:07:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:07:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:07:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199711062307.PAA21988 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"rreWM3.0.lH3.-saOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12518 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Nov 6, 12:34pm, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> Yes! Watching the cold dark matter segment of the Stephen Hawking's >> Universe series, now being broadcast here on PBS > >> How does the matter escape from black holes to make jets? > >Ah.... so now we see the culprit that got you back on vortex! ha ha. I am >enjoying the Hawking series too. Black Holes are the topic of the next show! > Should be very interesting. When you watch that show, try something for fun. We know that gravity pulls things together, right? WRONG. What we know is that gravitation is an interaction between two objects. And we know that the two objects are induced to accelerate toward one another. However, we do not know that the objects reach out and pull. It could just as correctly (mathematically speaking), be that the objects are being pushed toward one another by the balance of the universe. Not pressure, but rather waves crashing on the shores of our nuclei, which then filter that wave energy just like two ships on the ocean which will be pushed toward one another by a similar interaction and filtering of incident wave energy. So, listen and see if the people say repeatedly, and confidently, that a black hole "sucks" everything in, even light. When you listen for this, knowing that gravity does not pull things, you will begin to laugh all the time listening to people talk with certitude that gravity and other forces pull things together. As for the jets, if you think the BH pulls stuff in, then you are really stuck. You have to assume that magnetic fields magically manage to collimate the flow of stuff that was headed into the hole, but missed, and was shot out through the vortex. If, on the other hand, you understand that a BH is inertially confined by aether flowing into it, then it is obvious that light, a wave phenomena, will to be able to propogate upstream past the event horizon, where the inflow velocity reaches c. However, you will also then realize that if the tornados at the poles (which just like our tornados are rarefactions, ie low pressure regions), manage to penetrate into the interior of the hole close enough to the core of aether condensate inside of the event horizon, then that core of condensate at extreme pressure will shoot out of the hole and vaporize through a fluidic venturi. We could easily duplicate this with supersonic air flow out of a jet and get the same long range behavior. When you see the huge lobes and million light year long jets, what you are seeing are huge expanses of brand new aether emitted back out into our universe from inside of the event horizon. And the radio wave energy is just like the wave turbulence you would have if you shot a bunch of air out into our ambient atmosphere. Radio waves are just acoustic waves in the aether, as are photons. Though they are more of a geometry of solitons, or like a smoke ring vortex if you wish, so it isn't a simple compression sound wave like in air. You see, air doesn't have the acoustic structure of spacetime in it. Well, those are my whacko ideas on the subject. but if you get them, and you look at the images, then you will see that they make a heck of a lot of sense. later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 15:19:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13230; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:07:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:07:09 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:07:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711062307.PAA04308 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: expedition to verify Watson's devices Resent-Message-ID: <"IJG7s1.0.cE3.RsaOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12517 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: subject was: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Peter Aldo wrote: [snipped] > Someone visiting him would be a much better idea, > however. I would pitch in money for this and even > volunteer to go myself if Greg likes the idea. If volunteers were called for, I'd toss my hat in the ring too. But I don't think that's where we're at. The last post from Greg sounded like he's circling the wagons. I have mixed feelings about that - I'm as frustrated by the delay as anyone (well, almost) and don't see the value of in-concept paper "proof of OU" when there's a physical device that could be shown, but also understand Greg's feeling a bit beseiged. Hows about we all just calm down a bit and wait for his published shipping date, November 22? Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 15:56:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23756; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:48:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:48:03 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Debye temp Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:47:16 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <34653d35.5169653 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80@world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971103124654.006b4d80@world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971104084050.006ba080@world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971106073541.006ce05c@world.std.com > In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971106073541.006ce05c world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"noQ0H2.0._o5.nSbOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12519 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 07:35:41 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > Thank you Robin for sharing this. >Hope you are correct. Well that's one way to shut me up! :) > > Best wishes. > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 18:00:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20879; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:49:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:49:16 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Greg Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kqPKa1.0.565.PEdOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12520 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., Hey folks.... To the supporters ... you support. To the detractors, nay sayers and other: 1] We got a guy who is doing his level best to send some good ideas down the pipes..... and back it up with a lot of data. 2] Without question he has put in time, faith, money, goodwill. 3] Name 10 ... or even two who have done as much or as openly as Greg has .... in the last 50 or 100 years. Now: You do the same... follow points one and two... Then: You might be in a position of be equal... but it still would go against the grain to fault him. Or at least it would seem so to me. Think about it. From where I sit he told a good piece of it. I was bale to replicate the track quite easily... but that is because magnetic fields, materials and circuits is my main area. This is my opinion. Greg: Do what you do. AND: Be true to you... don't let events get to you. If it goes, it goes. Everyone: Remember, grace is best. John Herman Schnurer PS: I get hammered some for gravity work.... I expect to be more so, from time to time. Maybe one day I will have nice clean effect of more power than the nice clean reproducible effect I do now.... BUT: The effect of gravity modification is not MY effect.... and credit goes to those before who showed me. It is not my effect any more than the sky is my sky. AND: Science is FUN.... should be anyway.... Don't lose sight of the fun and the wonder! JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 18:40:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA29986; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:26:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:26:05 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:25:55 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711070225.UAA02091 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: expedition to verify Watson's devices Resent-Message-ID: <"Oil3E3.0.MK7.ymdOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12521 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg did sound a bit negative but he didn't come right out and say that a visit was out of the question. At this point, an independent observation of either the RMOD or RMOG device in continuous self-powered operation for several hours, followed by a detailed report of those observations here on Vortex would produce an enormous surge in pursuit of Greg's technology...significantly more so than a bunch of us receiving SMOT kits in the mail...no? Greg, isn't there some way we could arrange such an observation without revealing all your construction secrets? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 21:14:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA09306; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:08:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:08:44 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711070508.XAA12162 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971106122443.00abf100 spectre.mitre.org> from "Robert I. Eachus" at "Nov 6, 97 12:24:43 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:08:38 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qa7BE2.0.FH2.R9gOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12522 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > now the best fit of theory to facts says that global warming from human > actions exists, but that it almost exactly balances the global cooling from > the start of the current Ice Age, and that the mini-Ice Age occured when > the cooling got ahead of us. I believe the data shows that though the temperatures have gotten slightly warmer over the last century (half a degree C, if I recall) that most of that occured in the first 50 years, but that most of the human CO2 production occured in the second 50 years. Another factoid, which I can't find the reference to at the momement, is that a satelite survey of temperatures for the last 15 years has found no indication of global warming. Unfortunately, almost all of the people pushing global warming policies are left wing big government knows best types. So there is clearly more than science motivating their agenda. Eco scares were and are a major tactic in grabbing more government power over everyone's lives -- however they have had somewhat of a backlash effect of late. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 21:31:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA14950; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:29:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:29:13 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: John Logajan Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:28:15 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <199711070508.XAA12162 mirage.skypoint.com> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"lU2-6.0.Wf3.eSgOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12523 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 06-Nov-97, John Logajan wrote: >Robert I. Eachus wrote: >> now the best fit of theory to facts says that global warming from human >> actions exists, but that it almost exactly balances the global cooling from >> the start of the current Ice Age, and that the mini-Ice Age occured when >> the cooling got ahead of us. >I believe the data shows that though the temperatures have gotten slightly >warmer over the last century (half a degree C, if I recall) that most of >that occured in the first 50 years, but that most of the human CO2 >production occured in the second 50 years. >Another factoid, which I can't find the reference to at the momement, >is that a satelite survey of temperatures for the last 15 years has >found no indication of global warming. >Unfortunately, almost all of the people pushing global warming policies >are left wing big government knows best types. So there is clearly more >than science motivating their agenda. Eco scares were and are a major >tactic in grabbing more government power over everyone's lives -- however >they have had somewhat of a backlash effect of late. >-- > - 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 - Dittos! Thanx John :) Trees are a crop, they grow back. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 21:56:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18039; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:48:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:48:19 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:48:16 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Off Topic] Space-Time Distortion by Black Holes In-Reply-To: <199711061738.MAA24363 spinoza.hq.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"r4GQp1.0.hP4.YkgOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12524 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FYI only; Space-time: Thinking of YOU Ross :) "frame-dragging" makes a lot more sense when I envision your aether 'chess-board'! Do White Holes exhibit the REVERSE 'frame-flinging' or just pulsating, pumping aether emission points? BTW, RXTE = Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (relation?:) I like your shorter Ross version (all is one, one is all), It Flows easier for me! -=jse=- On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 NASANews hq.nasa.gov wrote: >>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:38:49 -0500 (EST) >>From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov >>To: ekwall2 diac.com >>Subject: First Observation of Space-Time Distortion by Black Holes >> >>Donald Savage >>Headquarters, Washington, DC November 6, 1997 >>(Phone: 202/358-1547) >> >>Bill Steigerwald >>Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD >>(Phone: 301/286-5017) >> >>RELEASE: 97-258 >> >>FIRST OBSERVATION OF SPACE-TIME DISTORTION BY BLACK HOLES >> >> Astronomers using NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) >>spacecraft reported today that they have observed a black hole >>that is literally dragging space and time around itself as it >>rotates. This bizarre effect, called "frame dragging," is the >>first evidence to support a prediction made in 1918 using >>Einstein's theory of relativity. >> >> The phenomenon is distorting the orbit of hot, X-ray >>emitting gas near the black hole, causing the X-rays to peak at >>periods that match the frame-dragging predictions of general >>relativity. The research team, led by Dr. Wei Cui of the >>Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is announcing its results >>in a press conference today during the American Astronomical >>Society's High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) meeting in >>Estes Park, CO. Collaborators in the research include Dr. Wan >>Chen of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, and Dr. >>Shuang N. Zhang of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, >>Huntsville, AL. >> >> "If our interpretation is correct, it could demonstrate the >>presence of frame dragging near spinning black holes," said Cui. >>"This observation is unique because Einstein's theory has never >>been tested in this way before." >> >> Black holes are very massive objects with gravitational >>fields so intense that near them, nothing, not even light, can >>escape their pull. This effect shrouds the hole in darkness, and >>its presence can only be inferred from its effects on nearby >>matter. Many of the known or suspected black holes are orbiting a >>close "companion" star. The black hole's gravity pulls matter >>from the companion star, which forms a disk around the black hole >>as it is drawn inward by the black hole's gravity, much like soap >>suds swirling around a bathtub drain. Gas in this disk gets >>compressed and heated and emits radiation of various kinds, >>especially X-rays. >> >> The research team used these X-ray emissions to determine >>if frame dragging was present. The team found that the X-ray >>emissions were varying in intensity. By analyzing this variation, >>they found a pattern, or repetition, that was best explained by a >>perturbation in the matter's orbit. This perturbation, called a >>precession, occurs when the orbit itself shifts around the black >>hole. This is evidence for frame dragging because as the matter >>orbits the black hole, the space-time that is being dragged around >>the black hole drags the matter along with it. This shifts the >>matter's orbit with each revolution. >> >> Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has been highly >>successful at explaining how matter and light behaves in strong >>gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a >>wide variety of astrophysical observations. The frame-dragging >>effect was first predicted using general relativity by Austrian >>physicists Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring in 1918. Known as the >>Lense-Thirring effect, it has not been definitively observed thus >>far, so scientists will scrutinize the new reports very carefully. >> >> The possible detection of frame dragging around another >>type of very dense, quickly spinning objects, called neutron >>stars, was accomplished very recently by Italian astronomers, >>whose work led Dr. Cui's team to seek the effect near black holes. >>The Italians, Drs. Luigi Stella of the Astronomical Observatory of >>Rome, and Mario Vietri of the Third University of Rome, will >>report their findings at the November 6 conference in Estes Park. >>These observations also were made using the RXTE, which is >>available for use by astronomers throughout the world. >> >> "This is exciting work that needs further confirmation, as >>for any seemingly major advance in science," said Dr. Alan Bunner, >>Director of the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Program at >>NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. >> >> The RXTE spacecraft is a 6,700 pound observatory placed >>into orbit by NASA in December 1995. Its mission is to make >>astronomical observations from high-energy light in the X-ray >>range, which is emitted by powerful events in the universe. These >>events are often associated with massive, compact objects such as >>black holes and neutron stars. >> >> - end - >> >>NOTE TO EDITORS: Computer animation and background video to >>illustrate this story is available and will be broadcast on NASA >>TV Videofile Nov. 6. >> >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 6 22:56:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25503; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:50:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:50:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:50:10 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DiIoR1.0.PE6.4fhOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12525 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: the expanding vacuum: On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Horace Heffner wrote: -big snip- >>If the above is true, then the universe should now have approximately the >>mass it did at creation. It may have even more, because the expansion of >>space itself requires the expansion of the vauum, which implies an increase >>in the quantity of vacuum fluctuations, but that is another issue. -big snip- >>How's that for a flight of fantasy? >>Regards, >>Horace Heffner Your: With "the expansion of space itself"...+... "increase in the quantity of vacuum flucuations", ... Question: Doesn't the Aether camp just simply 'stretch' this out. Wouldn't this make more sense(?) if flattened or stretched that it would take longer (slower-waves) to pass through that space-time for our expanding system, then to make it GAIN more (M)ass as it flows outward (growing). Slower on the outer reaches (rims).. increased toward the center? ..Whoa, never mind, either way would would point to a diff:BigBang.. But I can envision very long AND VERY flat space-time waves out there at the outer limits .. 'course, 3D sense isn't my strongest point anymore.. Too much of the web here, I see everything connected to everything now days.. (like pull-taffey candy).. Sticky stretchy subject, that seems to go everywhere. Just a thought... Be Infinite to Everything :) -=jse=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 00:02:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA03951; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:57:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:57:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:56:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711070756.XAA15079 germany.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"RL0bG.0.fz.KdiOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12526 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick - >Michael - > >Thanks for the report on the fusor. A search on Penning traps fetched a few >experiments being run in universities and at Los Alamos on this sort of >fusion. Sounds like it's wide open enough for an advanced amateur to have >some chance of discovering something here. I bet Richard's blasting ions in >a cage with a big Tesla coil! > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI My pleasure. Yeah, once the fusor is made you could add all kinds of gases to see the fusion reactions that would occur. I'll post the fusor description over on freenrg list. Maybe someone over there could use it for a HS science fair project. Many thanks to Richard for offering the information and photo's for the ESJ article. Looking forward to hearing more of his work with fusors. Regards, Michael From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 00:28:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA14811; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:23:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:23:23 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:24:30 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"Xt7zg1.0.Ld3.w_iOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12527 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:50 PM 11/6/97, Steve Ekwall wrote: > >Just a thought... >Be Infinite to Everything :) >-=jse=- To paraphrase Robin and DeBroglie ... to be infinite, be still, one over all ... is nothing. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 01:11:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA21408; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:04:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:04:14 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:05:10 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"IQK2h3.0.LE5.DcjOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12528 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:35 AM 11/5/97, John E. Steck wrote: >At 04:46 PM 11/4/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote: > >> It would seem compelling now to setup a device with >> these parameters to verify the threshold and to measure >> the temperature decrease of the electrolite > >The thermoneutral voltage for electrolysis is called out as 1.481 V at 25 C. > (same reference text as before) > >1.23 to 1.47 V the reaction is endothermic >1.47 to 2.00+ V the reaction is exothermic > >Still unclear on the exact endothermic value for a specific reaction at a >specific V. No data on that. Anyone? > >-- >John E. Steck OK, Scott Little has very generously offered to send some materials to help check this out, so, I will get set up to make some tests. Now, let me make sure I understand. Is the implication that when operating in the range between 1.23 V and 1.47 V the cell is expected to cool? This is counterintuitive, which why I offered to run a test. If the cooling in that voltage range is proportional to (1.48-V)(I), then maybe we would have to have a cell more than 1.23/1.47 x 100 = 83.6 percent efficient to actually observe cooling? That is to say the power supplied that does not go into gas production, must go into heat. If a cell is 75 percent efficient, and then 25 percent goes to heat and 16.4 percent of that heat will go to bond breaking, leaving a net increase in heat of 8.6 percent of the energy supplied. However, this is nonsense, because the cell would then simply appear to be 91.4 percent efficient. The estimated 75 percent efficiency already takes into account the endothermic contribution? In view of the discussion, the relevance of the info to CF experiments, and lack of readily available data, it would be interesting to experimentally determine I*V vs heat flow from a cell operating in that voltage range. However, I don't want to go overboard on this measuring gas volumes, etc., just want to verify the reaction is endothermic. Does your book indicate the electrolyte and electrode compositions required for the reaction to be endothermic in such a voltage range? What should I test? I take it we are talking about Ni electrodes and KOH, NaOH, or LiOH, true? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 01:15:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA22424; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:14:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:14:44 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:14:02 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming In-Reply-To: <199711070508.XAA12162 mirage.skypoint.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"noQqs.0.IU5.3mjOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12529 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, John Logajan wrote: > > Unfortunately, almost all of the people pushing global warming policies > are left wing big government knows best types. So there is clearly more > than science motivating their agenda. Eco scares were and are a major > tactic in grabbing more government power over everyone's lives -- however > they have had somewhat of a backlash effect of late. > I agree with this effect if not the intention. Another unfortunate feature are the researchers who build up empires with easy Government money. They have a strong incentive to keep pushing the "scare" button even though their Climate Models are nothing like the Earth's biosphere. There's a rather unscrupulous bunch at a different University in Melbourne than mine. We (my department) should ask them to give a seminar so we can see what they're really doing and saying. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 04:01:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA08078; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:58:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:58:15 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:57:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- Resent-Message-ID: <"9jFhE1.0.8-1.L9mOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12530 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, You will find in my web site, a VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT about Electrogravity, this document explain major T.T. Brown experiments and will soon open the space frontiers and the way to free energy. I suggest you to read carefully this document, this will change your point a view about the Newton's third principle........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- ELECTROSTATIC PENDULUM EXPERIMENT WHICH PUMPS ENERGY FROM THE ETHER - By Cornille Patrick ( France ) Published on 11/07/97 http://members.aol.com/overunity/elecpexp/elecpexp.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The violation of Newton's third principle implies consequences that can be tested experimentally, namely a charged capacitor at rest in the Earth reference frame can set itself in motion and accelerate its center of mass without external help. -------------------- The violation of Newton's third principle by the Lorentz forces implies that a charged capacitor must accelerate its center of mass without external help if the capacitor has an absolute motion with respect to the ether. Moreover the existence of an external force must also result in the violation of energy conservation. The experiment showing the linear spontaneous motion of the capacitor through the ether has already been reported elsewhere. The experiment consists of two heavy metallic balls suspended by fine cotton wires to the ceiling of the laboratory. In order to keep the balls at a fixed distance D, an insulating rod is used between the balls. Therefore, the bi-filar pendulum with the two balls make a capacitor that moves as a solid with the Earth's velocity U = Ui where Ui is also the ionic velocity defined with respect to the ether frame......... You will find the complete document and demonstration with the first tests results at : http://members.aol.com/overunity/elecpexp/elecpexp.html PS: If you want to contact Patrick Cornille, send me an Email and I shall forward your request, because Patrick don't have an electronic mailbox. Sincerely, ( This mail has been sent at 11h34 GMT on 07 November 97 ) Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+1 ) Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 04:26:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12002; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:23:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:23:36 -0800 Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:07:23 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3462f673.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Asti Workshop Resent-Message-ID: <"F869I3.0.Rx2.7XmOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12531 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:40:06 -0800 (PST), vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > Jed, > Thanks for posting the good news that the 1997 Asti Workshop has attracted > enough papers, attendees, and sponsors to go forward. > A Dr. Francesco is listed, from INFN, Frascati. Francesco who? Francesco > Piantelli? > I share your hope that if Peter Glueck and Bart Simon make it to the meeting, > then they'll post a summary here. Maybe Biberian will, too, since he's > contributed comments before. > Tom Stolper Dear Tom and Vortexers, If I manage to go (it depends on getting a visa and recovering after a pneumonia) I will report you all about the main events and data. BTW, Francesco is Celani -a bright young scientist not Piantelli who's long absence remains a mystery. His system seemed to be very promising back to 1994. CF is a realm of paradox. Obviously Bart will help. The ASTI symposium is very well organized and will be a milestone in the history of our field. I will give a lecture on reproducibility in the CF systems. 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 , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 04:53:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA15320; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:50:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:50:33 -0800 Message-ID: <346373E5.3BF4 itl.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:02:45 -0800 From: nick7 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming References: <199711060904_MC2-26FC-4897 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ysNkL.0.Bl3.OwmOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12532 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: MIT DER DUMMHEIT...... <> These people are like Jason in Friday 13th Part X. Just when you think they're irrevocably dead, they lunge up out of the lake to grab you. The fossil fuel lobby has been spreading this muddled and misleading stuff as fast as they can. With Clinton's recent "conversion", we thought that it was all over for the irresponsible madmen who spread this around. Firstly it is not "many atmospheric scientists" - the *overwhelming* consensus opinion among clmate scientists worldwide is that climate change is a real and serious threat. The arguments in this book are familiar and have been destroyed countless times before. It plays upon the uncertainties in the predictions of climate change computer *MODELLING* and how they don't quite fit what has been observed in the past. The insanity is that they put this forward as a reason not to worry. To me, it means we don't understand the climate well enough to be monkeying with it. The ONLY sure way to know what will happen if we continue to load the atmosphere with greenhouse gases is to go ahead and do it. The consequences may be A) none, B) benign, C) as the models suggest D)terrible or E) we may get into a runaway feedback effect and turn ourselves into Venus or Mars. It is not in dispute that CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution. Recently we added C.F.C's and loads of methane from the burgeoning and flatulent domestic cattle population. Not to mention cutting down carbon "sinks" (forests). As always, it is vital to ask the right questions. If you ask climate scientists whether unequivocal evidence has been presented that global warming has been demonstrated in sea temperature, air temperature or whatever, then you will get a lot of debate and conflicting science papers, and we all trust the validity of those, right? ;}. This is the basic argument of this book. However, if you ask climate scientists whether the climate will change, if we continue to load the climate indefinitely with excess CO2 etc, I suspect they will ALL agree. The only argument will be be about when and how much. The infrared "holding" qualities of greenhouse gases are established simple PHYSICS. The book also uses other obfuscating arguments, familiar to environmentalists. Authors of this ilk say things such as the reviewer does here. <> Somehow this is again represented as reassuring. Again, it is barking mad. It is rhetoric. If we said there is no evidence that recent droughts, severe weather etc are *not* related to global temperature, it would be just as valid. The geologic record demonstrates conclusively that there is are natural factors that have lead to catastrophic climate change in the past - an overworked example is the famous deep frozen mammoths with fresh vegetation in their mouths. There are the cyclic ice ages. To me, this simply suggests that, indeed, the computer models probably are inaccurate. To me, it says that the climate changes in quantum leaps, not gradually. If we exceed the self regulating feedback limits of the climate, it just might snap, like an elastic band, into climate hell. I repeat, the ONLY way to be sure about what will happen is to go ahead and do it. Are you feeling lucky, punk? Would you really trust a "scientist" who claimed to know the climate so well that they were sure there was no risk whatsoever? Jed, it doesn't take in depth knowledge of meteorology to judge what one's response to such arrogance should be. To live on Earth is dangerous. We know that the climate has at least several semi-stable and widely differing states. To voluntarily risk flipping our civilisation into one of the nastier ones would be the height of folly. Chris would have quoted Schiller "against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain" Nick Palmer - Group Co-ordinator Jersey (UK) Friends of the Earth From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 04:55:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02540; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:51:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:51:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34637F06.74A0 itl.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:50:14 -0800 From: nick7 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming References: <199711060904_MC2-26FC-4897 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8turK3.0.cd.vwmOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12533 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: As a postscript.... Jed, << I think that it is a shame the environmentalists have latched on to global warming. They should not invest so much of their reputation on it. They should not emphasize it so much>> It is because what is necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions will solve virtually all the other environmental problems that you mention, that it is so much at the forefront of campaigning (at the moment). Campaigning on the all the other topics carries on as usual, but a sensible global agreement at Kyoto will provide a massive framework on which all other calls for cleaner, sustainable this that and the other can be hung. <> Actually, who can tell if the climate won't "flip" next Tuesday? <> Sounds good, but the opposition claim it will cost jobs (wrong), they dispute the evidence for pollution related health problems (like the cigarette companies who still seem dubious about whether cigs are addictive/harmful at all), and with the way economic success is measured at the moment (GDP, GNP) the environmental cleanup will cost people money too. With Green economics you put the environmental "costs" of commercial activity on to the business mans balance sheet - if a factory pollutes,it has to pay to clean it up - automatically, the shareholders force you to pollute less, clean up, conserve etc. One of the most powerful forces on Earth, the profit motive, would work in favour of the environment instead of against, as at present From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 05:19:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05526; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:15:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:15:59 -0800 (PST) From: Chuck Davis To: nick7 Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 05:14:26 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <346373E5.3BF4 itl.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"uQD9h3.0.EM1.DInOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12534 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 07-Nov-97, nick7 wrote: >MIT DER DUMMHEIT...... [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > Nick Palmer - Group Co-ordinator Jersey (UK) Friends of the Earth Junk Science, Nick!!! -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' Sacred cows make great hamburger- Mark Twain From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 05:21:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA19056; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:18:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:18:13 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: nick7 Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 05:17:09 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <34637F06.74A0 itl.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"_DMWJ1.0.df4.KKnOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12535 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 07-Nov-97, nick7 wrote: >As a postscript.... >Jed, ><< >I think that it is a shame the environmentalists have latched on to >global warming. They should not invest so much of their reputation on it. >They should not emphasize it so much>> >It is because what is necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas >emissions will solve virtually all the other environmental problems that >you mention, that it is so much at the forefront of campaigning (at the >moment). Campaigning on the all the other topics carries on as usual, but >a sensible global agreement at Kyoto will provide a massive framework on >which all other calls for cleaner, sustainable this that and the other >can be hung. ><the distant future, and concentrate instead on the here and now.>> >Actually, who can tell if the climate won't "flip" next Tuesday? ><and they will *flock* to join your movement. . . .>> >Sounds good, but the opposition claim it will cost jobs (wrong), >they dispute the evidence for pollution related health problems (like the >cigarette companies who still seem dubious about whether cigs are >addictive/harmful at all), and with the way economic success is measured >at the moment (GDP, GNP) the environmental cleanup will cost people money >too. With Green economics you put the environmental "costs" of commercial >activity on to the business mans balance sheet - if a factory pollutes,it >has to pay to clean it up - automatically, the shareholders force you >to pollute less, clean up, conserve etc. One of the most powerful forces >on Earth, the profit motive, would work in favour of the environment >instead of against, as at present -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 05:25:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20361; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:23:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:23:10 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: nick7 Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 05:22:07 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <34637F06.74A0 itl.net> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re:[Way off topic] Global warming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"AvCCO.0.3-4.zOnOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12536 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 07-Nov-97, nick7 wrote: >As a postscript.... >Jed, ><< >I think that it is a shame the environmentalists have latched on to >global warming. They should not invest so much of their reputation on it. >They should not emphasize it so much>> >It is because what is necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas >emissions will solve virtually all the other environmental problems that >you mention, that it is so much at the forefront of campaigning (at the >moment). Campaigning on the all the other topics carries on as usual, but >a sensible global agreement at Kyoto will provide a massive framework on >which all other calls for cleaner, sustainable this that and the other >can be hung. It's all a canard, Nick! Go plug a volcano with your butt, that'll save us all ;^) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 06:41:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA31862; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:34:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:34:53 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Mills vs. Wharton scorecard Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:12:21 -0500 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: <19971107143834100.AAA192 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"8T-cy1.0.ln7.BSoOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12537 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Following recent discussion about the energy source in the BLP gas phase reactor: Wharton suggests it is an artifact of the cleaning effect of hydrogen on metal surfaces, reducing emissivity and increasing the temperature of a body with constant energy input which is cooled by radiation. Scott Little pointed out that the specific report on the BLP website shows that the measurements were made by immersing the whole apparatus in a Calvet calorimiter, which integrates the total energy output of the apparatus. Arguments about the emissivity of surfaces within the apparatus are irrelevant. Mills 1, Wharton 0. Mills' theoretical structure is heretical and attacked as such, even though he correctly predicts the wavelength of emission lines of various H and various ions. He also predicts that the dark matter may be hydrino ash from stars which can be excited by gamma radiation. Such seems consistent with recent observations of a massive radiating halo around the galaxy. Another point for Mills. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 06:41:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA31906; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:34:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:34:58 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Data Stews, Science, and Human Folly Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:29:20 -0500 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: <19971107143834100.AAB192 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"kVlkU2.0.Jo7.HSoOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12538 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rich Murray and Dick Blue have discussed "data stews" and data selection by advocates of positions X and Y as evidence of "scientific folly". Human experience from infancy onward is a data stew and it is the function of human sense organs and education to make abstractions from this stew so that prediction and survival become possible. Even the behavior of ordinary objects was so confusing that earlier natural philosophy attributed observed behavior to the "nature" of the objects until Newton formulated his laws of motion and the calculus to predict motion. Now the paths of a ball rolling on the ground, or the planets in the sky, are seen as evidence of unseen forces, not the "natures" of the objects. Physical science has progressed by limiting the universe of discourse -- selecting data -- to a simple case -- boundary conditions -- in which a fundamental law can be observed and quantified. The hard part is asking Nature the correct question -- experimental design. A well-designed experiment gives a unequivocal, macroscopic result. Physical science is not a popularity contest. One cannot cite N failed or null experiments as outvoting 1 good experiment. Nor can one say that "If the experiments of Dr. X were really good, he should be doing Y" with the corollary that if he is not doing Y, X's experiments were not good after all. Such reasoning is human folly and the proper subject of sociological studies (Bart, are you watching?). Now in the case of P&F, critics said: 1) Heat signature not real, calorimitry errors 2) Neutron data false (retracted by P&F) 3) No high energy gammas 4) No nuclear ash Therefore, can't be DD fusion like that seen in a particle accelerator. Eight years later, 1) Excess heat in a P&F cell measured to 50 sigma by McKubre at SRI Hundreds of watts of sustained heat output by Patterson/CETI Megajoules/cc of heat energy in the Arata & Zhang paper, accepted by Japanese HES Dozens of other confirming reports. Negative reports by major labs have been found flawed. . 2) Still no neutrons of note, processes are not DD fusion as seen in accelerators. 3) Some low energy radiation seen in some experiments 4) Nuclear ash, 4He and 3He found by Arata & Zhang Wide range of anomalous elements found in Patterson cells by Miley Anomalous elements formed in CG cell Anomalous elements, including 4He, found in palladium targets by George Tritium produced by Claytor in palladium targets with low energy (2 kV) discharges Therefore, isn't DD fusion like that seen in particle accelerators, but is a new class of phenomena to be studied, properly called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions A collection of failed experiments do not outvote these positive results. A refusal to confront these findings by raising a cloud of quibbles is an exercise in politics or human folly, fit for study by the science of sociology. The absence of an agreed-upon theory does not nullify experimental findings, which are always senior to theory. A theory which predicts correctly G, H, I, L, M, N may reasonably be assumed valid for H, I, J, K, but it does not follow that the theory is valid for P, Q, R, S. Nor does it follow that observations P, Q, R, S are invalid because theory G...N does not predict them. We can hope for a new theory embracing G...S, but we don't have it. Alpha and Omega may be beyond our reach. There are major hurdles between these findings and commercial replication, but that is another discussion which involves economics, politics, prejudice, and other aspects of human folly. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 06:57:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18281; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:51:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:51:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34632AD7.1F7C interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 09:51:03 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: MOVEMENTS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DqlIB1.0.ST4.phoOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12539 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: CF Pro-movement Anti-movement Global Warming Pro-movement Anti-movement SMOTS Pro-movement Anti-movement BOWELS Pro-movement Anti-movement ^ (I am here) Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 07:12:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22232; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:07:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:07:09 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:05:00 -0700 Message-ID: <01bceb8e$84c7c7e0$9683410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"IujDq1.0.IR5.QwoOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12540 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To; Vortex A look-see on the net turned up a plethora (love that word) of strain gages that can be used for measuring the torque on the rubbing disks. www.blh.de or www.entran.com and others. With a suitable rpm counter-strobe light or such, one should be able to pin down the energy going into rubbing metal disks together under water or the Griggs -Potatov pumps without the worry of calculating power into the drive motors. The end... :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 07:20:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11581; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:16:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:16:19 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: MOVEMENTS Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:13:59 -0700 Message-ID: <01bceb8f$c5f8d140$9683410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"bdy592.0.tq2.23pOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12541 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Francis J. Stenger To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 8:01 AM Subject: MOVEMENTS Anyone brave enough to say they saw it coming? :-) Regards, Frederick >CF > > Pro-movement Anti-movement > > Global Warming > > Pro-movement Anti-movement > > SMOTS > > Pro-movement Anti-movement > > BOWELS > > Pro-movement Anti-movement > ^ > (I am here) > >Frank Stenger > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 07:21:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12061; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:18:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:18:47 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:16:21 -0500 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: <19971107152220676.AAC177 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"Pw2Kx3.0.Gy2.L5pOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12542 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My rampaging elephants theory of politics: If I tell you that if you vote for me I will save you from rampaging elephants, you know I'm nuts because you can see you aren't so threatened. However, if I can make you believe I will save you from the infinitesimal threat of an unimaginable disaster, I can get your money and your vote. I remember a year in the '40s when I was in college in Iowa (native state) when it snowed and snowed west of the Missouri and flowers bloomed in New Jersey in January. Abnormal weather is normal. Public policy based on computer models which can't predict clouds is folly. Policy leads to legislation which leads to rules whose interpretive consequences spiral beyond reason, like the cost of the Delaney amendment which forbade a single molecule of any compound which seemed carcinogenic by any test, no matter how contrived. There are ample reasons to move toward greater efficiency with all deliberate speed, but what we should be cautions about is a new set of mandates and enforcers whose motives are idyllic dreams laced with a lust for reforming power. If we can make the Alternative Energy paradigms move forward, we can have a good life on a good planet and its rape for fuel will be a memory of a misguided past. Mike Carrell ---------- > From: nick7 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming > Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 3:02 PM > > MIT DER DUMMHEIT...... > > > > > < based on forecasts from flawed computer models of the Earth's climate, and not on > actual observations. Although the models are improving over time (and their > warming forecasts growing smaller), they still cannot simulate clouds, predict > the occurrence of El Ninos nor adequately account for the climate effects of > volcanic eruptions. In effect, he says, modelers are holding up a black box and > saying: "Trust us. It's in there." Many atmospheric scientists are not so > sure.>> > > These people are like Jason in Friday 13th Part X. Just when you think they're > irrevocably dead, they lunge up out of the lake to grab you. The fossil fuel > lobby has been spreading this muddled and misleading stuff as fast as they can. > With Clinton's recent "conversion", we thought that it was all over for the > irresponsible madmen who spread this around. > Firstly it is not "many atmospheric scientists" - the *overwhelming* > consensus opinion among clmate scientists worldwide is that climate change is a > real and serious threat. > The arguments in this book are familiar and have been destroyed > countless times before. It plays upon the uncertainties in the predictions of > climate change computer *MODELLING* and how they don't quite fit what has been > observed in the past. The insanity is that they put this forward as a reason not > to worry. To me, it means we don't understand the climate well enough to be > monkeying with it. The ONLY sure way to know what will happen if we continue to > load the atmosphere with greenhouse gases is to go ahead and do it. The > consequences may be A) none, B) benign, C) as the models suggest D)terrible or E) > we may get into a runaway feedback effect and turn ourselves into Venus or Mars. > It is not in dispute that CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial > revolution. Recently we added C.F.C's and loads of methane from the burgeoning > and flatulent domestic cattle population. Not to mention cutting down carbon > "sinks" (forests). > As always, it is vital to ask the right questions. If you ask climate > scientists whether unequivocal evidence has been presented that global warming > has been demonstrated in sea temperature, air temperature or whatever, then you > will get a lot of debate and conflicting science papers, and we all trust the > validity of those, right? ;}. This is the basic argument of this book. However, > if you ask climate scientists whether the climate will change, if we continue to > load the climate indefinitely with excess CO2 etc, I suspect they will ALL agree. > The only argument will be be about when and how much. The infrared "holding" > qualities of greenhouse gases are established simple PHYSICS. > The book also uses other obfuscating arguments, familiar to > environmentalists. Authors of this ilk say things such as the reviewer does here. > > < evidence of many natural and unexplained temperature fluctuations. Even over > the last 3,000 years of recorded history, some of these changes were larger > and more rapid than those forecast by the models. What is more, there is no > evidence that recent droughts, floods, snowstorms or other severe > weather-related phenomena are at all related to global temperature>> > > Somehow this is again represented as reassuring. Again, it is barking > mad. It is rhetoric. If we said there is no evidence that recent droughts, severe > weather etc are *not* related to global temperature, it would be just as valid. > The geologic record demonstrates conclusively that there is are natural factors > that have lead to catastrophic climate change in the past - an overworked example > is the famous deep frozen mammoths with fresh vegetation in their mouths. There > are the cyclic ice ages. To me, this simply suggests that, indeed, the computer > models probably are inaccurate. To me, it says that the climate changes in > quantum leaps, not gradually. If we exceed the self regulating feedback limits of > the climate, it just might snap, like an elastic band, into climate hell. I > repeat, the ONLY way to be sure about what will happen is to go ahead and do > it. Are you feeling lucky, punk? Would you really trust a "scientist" who claimed > to know the climate so well that they were sure there was no risk whatsoever? > Jed, it doesn't take in depth knowledge of meteorology to judge what one's > response to such arrogance should be. > To live on Earth is dangerous. We know that the climate has at least > several semi-stable and widely differing states. To voluntarily risk flipping our > civilisation into one of the nastier ones would be the height of folly. Chris > would have quoted Schiller "against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in > vain" > > Nick Palmer - Group Co-ordinator Jersey (UK) Friends of the Earth > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 07:28:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13837; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:23:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:23:46 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971107092328.ZM19220 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:23:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 7, 3:04am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"sXRUS2.0.6O3.1ApOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12543 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 7, 3:04am, Horace Heffner wrote: > OK, Scott Little has very generously offered to send some materials to help > check this out, so, I will get set up to make some tests. Thanks Scott! Every little bit helps. > Now, let me make sure I understand. Is the implication that when operating > in the range between 1.23 V and 1.47 V the cell is expected to cool? This > is counterintuitive, which why I offered to run a test. The implication is the reaction is endothermic. I would expect some heating from the electrolite pumps and/or current resistance, so how much the cell will cool or at what rate is not clear. Isolating your particular setup's variables is needed to determine the actual caloric consumption. Why does this seem counterintuitive? Combined H and O is a lower energy state. Need energy to break it. Get energy when put back together. > The estimated > 75 percent efficiency already takes into account the endothermic > contribution? Since we are not really interested in the produced volumes of H and O just yet, I don't think efficiency is overly relevant to observe the effect (other than what resistivity may do to the thermodynamics). I would think *any* endothermic reaction, at any rate, will show up as a caloric consumption in the system. Once endothermics are realized, THEN expand the investigation to determine ratio of reaction products to caloric consumption. My apologies if I am rashly jumping to conclusions here. Our CF cell-jockeys may have better insight than I. > In view of the discussion, the relevance of the info to CF experiments, and > lack of readily available data, it would be interesting to experimentally > determine I*V vs heat flow from a cell operating in that voltage range. > However, I don't want to go overboard on this measuring gas volumes, etc., > just want to verify the reaction is endothermic. My thoughts as well. If it is real, I think there is some potential to take advantage "with-in the rules". > Does your book indicate the electrolyte and electrode compositions required > for the reaction to be endothermic in such a voltage range? What should I > test? The endothermic and exothermic ranges are graphed expressing V to cell temperature. There is no indication electrolite concentration, electrode compositions, or current density are variables in this effect. I would assume with respect to resistivity heating they are somewhat relevant however. Please keep in mind, the information is presented at face value only, with very little to no supporting protocols. I think verification is definitely needed. Also, the author does not present this material or cell construction details to observe or maximize the endothermic nature of the reaction. The intent leans more towards efficiency, cost effective methods of production, and storage rather than exploring the specific scientific implications. IMO I think the place to start is below 20% KOH, 25C, and 1.23V and increment the values up in separate runs with the same cell, noting temperature flux and identifying ideal values in each case. I envision 4 setups to adequately nail down all the variables: 1) Incrementing V from 0 to 2.0 at 20% KOH, 25C, and at some reasonable I 2) Incrementing T at lowest V, 20% KOH, and at the same I 3) Incrementing % KOH at lowest V, T, and at the same I 4) Incrementing I at lowest V, T, and % KOH > I take it we are talking about Ni electrodes and KOH, NaOH, or LiOH, > true? Ni electrodes and KOH although I don't believe the electrolite composition to be critical. I would use the cheapest/easiest you are comfortable with. If the same solution is used in all setups, I don't see a problem. Forgot to bring the book with me today. I will try and scan some of the graphs and post them somewhere for public access on Monday. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 08:15:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA26483; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:06:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:06:45 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:02:13 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Rich Murray Scorecard; Arata & Zhang Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711071106_MC2-273E-AB71 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"oHQ1e.0.eT6.KopOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12544 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Carrell writes: Rich admitted he misread the diagram of the apparatus. He then posted a list of four categories of possible errors in calorimetry which again show misreading of the apparatus diagram, as he talks about thermistor errors when thermocouples are used, and the possibility of debris clogging clean circulating cooling water, separate from the pool of electrolyte in the cell. His list of errors are without merit in the A&Z case. Debris clogging the circulating water is never an issue. A flowmeter records the flow, so when something like this happens you know about it. Clogging from debris is rare, but it does happen. In a famous example, a bit of black plastic electrical tape blocked the SRI calorimeter and raised the temperature in the cell. This triggered a large excess heat burst. (See ICCF4 proceedings or my review in I.E. #11) The decrease in flow rate is shown in the graphs and accounted for when computing the heat burst energy. The "blocked flow" hypothesis reminds me of Taubes' "weekend electricity" theory, which he promoted in his book and in NPR interviews. He claims that excess heat is an artifact caused over the weekend because people use less electricity on Saturday and Sunday and the power company delivers more to the cold fusion experiment. This is a classic "skeptical" argument: it isn't true, it can't be true, and even if it were true it would make no difference. 1. It is not true as far as I know. I have never seen measurable difference between weekday and weekend voltage where I live. You get as many amps as you take, the power company keeps the rest. 2. Even if it were true laboratory power supplies are well regulated. They deliver the same output even when input power fluctuates. 3. Even if there was more electricity and the power supplies did pass it through to the cell, volts and amps are monitored and recorded, so if it happened we would know about it. Taubes must have realized this! How could these experiments be performed without measuring input power? Elsewhere in his book Taubes asserts that CF scientists measure amps only and not volts, or the other way around. That's crazy, but it is no crazier than Murray's belief that people do flow calorimetry without measuring the flow. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 08:22:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07923; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:17:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:17:06 -0800 (PST) From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711071616.KAA04646 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming In-Reply-To: <346373E5.3BF4 itl.net> from nick7 at "Nov 7, 97 12:02:45 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:16:22 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qjTFe.0.ix1.zxpOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12545 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer - Group Co-ordinator Jersey (UK) Friends of the Earth wrote: > Firstly it is not "many atmospheric scientists" - the *overwhelming* > consensus opinion among clmate scientists worldwide is that climate > change is a real and serious threat. I think you picked the wrong group to make this -primacy of the wisdom of scientific consensus- argument. Facts and facts alone are what we care about, not vote counting. [Not that anybody really has counted the votes.] > It plays upon the uncertainties in the predictions of climate change > computer *MODELLING* and how they don't quite fit what has been > observed in the past. Gee, how unscientific of us to expect your beloved models to actually conform to reality. We are so harsh. > The insanity is that they put this forward as a reason not to worry. Inaccurate models are not a reason for anything. They are random noise. We don't burn fuels just for the heck of it -- we burn fuels because the energy released is what is driving our climb out of the natural poverty of hunter-gatherer. Unless a compelling case can be produced that suggests that such behavoir is counter-productive to the climb out of natural poverty, it would be irrational to suspend the climb on some half-baked demonstrably wrong theory. > It is not in dispute that CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial > revolution. Unfortuately for the models, none of them has succeeded in even predicting the past temperature, let alone the current (and we presume future) temperatures. > The infrared "holding" > qualities of greenhouse gases are established simple PHYSICS. The evaporation rate of oceans with increase temperature and the reflectivity of the resultant clouds is also established simple PHYSICS. John Logajan -- Self Co-Ordinator (USA) Friends of the Human Being -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 08:27:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08530; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:21:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:21:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107102031.0070aa8c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:20:31 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Hydrogen In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"g_mDK2.0.C52.A0qOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12546 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 00:05 11/7/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >Now, let me make sure I understand. Is the implication that when operating >in the range between 1.23 V and 1.47 V the cell is expected to cool? I bet that no H2O will be dissociated if Vcell < 1.48 volts. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 09:01:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15008; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:54:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:54:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34633086.E1FFB555 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:15:18 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vMfxr.0.Mg3.BVqOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12547 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Humour: (Sorry Naudin, I could not prevent my self to write this.) JNaudin509 aol.com wrote: "The experiment consists of two heavy metallic balls suspended by fine cotton wires to the ceiling of the laboratory." No doubt, Newton's gravitational law is also not working here. (Or we can suspect the laboratory is on orbit 36000 Km above.) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 09:46:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22101; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:36:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:36:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <346342EA.46BC crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:33:54 +0200 From: Jean-Paul Biberian Reply-To: biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen References: <3.0.1.32.19971107102031.0070aa8c mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ehexs.0.3P5.i6rOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12548 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 00:05 11/7/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: > > >Now, let me make sure I understand. Is the implication that when operating > >in the range between 1.23 V and 1.47 V the cell is expected to cool? > > I bet that no H2O will be dissociated if Vcell < 1.48 volts. > > Scott I have not followed the whole discussion, but... No, if you operate below 1.47 V and above 1.23V, assuming there is no other electrical loss (resisitivity of the electrolyte). you will dissociate H20, and cool down your cell with the diffrence. -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 10:37:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28571; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:15:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:15:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:16:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711071816.KAA04515 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Global warming and bad science Resent-Message-ID: <"lYoo-3.0.J-6.EhrOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12549 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chuck Davis said: > It's all a canard, Nick! Go plug a volcano with your butt, > that'll save us all ;^) Nice attitude, fella. Really makes me believe in the logic of your arguments. and: >Junk Science, Nick!!! Okay, let's talk science. One form of junk science is looking at a complex multivariate system and drawing conclusions based on incomplete understanding of all the parts and how they're interrelated. Agreed? That coincides with your disagreement with a conclusion that humans are causing global warming. Now how about if we conclude, on the same evidence, that if we make gross changes to one of the major elements of the system, it won't have a detrimental effect? Is that not as much of an error? And if the system in question were your life-support system, which way would you rather err, mess with it or leave it working? Let's look at your scientific understanding of trees. Chuck davis said: >Dittos! Thanx John :) Trees are a crop, they grow back. A living forest is a complex community of interdependent plants, animals, insects, fungi, soils and hydrological and fire, and nutrient cycles. It is not just "trees". Tree "pests" such as borers and fungi help decompose weak trees; birds, animals and other insects mediate these effects. Natural fire cycles destroy some trees, but primarily weakened ones; provide fast nutrient decomposition; and the smoke inhibits tree-infesting fungi (devastating fires of this century are primarily caused by long-term fire *supression* resulting in unnatural fuel buildup). The root systems and organic matter content of the soils help hold and filter water, so that moisture deposited in winter and spring is released gradually throughout the summer rather than flooding all at once. Recent radioisotope nutrient-tagging studies indicate that all of the forest plants, trees included, are literally interconnected - via fungal mycelia - and nutrients are moved with this mechanism. Trees, when they die, add their accumulated energy, carbon, and deep-soil nutrients to the forest floor for use by other trees and the rest of the community. When trees are treated merely as a crop, all that changes (this does not apply to selective thinning and cutting). Herbicides are applied to eliminate non-crop species; this destroys the diversity that gives the forest its resilience and resistance to disease and pests. It eliminates host sites for beneficial insects, animals and fungi. It decreases the water- and nutrient-holding capacity of the soil because there are not as many species filling the various soil niches. Heavy equipment compacts and churns the soil, destroying forest floor species, disrupting soil structure, and leaving huge swaths of bare ground open to erosion. The majority of gathered nutrients and energy (wood) are hauled away from the forest, never to return, further depleting the soil. Winter and spring runoff are faster and carry more nutrients, causing erosion and water quality degradation. The forest is more susceptible to stresses such as drought (it isn't holding as much water) and diseases (the trees are not as healthy because of the general degradation of their soil and habitat; disease-mediating mechanisms have been disturbed) and fire (lots of high-fuel debris that is not allowed to burn). Replanted forests ("tree farms") compound the problems by normally only planting one species. An even-aged and single-species plantation is extremely unstable, susceptible to a number of problems - ask any farmer. They often add fertilizers and plant new hybrid species to get faster growth. Now what does faster growth mean? Weaker, lower-quality lumber. Read *less valuable* lumber. So we find that we have deteriorating water quality, poorer wood quality, and we have to keep adding fertilizers and herbicides and fight tree diseases and other pests on our own, and a single fire or long drought could wipe out the whole thing. We have to intensively manage, but we've increased our risks and are getting a poorer quality output. So you see growing trees is not quite as simple as you may have thought. Same, I think, for global warming. Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 10:45:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA02476; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:41:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:41:03 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <34637F06.74A0 itl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:37:35 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re:[Way off topic] Global warming Resent-Message-ID: <"DPW863.0.Xc.z2sOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12550 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chuck - > It's all a canard, Nick! Go plug a volcano with your > butt, that'll save > us all ;^) LOL - you got it there. Kilauea, which isn't doing much except seething and steaming right now with some low level trickles of lava near and on the surface, is pumping out 1000+ TONS of greenhouse gasses and toxic fumes per DAY. It's "voggie" here on Oahu now; it's almost like L.A. on a good to average day. I'm all for conservation and care of the environment, but I'm afraid this global-warming/greenhouse-gas-is-all-our-fault nonsense has had its 15 minutes, despite the fact that there will always be a few who continue to hang on to the notion for whatever reason. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 11:01:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA07643; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:53:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:53:39 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34633086.E1FFB555 verisoft.com.tr> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:49:32 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- Resent-Message-ID: <"l5sov.0.Kt1.nEsOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12551 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi - > No doubt, Newton's gravitational law is also not > working here. (Or we can suspect the laboratory > is on orbit 36000 Km above.) I know you're just kidding here, but you did visit the site, didn't you? There's a dielectric or insulating rod holding the two balls apart. The whole thing swings from side to side like a trapeze bar with the balls at the end, and they tried it in two different orientations 180 deg. apart. When I get some time I'd like to try to go over the suppositions they make regarding potential electrostatic forces off the walls of the lab and so forth, but superficially it looks like a good Biefeld-Brown confirmation. What do you think? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 11:25:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12106; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:14:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:14:44 -0800 (PST) From: Chuck Davis To: Rick Monteverde Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:13:02 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re:[Way off topic] Global warming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"Qw3Fb2.0.yy2.WYsOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12552 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 07-Nov-97, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Chuck - > > It's all a canard, Nick! Go plug a volcano with your > > butt, that'll save > > us all ;^) >LOL - you got it there. Kilauea, which isn't doing much except seething and >steaming right now with some low level trickles of lava near and on the >surface, is pumping out 1000+ TONS of greenhouse gasses and toxic fumes per >DAY. It's "voggie" here on Oahu now; it's almost like L.A. on a good to >average day. That was my point. I live in LA. The air is the cleanest it's been, since the sixties. I remeber :( But now, the environmentalist whackos are still trying to confiscate more autos and property. They want power and control of it all. >I'm all for conservation and care of the environment, but I'm afraid this >global-warming/greenhouse-gas-is-all-our-fault nonsense has had its 15 >minutes, despite the fact that there will always be a few who continue to >hang on to the notion for whatever reason. Indeed, to rip you off of your money and property to cause you to be beholden to them, in the long run. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' A hundred years from now, there'll be all new people :) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 11:50:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16949; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:42:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:42:18 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:38:44 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcebb4$c2130bc0$7783410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"ipub61.0.k84.MysOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12553 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I goofed when I credited James Watt with measuring the "Mechanical Equivalent of Heat". The credit goes to J.P. Joule who conducted this effort from 1840 to 1878. H.A. Rowland picked up on this effort in 1879. With a strain gage or load cell measuring the torque on the "stationary" plate and the light from an IR LED shining through one or more holes in the rotating drive shaft (hexagonal so that a hex drive socket chucked up in a drill press will give it axial freedom)and an IR sensor counting the Revs, one should be able to see if the water between rubbing surfaces is getting ou energy from hydrino-electrino formation. No need for the test apparatus to be over 1" diameter by 2" long, is there? The electronics and computing may get a bit challenging though. Will that do it, Scott, Horace? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 11:53:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA22814; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:47:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:47:33 -0800 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971107134712.ZM21775 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:47:12 -0600 In-Reply-To: Jean-Paul Biberian "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 7, 11:38am) References: <3.0.1.32.19971107102031.0070aa8c mail.eden.com> <346342EA.46BC crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Akn1t.0.Ga5.J1tOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12554 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 7, 11:38am, Jean-Paul Biberian wrote: > I have not followed the whole discussion, but... > > No, if you operate below 1.47 V and above 1.23V, assuming there is no > other electrical loss (resisitivity of the electrolyte). you will > dissociate H20, and cool down your cell with the diffrence. Do you have any experimental evidence this is true? HH and I are interested in finding out the actual caloric value of the reaction. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 12:09:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20138; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:03:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:03:59 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:02:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971107150236_-1976410483 mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Vortex-L Stats Resent-Message-ID: <"MAtJi3.0.Vw4.gGtOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12555 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For Bill Beaty: A couple of days ago, Scott Little asked how many people subscribed to Vortex-L and how the number varied with time. I'd guess that the number isn't large, because a couple of years ago SPF (sci.physics.fusion) only had something on the order of a hundred or so listed subscribers, if memory serves (though of course the number of unlisted lurkers may have been much larger). So how many of us are there here on Vortex-L? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 12:30:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23826; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:25:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:25:48 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:23:34 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcebbb$06819aa0$a491410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"iNaCA.0.Cq5.9btOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12556 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Steck is titillated with the cooling effect of electrolytes at certain potentials. I got into this a few years ago, John. I even tried a failed lawn tractor battery that had been purged of the acid electrolyte with baking soda (NaHCO3) to do some checking on it.Unfortunately the cells were shorted and it wasn't doable. When you apply a voltage to the highly polar water molecules you cause them to align like the needles on a bunch of compasses in a magnetic field. This says that the random vibrations (ie., heat or thermal motion) is lessened, thus there should be a drop in temperature. However, heat can get back in from the surroundings and offset this effect. I was looking to see if this might be used as a form of heat pump, but I must have gotten sidetracked by something or other. I had completely forgotten about it. :-) You can use highly polar molecules like acetone or methanol-ethanol which have higher resistivity than water and a much lower freezing point. I guess it would be a good item to put back on the "things to do" list. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 12:39:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01097; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:29:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:29:23 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107141703.0071b81c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:17:03 -0600 To: "vortex" From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment In-Reply-To: <01bcebb4$c2130bc0$7783410c default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MYp3N.0.0H.XetOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12557 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:38 11/7/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >With a strain gage or load cell... >an IR LED shining through.... >No need for the test apparatus to be over 1" diameter by 2" long... > >Will that do it, Scott, Horace? It certainly is a doable measurement, Fred, but my plate is overflowing and I am having trouble assigning it an appropriate priority. You seem to have quite a bit of free time these days...How about you do the experiment and I'll consult. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 13:25:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA04292; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:18:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:18:47 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:16:28 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcebc2$69b0aba0$a491410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"4rQP61.0.s21.oMuOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12558 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 1:37 PM Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >At 12:38 11/7/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>With a strain gage or load cell... >>an IR LED shining through.... >>No need for the test apparatus to be over 1" diameter by 2" long... >> >>Will that do it, Scott, Horace? > >It certainly is a doable measurement, Fred, but my plate is overflowing and >I am having trouble assigning it an appropriate priority. You seem to have >quite a bit of free time these days...How about you do the experiment and >I'll consult. That's not my job! :-) > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 13:42:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16377; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:36:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:36:43 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971107160227_1001997103 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"7-LNZ2.0.m_3.gduOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12559 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-07 00:49:25 EST, you write: << Hi George, >Thanks for giving the full path. > Regards, > hamdi ucar >> Hamdi, Sorry I did not provide the path to the CDM info in the BLP files but you did state that you had reviewed ALL the files. Next time I cite something I will provide readers with a complete map of how to get to the material. Vince Las Vegas Nevada From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 14:33:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA14568; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:21:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:21:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:22:11 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"dUBA31.0.VZ3.yHvOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12560 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:23 AM 11/7/97, John E. Steck wrote: >On Nov 7, 3:04am, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> OK, Scott Little has very generously offered to send some materials to help >> check this out, so, I will get set up to make some tests. > >Thanks Scott! Every little bit helps. Yes! Thanks to Scott as usual. >> Now, let me make sure I understand. Is the implication that when operating >> in the range between 1.23 V and 1.47 V the cell is expected to cool? This >> is counterintuitive, which why I offered to run a test. > >The implication is the reaction is endothermic. I would expect some heating >from the electrolite pumps and/or current resistance, so how much the cell will >cool or at what rate is not clear. Isolating your particular setup's variables >is needed to determine the actual caloric consumption. > >Why does this seem counterintuitive? Combined H and O is a lower energy state. > Need energy to break it. Get energy when put back together. Because in my experience electrolytic cells heat up at any current, but maybe I missed something. Also, as I mentioned, all the I*V has to go somewhere, it either has to result in heat or it has to go to the energy required for disassociation of H2O. It just seems that if the reaction is of low efficiency then the heat generated in the cell electrically will overwhelm that lost to an endothermic reaction. >Also, the author does not present this material or cell construction details to >observe or maximize the endothermic nature of the reaction. The intent leans >more towards efficiency, cost effective methods of production, and storage >rather than exploring the specific scientific implications. I think the most efficient cell design (of the typical kind we are discussing) suggested by the book for generating H2 would be the most likely to show endothermic properties. > >IMO I think the place to start is below 20% KOH, 25C, and 1.23V and increment >the values up in separate runs with the same cell, noting temperature flux and >identifying ideal values in each case. > >I envision 4 setups to adequately nail down all the variables: > >1) Incrementing V from 0 to 2.0 at 20% KOH, 25C, and at some reasonable I >2) Incrementing T at lowest V, 20% KOH, and at the same I >3) Incrementing % KOH at lowest V, T, and at the same I >4) Incrementing I at lowest V, T, and % KOH I wasn't planning to use a pump or PPC type cell, though I have both. Just put electrodes in electrolyte in sealed dewar with temp probe(s) and turn on the current. I temp drops, then success. Eliminates lots of potential sources for error. Since voltage is key to the phenomenon, was figuring on trying different specific requlated voltages. Could also try different starting T values, and watch temperature then head for an equilibrium value. In practice this could be a bit more difficult than I thought because my regulated supply is rated at 2-20 volts. Will have to insert resistance to drop the voltage across the cell. Since cell resistances float around I will have to monitor/control cell voltage or current by hand to some extent. Could put a couple cells in series to reduce the amount of handholding. > >> I take it we are talking about Ni electrodes and KOH, NaOH, or LiOH, >> true? > >Ni electrodes and KOH although I don't believe the electrolite composition to >be critical. I would use the cheapest/easiest you are comfortable with. If >the same solution is used in all setups, I don't see a problem. > >Forgot to bring the book with me today. I will try and scan some of the graphs >and post them somewhere for public access on Monday. Whatever the book suggests as the best typical non-esoteric atmospheric pressure cell is what sounds best. Does it suggest an ideal concentration for H2 generation? If not, we have another variable. BTW, I know there are some folks that have done a lot of practical work on concentration studies for the Brown's gas generators. Don't recall who. Using stainless steel electrode plates I think. >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 14:53:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19664; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:46:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:46:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34638B52.5C5F crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:42:45 +0200 From: Jean-Paul Biberian Reply-To: biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen References: <3.0.1.32.19971107102031.0070aa8c mail.eden.com> <346342EA.46BC crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> <971107134712.ZM21775@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rhEfR.0.7p4.PfvOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12562 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John E. Steck wrote: > > On Nov 7, 11:38am, Jean-Paul Biberian wrote: > > > I have not followed the whole discussion, but... > > > > No, if you operate below 1.47 V and above 1.23V, assuming there is no > > other electrical loss (resisitivity of the electrolyte). you will > > dissociate H20, and cool down your cell with the diffrence. > > Do you have any experimental evidence this is true? HH and I are interested in > finding out the actual caloric value of the reaction. > > -- > John E. Steck > Prototype Tooling > Motorola Inc. I have no personal experience of this measurement, but youcan try an experiment that consists in measuring the current versus voltage in a cell, you should see a cut off in the current at 1.23 , which corresponds to delta G. So if you actually wish to do calorimetry you need to measure delta H, therefore the actual value of the delta H is 1.47 V. One could eventually make a refrigerator that way, but it is not very practical since you easily loose the 0.24 V in the Joule heting of the electrolyte. To answer your question clearly, the delta G of the reaction is 1.23 eV the delta H of the reaction is 1.47 eV. In calorimetry, it is the latter value that we use. -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 14:54:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA31828; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:33:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:33:45 -0800 Message-Id: <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:26:30 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yDuIj2.0.En7.8TvOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12561 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > I know you're just kidding here, but you did visit the site, didn't you? Yes, I did. I could not verified the theoretical section. I need to study mechanics little to follow it. My only critic is I think ether is not needed for the formulation of Newton Laws. The experiment is very interesting and simple. But even the deviation of the charged balls are not due to pure magnetic and electrical interactions, neither the newton law and the conservation of energy needs to be violated. Before accepting that forces resulted are dependant to the mass of the balls, we must be sure that other physical (size) and electrical properties of the balls remain same. If this is OK, we must first check any anisotropy on the lateral forces. This is absolutely needed because Earth is a magnet and is rotating, very poor substitution for inertial reference of frame for such as experiments. Apparently, no magnetic forces seems to involved to the experiment, but it is possible that magnetic properties (permeability) of charged spheres changes dependant or independently to the material used for them. If so, Earth magnetic field may provide the force. BTW, the material used for balls and their full descriptions was omitted on the article. I am not considering a new phenomena responsible for the results, but a new phenomena does not require violation of laws of physics. More later, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 15:07:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20860; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:52:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:52:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34639BAF.51E18307 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 09:22:31 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT OU Proof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Op0jS1.0.o55.3lvOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12563 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: HI All, I have loaded additional SMOT OU Proof data. I have shown that a Lower Level Rollaway can be OU and is in fact the way I developed the SMOT Ramp. Read it if you wish. Discard it if you wish. However the theory, set-ups and results are real. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 16:08:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27812; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:01:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:01:54 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971107180138.ZM24098 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:01:38 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 7, 5:35pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"vZCmY.0.zn6.klwOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12564 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 7, 5:35pm, Horace Heffner wrote: > Because in my experience electrolytic cells heat up at any current, but > maybe I missed something. Also, as I mentioned, all the I*V has to go > somewhere, it either has to result in heat or it has to go to the energy > required for disassociation of H2O. It just seems that if the reaction is > of low efficiency then the heat generated in the cell electrically will > overwhelm that lost to an endothermic reaction. I suppose a reduction in the rate of heat up will also show the effect even if the cell doesn't necessarily cool. 8^) > I think the most efficient cell design (of the typical kind we are > discussing) suggested by the book for generating H2 would be the most > likely to show endothermic properties. > I wasn't planning to use a pump or PPC type cell, though I have both. Just > put electrodes in electrolyte in sealed dewar with temp probe(s) and turn > on the current. I temp drops, then success. Eliminates lots of potential > sources for error. The book discusses mostly setups with pumps, multiple cells, and running exothermic at higher V and T than what we intend. For what it is worth, I like your idea better. Less variables. > Since voltage is key to the phenomenon, was figuring on trying different > specific requlated voltages. Could also try different starting T values, > and watch temperature then head for an equilibrium value. My thoughts as well. > In practice this could be a bit more difficult than I thought because my > regulated supply is rated at 2-20 volts. Will have to insert resistance to > drop the voltage across the cell. Since cell resistances float around I > will have to monitor/control cell voltage or current by hand to some > extent. Could put a couple cells in series to reduce the amount of > handholding. Again, my impression too. > Whatever the book suggests as the best typical non-esoteric atmospheric > pressure cell is what sounds best. Does it suggest an ideal concentration > for H2 generation? If not, we have another variable. Best info I have immediately handy is from an earlier post : $200US Setup ==================== - Distilled H2O with 20-30% KOH electrolite solution - Sintered sheet, wire, or gauze nickle electrodes - ~1-2 atm operation (implied) - 1.9 to 2.0 V - 75-80 C - Current density ~2000 amp/m2 - Non-metalic cell (pickle jar!) - efficiency ~50% Doing the math.... 1 kWh produces ~ 167 liter or ~48,000 BTU H at ~240 Wh/hour (at 1 atm H = 3 Wh/l and 1 kWh=3415 BTU) I will take another look and see if I missed a simpler setup. > BTW, I know there are some folks that have done a lot of practical work on > concentration studies for the Brown's gas generators. Don't recall who. > Using stainless steel electrode plates I think. Makes sense. The nickle content in most readily available stainless steels is adequate for electrolysis. It's cheaper too. 8^) Have a good weekend. Talk to you next week. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 16:32:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11461; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:26:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:26:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3463A2CE.3D51954E verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 02:22:54 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Could I win a dinner from Ross? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AQCuC3.0.wo2.q6xOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12565 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Ross, "... it is concluded that: 1) particles must be a wave structure composed of advanced and retarded quantum waves from an oscillator whose frequency is a property of an ether-like medium. 2) The waves link all matter together to produce Machian natural law s. ..." This is an article of Milo Wolff titled The Eight-fold Way of the Universe. If you promise a dinner (pizza) I'll tell you where it is located. :3) But it is possible that you know already where it is. (If you visited this "site" recently) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 16:58:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17478; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3463B6D5.620F interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:48:21 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6X5z41.0._G4.OWxOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12567 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > In practice this could be a bit more difficult than I thought because my > regulated supply is rated at 2-20 volts. Will have to insert resistance to > drop the voltage across the cell. Since cell resistances float around I > will have to monitor/control cell voltage or current by hand to some > extent. Could put a couple cells in series to reduce the amount of > handholding. > Hi, Horace! (your kid in college yet?) How about using a zener diode in series with your supply? If you don't have a good supply of zeners, you could just series several regular power diodes until their forward drop about equals your desired test voltage. Of course, you would need to meter current if you want a power input, but at least, the voltage should not vary much. _________________ | | | power sup. | | |_________________amp meter_______>>>> to cell | | | | | V diode ----------------- - | | | V diode | - | | | V diode | - |_______________________|______________________________ Three diodes with about 0.4 to 0.5 volts forward drop each should just about put you in the desired test range. You may need a load in series before the diodes to stabilize your power supply. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 16:58:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10803; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:43:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:43:51 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107194352.009f0e10 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:43:52 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Tree fields (Barker Rad Remediation) Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19971026223949.2cb723b4 po.pacific.net.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"UDo891.0.he2.5NxOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12566 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:38 PM 10/26/97 +0800, Mpowers Consultants wrote: >I'm having a bit of difficulty getting anywhere with my normal procurement > channels...and I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW > what is actually made of nickel. > I'm sure there's something out there made for some > *normal* business. Specifically, I would like to find nickel tubing. > But I haven't so far. Hmmm. The primary advantage of nickel tubing is its resistance to fluorine. I've used nickel containers to make XeO3 (actually you first make XeF6). But the major use of nickel tubing is in gaseous diffusion plants where uranium hexafluoride is separated into U235 and U238. So if I were you, I wouldn't pretend to be an arms dealer when shopping for nickel tubing. It might draw the wrong kind of attention. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 18:11:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA08295; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:06:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:06:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3463C8DE.6E15 math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:05:18 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: expedition to verify Watson's devices References: <199711070225.UAA02091 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IadX52.0.S12.ZayOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12568 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > > At this point, an independent observation of either the RMOD or RMOG Seems like overkill and unnecessary expense...just have him ship the smot kits. Presumably, these things will all work by conventional all-be-it subtle magnetic effects, and so a few hours observation may not be sufficent to deduce the mechanism. On the other hand, having a functional SMOT at ones disposal will allow a thorough investigation, and if its performance can be explained, the other dominos will likely fall in the same way (whatever that way may be). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 18:19:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA30132; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:12:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:12:42 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107211237.00a28620 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:12:37 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199711041605.IAA08968 sweden.it.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"hsTPQ3.0.YM7.NgyOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12569 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:05 AM 11/4/97 -0800, Michael Randall wrote: > "The production of >neutrons seems to be occuring in special vacuum tube designs known as >Fusors. The phenomenon is reminiscent of work done by Tesla and Farnsworth. >Tom Ligon has described and demonstrated recent work with Fusors which is >attributable to Dr. R.W. Bussard." The production of neutrons with an arc discharge in deuterium is almost trivial. You can buy thyatrons that do just this. But the neutrons come from stripping, not from fusion. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 18:27:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA11429; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:20:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:20:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107212014.0099ba20 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:20:14 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: SMOT & RMOG OU Proofs up Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg In-Reply-To: <345F99D3.FD1FEB53 microtronics.com.au> References: <199711041318.HAA00825 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"K9zHy.0.Fo2.znyOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12570 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:25 AM 11/5/97 +1030, Greg Watson wrote: > Did the Wright Brothers become rich? Little or nothing to do with the topic, but yes they did. I'm sure Curtis-Wright has now been merged into some areospace giant, but they were building aircraft almost up to WWII, and built a lot of engines then. One of the brothers died relatively young, the other lived to a ripe old age. But I don't know if they collected much money from patents--they earned their money with design skills both of aircraft and engines. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 18:37:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01379; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:30:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:30:35 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:25:24 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace In-Reply-To: <3463B6D5.620F interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"J7Xdn1.0.TL.9xyOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12571 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., ... and Frank: Your circuit will toast the diode !!! You need a drop resistor. Dear Horace, Do you want to do this right? I have done a lot of work in the field. You want to have a reasonably accurate supply... and metering ... or else you are guessing.. Guessing is OK but it is hard to reproduce. Get a good data book, like the one from National Smiconductor which shows voltage regulators ... you can apply them as current regulators of voltage regulators. They are not expensive. Better you ... find a jam radio operator and have she or he to help you. TV repair person is good to. Do it right. It is worth it. J On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > Horace Heffner wrote: > > > > > In practice this could be a bit more difficult than I thought because my > > regulated supply is rated at 2-20 volts. Will have to insert resistance to > > drop the voltage across the cell. Since cell resistances float around I > > will have to monitor/control cell voltage or current by hand to some > > extent. Could put a couple cells in series to reduce the amount of > > handholding. > > > Hi, Horace! (your kid in college yet?) > > How about using a zener diode in series with your supply? If you don't > have a good supply of zeners, you could just series several regular > power diodes until their forward drop about equals your desired test > voltage. Of course, you would need to meter current if you want a > power input, but at least, the voltage should not vary much. > > _________________ > | | > | power sup. | > | |_________________amp meter_______>>>> to cell > | | | > | | V diode > ----------------- - > | | > | V diode > | - > | | > | V diode > | - > |_______________________|______________________________ > > Three diodes with about 0.4 to 0.5 volts forward drop each should just > about put you in the desired test range. You may need a load in series > before the diodes to stabilize your power supply. > > Frank Stenger > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 19:27:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08931; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:20:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:20:46 -0800 Message-ID: <3463D963.65D1 interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:15:47 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qO9f_3.0.RB2.CgzOq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12573 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > Dear Vo., ... and Frank: > > Your circuit will toast the diode !!! You need a drop resistor. > Of course you do, John. Thats what I meant by a load in series before the power supply - but I was not very clear on that point - didn't show it in the schematic. I know Horace is on a tight budget (unless he stumbled over the mother lode up there) and I know he has some diodes and a power supply. If the diodes are forward biased to a nearly flat region, I thought the output voltage would be pretty insensitive to even large cell resistance changes. If Horace could get the power supply down to near 2 volts he could also use diodes in series to drop voltage about 0.6 volts per diode. It ain't pretty but it's cheap and easy! Good point, though, John! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 19:28:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26280; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:23:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:23:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3463D9FC.5904591E microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 13:48:20 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk4 Reduced Magnetic "Drag Back" for Improved Rollaways Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YzAqL1.0.PQ6.wizOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12574 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I have loaded information on how the SMOT Mk2 type ramp is modified in the SMOT Mk4 design to produce reduced magnetic Drag Back on the exiting ball. You will find QField sims to explain how this is possible. The SMOT Mk4 array is now asymmetric in two axis. The data can be accessed from the SMOT page in the experimental data section under "SMOT Mk4 Reduced Magnetic "Drag Back" for Improved Rollaways (08/11/97)". --- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 19:28:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA24537; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:16:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:16:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107221527.00ad2640 spectre.mitre.org> X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:15:27 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199711062307.PAA21988 Au.oro.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"yxr3q.0.D_5.jbzOq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12572 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>> How does the matter escape from black holes to make jets? Let's go visit Ockham's Razor. If the current model of black holes is correct they are surrounded by a thin accretion disk that radiates immense amounts of energy. Now look at a dust particle which happens to get displaced from the plane of the accretion disk. It is subject to significant radiation pressure perpendicular to the plane of the disk. Enough to accelerate the particle to near the speed of light? Not really. What happens is a gravitational slingshot. The dust particle falling towards the black hole is accelerated, say north just enough that it is in a parabolic orbit once it passes over top the black hole the radiation from the other side of the disk accelerates it southward. The net thrust on the particle could be enough to accelerate it by, say 100 meters/second, and the gravitational slingshot causes it to leave the vicinity of the black hole at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Now imagine a particle dropping in from almost due north. Again, the speed toward the black hole is slowed by radiation from the accretion disk, and it is accelerated as it leaves. Net speeds close to c require either a lot of thrust, or entering the ergosphere. But up to about 1/2 c, it is all simple orbital mechanics, and you don't have to approach the event horizon. Of course, there is a limit here. If the particle doesn't pass between the accretion ring and the black hole twice successfully, it will release a lot of energy which will acclerate other particles away. The net result is that you have an accretion disk of matter falling in, and some part of what approaches at high angles to that plane gets accelerated away. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 20:12:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04762; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:08:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:08:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:02:51 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace In-Reply-To: <3463D963.65D1 interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"BJ1I9.0.KA1.1N-Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12575 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: We could fax him a simple circuit: Zener feeding pot.... wiper to emitter follower ... but regulators are less than one dollar. Horace: If you don't have them I send you some. On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > John Schnurer wrote: > > > > Dear Vo., ... and Frank: > > > > Your circuit will toast the diode !!! You need a drop resistor. > > > Of course you do, John. Thats what I meant by a load in series before > the power supply - but I was not very clear on that point - didn't > show it in the schematic. > > I know Horace is on a tight budget (unless he stumbled over the mother > lode up there) and I know he has some diodes and a power supply. If > the diodes are forward biased to a nearly flat region, I thought the > output voltage would be pretty insensitive to even large cell resistance > changes. If Horace could get the power supply down to near 2 volts he > could also use diodes in series to drop voltage about 0.6 volts per > diode. It ain't pretty but it's cheap and easy! > > Good point, though, John! > > Frank Stenger > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 20:38:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21511; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:34:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:34:09 -0800 Message-ID: <3463EB7C.2D02 interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:33:00 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"j5qQO1.0._F5.0l-Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12576 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > ... but > regulators are less than one dollar. > You have the floor, John - it's time I stopped playing the electronic whiz, which I'm not. Look out - I may have to come to you for all my electronic advice! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 20:58:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25149; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:52:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:52:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3463E13D.CD72BB3E verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 06:49:17 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AQy0r.0.b86.u_-Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12577 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > We could fax him a simple circuit: > > Zener feeding pot.... wiper to emitter follower ... but > regulators are less than one dollar. > Are you sure that you have a diagram to obtain less than 1.5V from 3 leg s regulator? Any external components which are not feedbacked from thermally compensated reference voltage will not work as the required resolution is about 10mV. As an idea, anyone tried AC or RF for electrolysis? As the O2 and H2 not needed to collected, and maximizing the gas output is not aimed unconventional methods can be tried to reduce the ohmic dissipation in the electrolytic. The advantage of high frequen cy is passing currents between electrodes capacitevely and avoiding the dissipation. just an idea, probably it will not work due to complex response of electrodes. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 21:16:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA14826; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:10:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:10:43 -0800 (PST) From: Chuck Davis To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:09:40 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: (fwd) WARNINGWARNING FUCKINGINTELSHITTYCHIPBUGALERT! (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"wx1mG3.0.Td3.GH_Oq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12578 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Forwarded message, originally written by Phil Fraering on 07-Nov-97 *** Yes, just after Dvorak steps on his soapbox about how the PowerPC is history, this news comes in about the FuckingPentium chip on _MY_ computer, probably _your_ computer, and tens of millions of other computers, forming most of the backbone of the net... *There is a string of 4 instructions that when sent to the chip will* *cause the computer to crash. Period.* Why do we find out about this sort of fucking shit from FuckingIntel right after they win all the major battles? A half-dozen committed hackers could bring down large chunks of the internet with this bug. I suspect it's going to happen. I'm considering disconnecting from the net for a while until this blows over. Oh well... at least ActiveX will be considered to be the equivalent of botulism poisoning now. (Just as it looks as if we'll be able to survive the monopoly...) Phil -- Phil Fraering "People living their lives for you on TV, pgf globalreach.net they say they're better than you, /Will work for *tape*/ and, you agree" + Send me spam, and I'll send you termcap + ***************************************************************** * The TeamONE List. To unsubscribe send Email to * * listserv nostromo.gate.net and in the body of message type * * "delete yourname yoursite TeamONE" (minus the "") All other * * questions should be sent to damocles nostromo.gate.net. * ***************************************************************** -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 21:32:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA32750; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:26:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:26:38 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 05:25:46 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3464e3d7.20389428 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--=_3463f7da2551395509a98b09.MFSBCHJLHS" Resent-Message-ID: <"5ZOuf2.0.d_7.DW_Oq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12579 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----=_3463f7da2551395509a98b09.MFSBCHJLHS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:22:11 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Since voltage is key to the phenomenon, was figuring on trying different >specific requlated voltages. Could also try different starting T values, >and watch temperature then head for an equilibrium value. > >In practice this could be a bit more difficult than I thought because my >regulated supply is rated at 2-20 volts. Will have to insert resistance to >drop the voltage across the cell. Since cell resistances float around I >will have to monitor/control cell voltage or current by hand to some >extent. Could put a couple cells in series to reduce the amount of >handholding. Hi Horace, You can make a cheap and nasty variable voltage regulated power supply that will go down to about 0.6-0.7 volt as per attachment. (The BE diode of the bottom transistor doubles as a cheap voltage regulator). Use a power tor for the top one, and an el cheapo small signal tor for the bottom one. Resistance values given are a rough guess. You will probably need to play with them, depending on how much current you need to regulate. [snip] >>Ni electrodes and KOH although I don't believe the electrolite composition to >>be critical. I would use the cheapest/easiest you are comfortable with. If >>the same solution is used in all setups, I don't see a problem. Surely it's tempting fate for TB's to use Ni and KOH when attempting normal electrolysis? After all, how to explain to the skeptics that it's not supposed to produce excess heat in this particular case? :]. [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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ----=_3463f7da2551395509a98b09.MFSBCHJLHS Content-Type: image/gif; name=horace.gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=horace.gif R0lGODdh4QPEAoAAAP///wAAACwAAAAA4QPEAgAC/4SPqcvtD6OctNqLs968+w+G4kiW5omm6sq2 7gvH8kzX9o3n+s73/g8MCofEovGITCqXzKbzCY1Kp9Sq9YrNarfcrvcLDovH5LL5jE6r1+y2+w2P y+f0uv2Oz+v3/L7/DxgoOEhYaHiImKi4yNjo+AgZKTlJWWl5iZmpucnZ6fkJGio6SlpqeoqaqrrK 2ur6ChsrO0tba3uLm6u7y9vr+wscLDxMXGx8jJysvMzc7PwMHS09TV1tfY2drb3N3e39DR4uPk5e bn6Onq6+zt7u/g4fLz9PX29/j5+vv8/f7/8PMKDAgQQLGjyIMKHChQwbOnwIMaLEiRQrWryIMaPG jf8cO3r8CDKkyJEkS5o8iTKlypUsW7p8CTOmzJk0a9q8iTOnzp08e/r8CTSo0KFEixo9ijSp0qVM mzp9CjWq1KlUq1q9ijWr1q1cu3r9Cjas2LFky5o9izat2rVs27p9Czeu3Ll069q9izev3r18+/r9 Cziw4MGECxs+jDix4sWMGzt+DDmy5MmUK1u+jDmz5s2cO3v+DDq06NGkS5s+jTq16tWsW7t+DTu2 7Nm0a9u+jTu37t28e/v+DTy48OHEixs/jjy58uXMmzt/Dj26dNQBqk+/LiTAAe0SqnM34B27+A3f EZQHcN5B+vTj23ePwL5B+fju68uHQJ/BfPv84eP/r7BffwKa512B7OV3H3oDLqhAfggm+CCD7dEX oX7gSYhhfBXKtyGG1x2YQIfgieihewZaByCJJa7IYosuvghjjDLOSGONNt6IY4467shjjz7+CGSQ Qg5JZJFGHokkiycuyWSTTj4JZZRSTmlgkpWp6AOWJlDJZZdefglmmGJaOYyWPJg5AppAqEmmPGzm 8KYHcZ7ZZkJz2nCnBnnqsGed6fQ5A6AUCHoDoX6SY+gLif6HxaKHguNoC5EuMGkMlT66zaUqaKqg Fpxies2nJ1yKoqegDiTqqCwUyEWqp0rjagmLntjqqwHFKisKS9Zq6z+45jpqlVv82usyxKa5aXjD /xbrz7HIqqqsqczy46wIhn5XLQnZTlumtNqGsS23wYT7AaDkbimuPufK+Sy46eazLrshxPvtu/fQ y8Gd+LZrLz37klduGf/2O8vAGcRpMAgJE/zKwhyK+aUXDjPMysTz0mExxalkHPAcHGtsyscdiIwu yPCQDLDHJp+sBsr1rtyOywdjDLM7MmNw88U1s5OzBT13vLM6Pw9Kc9BCt1y00egMPQHT+Sr9J9Iq Q32O0/5NTXU5VjMqx9ZZL+K1ekl/LU7YCXZNNqJSo5122WvHYXbbhMRN6dhyd0N3g3bfnenbcOTN tx+Am7d34NgMvl3hhluD+IVYL55N452yDXnk5P9BjLnOlFceasoy6Ks459GgmSroj4tODek0mL45 6tOoHqjmcLvOuOeWyv437dVkHijmwraue9Wr4/6G5MEXUjrxbhh//CDJKxx685AOD/3p0o/zPNCz X29O9vICzz2kvo9ZPfjht8S8hefLlH7d68fUvt7vwxR/iPPTH/39JdVPuP7o5+8/kfAvcQFcyQAd V8CUHHByCTzJAhfYwFw8MIIomSAFTWLBC5IkgxoMFYVKFSIQfq4NUurg6LSjIQL2j4G3Y8N67GdC WLlPhSz0XhoeBMEYukt+NDyPDdGAQx2OboYIrCH11hBEIT5DQ6xaYRFhkL4kKrEZKXyiD4/oNyL/ TlEZIHLiFWPnQq5tkYtaDBANoUhCMY4RGV3sIQxHGMYH5HCNWagiCyfnKhGeQYp0JMauQsjEX+mR DHzs40S8ZsezGZIiiZTCIAsJn0HiR5KLRNQLqxCtM2qRa/MJz++wVUmevXEKTdQkD692RjMaMZRH M+UTfnfHU/rsjQiaIyvxAEpMflKNRINhLW/JMxRa4Y+QbJreignM7smMSbEcZS8B6aBk2qxc46tm k3iJSlqqT5qi/F6hdoVMsW2zjdxcB8L4RKtmOjGbp/xiObs5MnSWMpxlHKUq1fnOb5wTTqXE5xPl mE70REtZf8yn1rSHp0z6c6EGPYg15SnLTTaU/yHLJOc2J+qQZV50oxhdyNbo2dGCfBSbIfWVRBtF 0pJSy4eUHGZKVaouFMn0CyCF6b36OVI52hQgsGSoI1+603oE1KdRqGlQ48HMf9YRqEd9R0t3KM6m 2iOKTJWqOdOoU6sKlYRR0upWredVfwEwrDEbK1mvCtazsiytap0mW9sKz+3B1U1mnetB32rXpdU1 r27DK1/var6/Cs+vgu1rYAurNsIiVp97XWzfFOtYbnAwsoCVK2Urm7vLdq+xmt0dZzv7us+CdoiQ HW3qRGtaZ0w2tZJFLWuN5drXJmO1sj1cbGtrDNriVgnW7K1vfwvc4Ap3uMT13W6Pi9zkKne5zP9t rnOfC93oSne61K2uda+L3exqd7vc7a53vwve8Ip3vOQtr3nPi970qne97G2ve98L3/jKd770ra99 74vf/Op3v/ztr3//C+AAC3jABC6wgQ+M4AQreMEMbrCDHwzhCEt4whSusIUvjOEMa3jDHO6whz8M 4hCLeMQkLrGJT4ziFKt4xSxusYtfDOMYy3jGNK6xjW+M4xzreMc87rGPfwzkIAt5yEQuspGPjOQk K3nJTG6yk58M5ShLecpUrrKVr4zlLGt5y1zuspe/DOYwi3nMZC6zmc+M5jSrec1sbrOb3wznOMt5 znSus53vjOc863nPfO6zn/8M6EALetCELrT/oQ+N6EQretGMbrSjHw3pSEt60pSutKUvjelMa3rT nO60pz8N6lCLetSkLrWpT43qVKt61axutatfDetYy3rWtK61rW+N61zrete87rWvfw3sYAt72MQu trGPjexkK3vZzG62s58N7WhLe9rUrra1r43tbGt729zutre/De5wi3vc5C63uc+N7nSre93sbre7 3w3veMt73vSut73vje9863vf/O63v/8N8IALfOAEL7jBD47whCt84QxvuMMfDvGIS3ziFK+4xS+O 8YxrfOMc77jHPw7ykIt85CQvuclPjvKUq3zlLG+5y18O85jLfOY0r7nNb47znOt85zzvuc9/ew70 oAt96EQvutGPjvSkK33pTG+6058O9ahLfepUr7rVr471rGt961zvute/Dvawi33sZC+72c+O9rSr fe1sb7vb3w73uMt97nSvu93vjve8633vfO+73/8O+MALfvCEL7zhD4/4xCt+8YxvvOMfD/nIS37y lK+85c9dAAA7 ----=_3463f7da2551395509a98b09.MFSBCHJLHS-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 23:41:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA02827; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:37:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:37:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:39:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Tesla Headlines Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"t9oVv.0.5i.ER1Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12580 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tesla Presents Plan To Crack Earth! (To tap limitless Free Energy) Tesla Makes Navy Ship Disappear! (Crew Complains of Bizzare Effects!) Tesla and Crew Test Fireball Annihilator! (Test Target Vaporized) Tesla Implicated in Horrendous Siberian Blast! (Natives tell of vast Devastation) Tesla Creates Zone of Electrocution Over 100 Yards wide! (Army Supervizes New Weapons Trials) ------------------------------------------- Anybody want to add to this list? Jim O. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 7 23:57:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA21699; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:52:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:52:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:52:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711080752.XAA11242 norway.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: BG Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"rHcUF2.0.zI5.le1Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12581 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John E. Steck wrote: > > BTW, I know there are some folks that have done a lot of practical work on >> concentration studies for the Brown's gas generators. Don't recall who. >> Using stainless steel electrode plates I think. > >Makes sense. The nickle content in most readily available stainless steels is >adequate for electrolysis. It's cheaper too. 8^) Yes, I've built a simple small Brown's Gas generator several years back using 22 gauge stainless steel sheets. It was easy to find and fabricate to the desired shape. Cell parameters were: ac (60hz) rectified cell voltage 1.5 to 2.10v; peak current 1 amp. per 4 sq.in. electrode area; equal areas of electrode for cathode and anode. The electrolyte was NaOH. Some of the BG effects: 1. Endothermic reaction that causes a "cooling" of the electrolytic cell and electrolyte. This was due to little or no "re-bonding" into di-atomic molecules that heating would occur due to exothermic reaction. BLP's claim to fame is the "increase" of heating ou effect with their electrolysis method. According to BG theory this could be due "re-bonding" exothermic reaction in BLP design: the unequal electrode areas; the "re-bonding" to occur in the electrodes; the long distance (60") gas travel to the surface; high voltage (2.10 v) used; little to no space between anode and cathode for the gases to travel up to surface. 2. Significantly larger volume of gas produced by the electrolyzer, well beyond any reasonable expectation of a "normal" electrolyzer, because the mon-atomic moles would take up twice the volume that di-atomic moles for the same weight of water electrolyzed. 3. The "implosion" effect of BG torches flame. The ability to make laser-like holes in wood, metal and ceramics. And the capability to change temperature when applied to different materials. The ability to neutralize radiation from radioactive materials. George Wiseman publishes a how-to-built-it BG generator book series (small to big size generator designs) for $10 ea. available from ITS. It also explains the BG theory as well as conventional electrolyzer operation. If you're interested I could dig up some of my earlier BG posts or if you have any questions just let me know. 8^) Regards, Michael Randall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 00:38:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA07717; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:35:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:35:20 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:35:52 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"uF4r3.0.Qu1.6H2Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12582 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To; Vortex > >A look-see on the net turned up a >plethora >(love that word) of strain gages >that can be >used for measuring the torque on the >rubbing >disks. www.blh.de or >www.entran.com and others. >With a suitable rpm counter-strobe >light or such, one should be able to >pin down the energy >going into rubbing metal disks >together under >water or the Griggs -Potatov pumps >without the >worry of calculating power into the >drive motors. > The end... :-) > >Regards, Frederick Sounds like a venture into the plethora of problems associated with building a dynamometer. One problem is that torque is not necessarily constant, so you need a data aquisition device to do a fast sample and integrate. Might use a spring and shock transmission to smooth out the torque, thus get around the need to be fast, but long term drift should still occur. Or, could electrically average the signal from the strain guage. Still, strain guages drift, both due to relaxation and due to temperature changes. Also, I if gun boring is ou, is it from the friction, or is it from the cutting, shearing of crystal planes, crystal shearing crystal? What is a "blunt borer"? Is it a grinder? Maybe uses abrasive grit? The really attractive part about your idea is, aside from simplicity, if the energy is from steel on steel friction, it scales up nicely to a home sized unit. Please excuse the flight of optimistic fantasy about to come ... So many things, CF included, seem to lean toward steam generation as the means to practical implementation (the infamous hot water heater aside) of energy generation. One idea for a place to start with free energy is from a position of great faith (talk about a *real* true believer!), by building a home energy supply sized steam engine, knowing the energy generation means will eventually come. (It could eventually come one way or another, even if it is wind power to drive the shaft! Or, I suppose you could buy 500 lbs of radium to drive the boiler! 8^) This approach might also be a better one for testing your hypothesis, and various other ideas. The idea is to drive the ou friction device with an ambient pressure steam engine. An auxilliary boiler would be used to start the process, but when the process got up to speed then steam from the ou device boiler would take over. This has the advantage of providing a, practically speaking, perfect yes/no instrumentation - if it self runs perpetually, it is ou. In practical use, heat loss from the condeser could be used to warm a large thermal storage mass to supply heat to the house, or thaw the driveway, etc. If the system proved ou it would then be a mundane matter to add an electric generator, battery charger and inverter system. The five horsepower output sounds like a possibly useful device. However, as you point out, we don't know what the input power was in the original boring. To net five horsepower might take a very large device. Five horsepower doesn't really seem like much for a windmill or water wheel, even then, does it? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 00:41:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA03522; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:37:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:37:54 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:27:51 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcec20$342cef80$a491410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"dctbE1.0.ys.XJ2Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12583 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 9:13 PM Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace > > > > We could fax him a simple circuit: Would that by chance,be a Printed Circuit, John? :-) Regards, Frederick > > Zener feeding pot.... wiper to emitter follower ... but >regulators are less than one dollar. > > Horace: > > If you don't have them I send you some. > >On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > >> John Schnurer wrote: >> > >> > Dear Vo., ... and Frank: >> > >> > Your circuit will toast the diode !!! You need a drop resistor. >> > >> Of course you do, John. Thats what I meant by a load in series before >> the power supply - but I was not very clear on that point - didn't >> show it in the schematic. >> >> I know Horace is on a tight budget (unless he stumbled over the mother >> lode up there) and I know he has some diodes and a power supply. If >> the diodes are forward biased to a nearly flat region, I thought the >> output voltage would be pretty insensitive to even large cell resistance >> changes. If Horace could get the power supply down to near 2 volts he >> could also use diodes in series to drop voltage about 0.6 volts per >> diode. It ain't pretty but it's cheap and easy! >> >> Good point, though, John! >> >> Frank Stenger >> >> > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 00:52:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA08546; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:51:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:51:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 03:45:46 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711080349_MC2-276A-237C compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"kw4Rj2.0.R52.vV2Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12584 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi, >> As an idea, anyone tried AC or RF for electrolysis? As the O2 and H2 not needed to collected, and maximizing the gas output is not aimed unconventional methods can be tried to reduce the ohmic dissipation in the electrolytic. The advantage of high frequency is passing currents between electrodes capacitevely and avoiding the dissipation. << Thats just what our old friend Stan Meyer does, but in 'pure' water with no added solute. He claims highly increased (over Faradic) H2 & O2 production doing a sort of electrolytic SMOT. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 01:46:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA08637; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:41:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:41:05 -0800 Message-ID: <346433B8.B685FC98 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:11:12 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: PMOD, RMOG, and E&M Free Energy References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VBn01.0.l62.lE3Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12585 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > > I had a few comments about my E&M Free Energy formula. To review it we have > > S = 1/T INT (Grad(H) cross B) dot d A(H) > > with S the free energy power density, H and B the usual magnetic field > quantities, (Grad(H) cross B) the curl in H three dimensional space of B, T > the time of a complete cycle of the device and INT denoting the surface > integral over the area A(H) enclosed by the path of a cycle in H space. > This formula comes from the standard conservation of energy for a > macroscopic media. There is no question about the starting point and there > is no doubt that the starting equations do not show conservation of energy > for a wide range of conditions. It is rare to see this fact actually > admitted in E&M texts but it is obvious and it is occasionally > acknowledged. For example quoting Advanced Electrodynamics - Foundation, > Theory and applications, T. W. Barnett and D. M. Grimes, World Scientific > Publishing, 1995, ISBN 981-02-2095-2 , page 485 we have: > "The usual expression [for the energy] may only be obtained if the medium > is linear ...Besides epsilon and mu must be independent of time or any > factor that depends on time. These restrictions leave out many interesting > media and rapidly varying fields." > Here the authors admit that a conservation equation cannot be derived > under the stated conditions. My analysis actually further restricts the > conditions under which energy is not conserved. If B has an isotropic > dependence upon H then (Grad(H) cross B) will be zero and the free energy > will be zero. Thus non-linear isotropic materials also conserve energy. > That would seen to take out all of the magnetic OU devices ever proposed as > not one of them have used an anisotropic magnetic material. Anisotropic > materials are usually not used as they are rare, expensive and do not have > any unique properties that are thought to be of interest. They are usually > monocrystal materials that are grown or found in nature. In all the > proposed magnetic OU devices that I have seen, there are no magnetic > monocrystals included. > That would seem to cut out everything except PMOD devices with the > rapidly varying in time fields. Now what about the RMOG? I had initially > excluded it because the area in H space could be divided into two equal > area surfaces in which the curl(H) of B would be antisymmetric. This would > give S = 0 . However with the latest updates on the RMOG I see that the > coil is operated in a manner that breaks this symmetry. So it might work, > if it had anisotropic magnetic materials. > I think, but am not sure, that permanent magnets with the field near > saturation may be anisotropic. If we applied a magnetic field > perpendicular the magnetic field of a PM near saturation I would expect PM > field to decrease because it is near saturation and the applied field will > further increase the saturation. An experiment like that should be done. > If there is an effect then the perpendicular field should be held constant > while a field is applied along the axis of the PM, and the change in the > perpendicular field should be measured. If the two derivatives of the > magnetic field with respect to a change in the applied perpendicular > magnetic field are different, then the curl in H space will be non-zero. > That then means the OU may be possible within the framework of standard E&M > theory. I would like to do this experiment but I don't have any > magnetometers. If some one would like to do this, I would be available to > help out over private e-mail. > Greg Watson says that his devices violate conservation of energy and are > based on standard physics. He may be using accepted physics to calculate > the B and H fields but he has not shown any acceptable theory for the > violation of conservation of energy. An experiment showing that (Grad(H) > cross B) is non-zero would be of great value in establishing that RMOG type > devices may be OU based on standard E&M. Further theoretical work is > required to properly analyse the operation of PMOD like devices. > > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Hi Lawrence, Thanks for the input. My Rmog development seems to also indicate that the better the anisotropic characteristics of the magnet (the stiffer / flatter its B/H curve), the greater the external flux distortion in the air gap produced by the opposing coil flux due to the approaching ferrite flux gate. The only problem with highly anisotropic magnets is that they also exhibit high pole face flux densities and hence high ferromagnetic attractive forces. But that's just a design / engineering problem. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 01:50:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA09551; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:47:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:47:20 -0800 Message-ID: <3464352A.1D4EBEF3 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:17:22 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: In defense of Greg Watson (Never received Original) References: <19971107.211830.6822.2.tv juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"f8vT_3.0.9L2.dK3Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12586 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim D Vaughan wrote: > > >JHS said: > >Greg: Do what you do. AND: Be true to you... don't let events > >get to you. If it goes, it goes. > > >Everyone: Remember, grace is best. > > As number 1 on the SMOT kit list, I say amen ! > > Men have tried to build free energy machines (perpetual motion machines) > for centuries. > > If Greg Watson has one, I can wait a few weeks ! > > > 1] We got a guy who is doing his level best to send some good > > ideas down the pipes..... and back it up with a > lot of data. > > 2] Without question he has put in time, faith, money, goodwill. > > 3] Name 10 ... or even two who have done as much or as openly as > > > Greg has .... in the last 50 or 100 years. > > > > John Herman Schnurer > > I second this too ! > > Tim Vaughan Hi Tim, Thanks for the kind words. BUT I NEVER RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL QUOTED POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happens about 25% of the time. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 01:54:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA12699; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:50:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:50:36 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Off Topic, Ball and chain problem Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 02:47:45 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcec2b$5dca0200$a491410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"EF6sM1.0.L63.gN3Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12587 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vo If one took a length of chain weighing 5 lb./foot with a breaking strength of 15,000 lb.,and a 500 lb. ball on it, up in a helicopter and let it "pay out" (ball first)from a pile. How much would "pay out" before the chain would break? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 02:00:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA10801; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:53:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:53:35 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:50:09 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Tesla Headlines Resent-Message-ID: <"RBh_A3.0.be2.UQ3Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12588 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim - > Tesla Presents Plan To Crack Earth! (To tap > limitless Free Energy) [snip] > Anybody want to add to this list? Not here. Try some new-age sewage list. *Those* people seem to be out on a mission to permanently discredit the reputation of that incredible engineer and inventor. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 03:42:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA18114; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 03:38:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 03:38:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34643FC8.235D0CDE verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 13:32:40 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"a9IYY2.0.yQ4.My4Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12589 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Naudin, Thank for offering this document to us. (I forgot to say before) These are comments to the experiment and interpretation of the results: - It is not clear that replacing the "nude" wires with enameled wires had any impact to the results. - On which direction (i.e. north, south) is aligned the setup? - What are the material of the balls ? - If the parasitic effects are considered (leaking currents, conventional electrostatic and magnetic forces), why complementing experiments was not done? These should include repeating experiment with without balls and with empty lightweight conducting s pheres. - An other more exploiting experiment can be done with hanging the spheres from a single point at center of gravity of the body formed by the balls and the rigid bar. So, a possible anomalous forces applied on any direction to the balls can be observed di rectly. This setup allows also to distinct lateral forces from shift of center of gravity (mass) which is considered. This setup allows also to see clearly a presence of a torque applied to the system. As the setup can be freely rotate on its vertical ax is (with suitable arrangement of high voltage wires),and can swing on every direction ,they could auto arrange its direction to maximize or neutralize the effect dependant its nature. - It can be concluded that the effect is related asymmetric distribution of the electric fields around the setup, because anomalies on single charged suspended spheres was never observed. - Current data does not imply the violation of Newton laws, neither conservation of energy. The cause of the forced could be a novel effect require a new understanding of the physics or a phenomena related to atomic/subatomic properties of the matter. Cur rent data is not decisive for any conclusion. As a final note I noticed that thin cotton wires which hold the heavy balls are replaced by nylon ones later while experiment is continuing as I expected. I hope that no body was hurted. :3) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 04:20:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA22989; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 04:17:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 04:17:56 -0800 Message-Id: <3464490F.E8B3B93D verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:12:15 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: In defense of Greg Watson (Never received Original) References: <19971107.211830.6822.2.tv juno.com> <3464352A.1D4EBEF3@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LS-hH1.0.7d5.pX5Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12590 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > Thanks for the kind words. > > BUT I NEVER RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL QUOTED POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Happens about 25% of the time. Did you taking account that Tim is on the freenrg list? Hi Greg, I am building a new track for MK2 on one ramp configuration. Is there any modification on track design since June 24? Could you easily obtaining (without reducing friction losses to minimal with extreme care) level roll-away for single ramp? Have you important recommendations other than your previous postings and documentation? Please do not consume time for this, I have not yet finished building it and my magnets size are not compatible with yours. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 04:55:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA24588; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 04:52:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 04:52:12 -0800 Message-ID: <34646087.B15A72B2 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:22:23 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: In defense of Greg Watson (Never received Original) References: <19971107.211830.6822.2.tv juno.com> <3464352A.1D4EBEF3@microtronics.com.au> <3464490F.E8B3B93D@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"H7LMZ2.0.z_5.w16Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12591 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > Thanks for the kind words. > > > > BUT I NEVER RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL QUOTED POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > Happens about 25% of the time. > > Did you taking account that Tim is on the freenrg list? I get my FreeNrg posts before Vortex, most of the time. > Hi Greg, > > I am building a new track for MK2 on one ramp configuration. Is there any modification on track design since June 24? > > Could you easily obtaining (without reducing friction losses to minimal with extreme care) level roll-away for single ramp? > > Have you important recommendations other than your previous postings and documentation? Please do not consume time for this, I have not yet finished building it and my magnets size are not compatible with yours. > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar HI Hamdi, Please review the two 08/11/97 updates on the SMOT page. They are Mk2 applicable. The method given to create asymmetric above / below flux densities is important. I will be shortly posting details of the angled (increased incline) SMOT Mk2 type arrays use in the Mk4 design. Basically the arrays start at magnet and ball centre line equal and increase to a 5mm magnet array centre line above the ball at exit. I have developed a static method of determining the ramp length and the magnet array spacing for optimal ramp climb (PE gain and KE retain) and exit. I will post this data tomorrow after I have done a few drawings to explain why it is so. Basically the method is to position the arrays and ball to be on each others centre line and use a level track to find the static null point (where the ball stops in the middle of the array. The track is then cut to effect a exit at that point. The ball therefore doesn't enter the negative declining flux wall (Blue hole) but exits down the Blue Hole's boundary. Remember that the "Blue Hole" is not a hole but a 3D sphere. Magnet spacing is then increased / adjusted to obtain a "0mm dropaway". THEN the ramp is elevated to obtain the max PE (height) gain. With the exit asymmetric mods, a good rollaway can then be obtained. More data to follow. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 05:44:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23614; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 05:41:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 05:41:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34646BD6.3076 math.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 05:40:38 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: SMOT leveling References: <3463D9FC.5904591E microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"t25c01.0.qm5.xl6Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12592 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greg's moneyback guarantee is contingent on operating the SMOT on a "level surface", since it obviously would not be able to roll around if it is tilted too much, even if it is OU. As was noted by various attempted replicators, it can be quite difficult to get sufficiently level surfaces for delicate rolling tests. Greg: does the new plastic version of the SMOT float? If it did, it would be easy to machine it so that (at least with no ball present) it would float perfectly level in a dish of water. If the balls are light compared to the plastic block, they would not disrupt this level, and that would be a simple way to make an adjustment-free self-leveling smot....just take it out of the package, then add water :-). If water is too jiggly, some more viscous liquid, like oil, might work better. If no simple self leveling version (which seemingly must make use of a liquid) is possible, then in the ultimate commercial version you will probably need to put 3 screw-adjustable legs on the bottom and set of x and y axis leveling bubbles embededd in the block (as is done with analog precision balances), or perhaps a small embedded plumb bob, so that it can be accurately and conveninetly leveled manually. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 06:55:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA04176; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:50:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:50:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34646CC4.1A2032E4 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:44:36 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: In defense of Greg Watson (Never received Original) References: <19971107.211830.6822.2.tv juno.com> <3464352A.1D4EBEF3@microtronics.com.au> <3464490F.E8B3B93D@verisoft.com.tr> <34646087.B15A72B2@microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kVyrN3.0.811.Vm7Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12593 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks much Greg for additional. Who knows, may I get a roll-away this time. hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 07:19:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12055; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:15:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:15:09 -0800 Message-ID: <346473E8.2BED earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 08:15:04 -0600 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, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless@rmii.com, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73@aol.com, jlagarde cyberaccess.fr, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, dennis wazoo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, ine@padrak.com, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3.llnl.gov italy.it.earthlink.net, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, reeber@aro-emh1.army.mil, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris@acs.tamu.edu, JNaudin aol.com, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, collis@netcity.it Subject: Second Arata Errata Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"HaXKm1.0.Ay2.x78Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12594 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 8, 1997 Dear all, First, let me know if you want to keep receiving these posts, which are usually critical, if you usually read them or not, whether you forward them to others. Thanks! Mike Carrell [mikec snip.net] has provided us on Nov. 6 a reasonable, calm, firm, well-stated proposal that my First Arata Errata critique, Oct. 25, of Arata and Zhang is so flawed that I should retract it. I will answer this in some detail, with much repetition. I am very pleased with the level of this debate. Some have used the phrase "peer-reviewed publication" to indicate the legitimacy of A&Z and many other cold fusion studies. I see much evidence that the system is not working to correct the evident difficiences in many studies. The selected referees must generally be of the same persuation, ney? Also, how experienced are Arata & Zhang in electrochemistry? Mainly, I will quote from my first critique, adding new comments: "I have spent two hours reviewing the 56-page report by Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang, "Solid-State Plasma Fusion," (Received Sept. 5, 1996) Special Issue of the High Temperature Society, Vol. 23, Jan., 1997. [Is this a major journal? The poor quality of translation suggests not. I didn't find it in the stacks at Los Alamos National Laboratory library.] I am indebted to Mike Carrel for generously sending me a copy. Four pages describe the apparatus and calorimetry, and are the focus of this critique. Having this week composed a critique on calorimetry of the CETI cell, I find almost the identical situation. No discussion is offered about the issue of recombination, except for the label "closed cell system" and the label "Catalyst" for a large area at the top quarter of the cell interior. [Recombination would only lower the apparent excess power.] The composition, mass, and efficiency of this catalyst are not given. [This catalyst could be a source of impurities in the electrolyte that would change the electrolysis erratically over the months of operation.] No attempt is made to collect and measure output H2 and O2 to verify the degree of recombination. The electrolyte is .1M LiOH in D2O, volume and flow rate not given. [Only a 10-20% reduction in flow rate could easily generate the 10-20% apparent excess power. The community has to be provided with the specific flow rate data for the whole history of these runs, if an anomaly is to be established. What were the actual temperatures? How pure was the initial cooling water? How long was it used, and how often changed? Was the actual composition of this water determined regularly during the months and, indeed, years of operation? How much water, and exposed to how much area of possible impurities, like the cooling tube itself, of unknown size and composition, the reservoir, the pump itself. This setup was run for years. Don't we need explicit checks about leaks putting impurities from the pump and the electrolyte into the water, or even bacteria, which can flourish even in hot and radioactive nuclear reactor water? As the water composition shifts, so does specific heat and viscosity, so do bubbles, suds, foams, gels, gunks, solid deposits. Gunk in the pump? Can some of this stuff act to create higher heat at the thermocouple, by catalysis or something? Of course, I don't know! I'm a layman. I'm raising simple questions that must be settled before any claim can be made about excess heat at a level that mandates a nuclear explanation.] The anode is Pt, shape, size, mass, purity not given. [Again, a source of impurities that can change the electrolysis erratically.] The cathode is Pd, shape, size, mass, purity not given. [A new idea for us here: Only a fraction of the input electrolysis power serves to heat up the cathode above the temperature of the electrolyte. Yet, if the apparent excess power is nuclear, then perhaps 14 or so Watts is being generated in the .5 cc, 5gm Pd-B powder-- so you experts, how hot is that powder going to be for weeks and months? Will it diffuse, fuse, melt, react chemically with the Pd cathode and its impurities, or via leaks with the electrolyte? What is the appearance of the Pd-B in the eight runs? This question could disconfirm the claim that 14 Watts excess power was generated in an amount of Pd-B the size of a large pill. What was its heat transfer path to the cathode? If electrolyte leaked in and vaporized or boiled, how would that effect things?] The cathode is hollow and contains for (a) 3 gm Pd black powder, .2 to .6 micron size, mean .4, about .3 cc, since Pd has density about 10 gm/cc, while (b) has 5 gm, Pd-B, about .5 cc. The method of sealing of the cathode is not described. [Extraction of the Pd-B for analysis could introduce impurities, including He, so we must have the details.] "It seems that Pc [pressure] inside closed type DS-cathodes will be rising up several thousand [atm] which is estimated from deformation of outside appearance..." This suggest the possibility of leaks, which could generate some of the data spikes. "The data for cathode (a) shows that several hundred [MJ/cm3] of excess energy has been created over several thousand hours using Pd-black 3 [gr], while cathode (b) has generated approximately 50 [MJ] over 800 hours with 5 [gr} of Pd-black. The rate at which the excess energy is being generated is roughly equal for the two, and other samples were also at a similar level." [Why aren't we given the specific data for the other six runs? What does "a similar level" mean?] Figure 8(a) shows Cell power (excess energy) over 4750 hours, varying in what may be one-day spikes of about 10 KJ/hr to about one-week spikes of about 30 to a maximum down spike, unexplained, from about 100 to about 20 KJ/hr, at 3600 hours. The average in the last 20% is about 30 KJ/hr. This is the same rate as 30 KW/hr, or 8 W. On the next [Carrell is right, the word should be "previous"] page, 6, Fig. 6 mentions, "Our usual experimental range is around 120-150 watts and "cell-power" is clearly negative with about minus one watt [for a Pt control cathode] as shown in this diagram." So, this control run is given a value on the graph of "~0.7" W, or .8 to .7% of the usual input electrical power. [I was pointing out the listing of overly precise numbers like "~0.7".] "Clearly negative"! Likewise, 8 W is 7 to 5.5% of the usual input power. Naturally, these kind of percentages are never given in this paper. These percentages in a mediocre, completely outmoded calorimetry, are meaningless noise, readily achived if the recombiner catalyst is only partially effective. [Here is a blatant error on my part, since recombination would only reduce any apparent excess power.] Cathode (b) seems to be about 50 KJ/hr [Carrell emphasizes this is about 60 KJ/hr.] for the last 20% of its 850-day run, about 14 W, giving 12 to 9% of input power, while showing a completely different time history. [These percentages are low, if the energy source is nuclear, and thus suggest to my suspicious mind that ordinary physical and chemical artifacts are involved. It's a debatable issue...] Two relevant [Not relevant to A&Z, I confess.] abstracts on recombination are given at the end of this critique, for the benefit of painfully earnest researchers. [OK, I admit it, I'm being sarcastic.] The random nature of the heat data is indicated in Fig. 6 by the Cell Power for the Pt to Pt control cell, expressed as W out vs W in. [It is not clear what this data is from-- many control runs? Were control runs done before, during, or after the months and years of experimental runs? Don't electrolysis setups drift?] There are about 6 values from about 0 to about 1.5 W for zero input power [Hey, guys, why?], and for input powers from 20 to about 130 W, the output ranges from -2 to +2 W at each power level [What causes this-- artifacts, yes, unknown, yes. If minor artifacts generate up to ~1.5 W apparent excess power for zero input power, then it is plausible to surmise that larger unknown artifacts are generating 10-20% apparent excess power in the experimental runs, which over time, are bound to diverge greatly from the far shorter control runs.]. Similar data are not given for the two experimental runs. [What is the background scatter in all eight experimental runs for various input power levels? What, for instance, is the exact duration of the spike from 20 to 60 KJ/hr spike at 2600 hours in Fig. 8a for the 3 gm Pd-Black cathode? This information would help us consider possible artifacts.] Fig. 8, Note 2: "Generating pattern of each sample displays significant difference with chronological change. however, each total amount of excess energy included the eight samples used from 1992 to now was almost same." [typos in the original] [Why aren't we given the detailed data? "almost same"? And, "significant difference with chronological change" may mean the energy output curves over time were quite different for each sample. This data could help identify possible artifacts.] I will list the information that is needed to be given about the calorimetry, along with pertinent questions: Cell, electrodes, catalyst, heater resistor, reservoir, pump, cooling tube, electrolyte: composition, impurities, shape, size, mass, changes over time, erosion or deposition? Was system visually opaque, operation hidden from view? What was the level of dissolved H2 and O2 [And, of course, any other reactive chemicals] in the electrolyte [And, the cooling water] at various times? Did the 120 to 150 W power input cause evaporation or boiling of the electrolyte, and how hot was the cathode? Was high temperature the cause of high pressures in the cathode? Did strong evaporation [bubbling, foaming?] of the electrolyte create solid deposits in the upper part of the cell, creating electrical shorts or changing the chemistry of the electrolyte? Any evidence of mixing, bubbles, sudden releases of bubbles, temperature spikes [Very many spikes, exact descriptions not given], stratification, sudden mixing, leaks, extraneous electrolysis from electric potential leaks at other points in the system, heat inputs from electrode wires, effectiveness of heat insulation, heat leaks from top of cell and from wire leads? Measurements: flow rate, temperatures, voltage, current, current density, resistance, accuracy, fluctuations, long-term drift, exact placement of thermocouples [Note that I correctly use the word "thermocouples".], spikes, electrical interferences, frequency of measurement, detailed graphs for whole history of run, results with control heater resistor, reasons for temperature spikes? The poor quality of the excess energy claims destroys the main thrust of Arata and Zhang's work, that their complex and subtle measurements of He-4 and He-3 show the levels that should exist for the claimed energy production. A critical analysis of those measurements is beyond the scope of my training and experience. However, I am not optimistic." [If any experts want to do this critical analysis of the QMS claims, I will mail them a copy of the paper.] Post to Scott Little, Oct. 25: "Scott Little, you are right about my mistake-- any inefficiency in the catalytic recombiner will produce lower apparent output power. So, as yet, we have no obvious explanation for the persistent minor apparent excess power. However, the calorimetry does not, as you agree, have enough accuracy to make this a compelling problem. Do Arata and Zhang present more complete calorimetry data in their other English language papers, and, if so, could Mike Carrell or someone mail me those? What do you think of my idea that one artifact might result from additional electrical potential leaks in the electrolyte, building up a level of dissolved H2 and O2 that would then generate apparent excess heat by reacting with the recombiner catalyst in the cell? Would the level of dissolved H2 and O2 depend on electrolyte temperature? How much apparent excess heat could be generated at various flow rates? Has anyone ever heard about this artifact?" [Here I'm showing some confusion, thinking that the electrolyte was running through the measurement loop flow, but all is not lost-- the cooling water will in time become some sort of electrolyte, due to buildup of impurities, and thus conduct electricity and generate ohmic heating from any available electric leaks. Only by checking carefully can we rule out this class of artifacts.] >From Mike Carrell on Oct. 29, a lengthly critique of my post: "What Rich does not point out in this description of Fig 8a is that an eyeball average of the data shows an output of about 20-30 KJ/hr for most of the 4750 hours. Rich takes 30 KJ/hr as equivalent to 8 W. There are also periods of tens of hours at 50 KJ/hr and period of hundreds of hours where the output rises to 60-80 KJ/hr before an abrupt fall off to a 20 KJ/hr rate. Rich notes this as "unexplained", as if this lack of explanation is a fault in the report. [Were there any changes in the electrolyte, cooling water, flow rate? What were the actual temperatures? How hot did the cathode itself actually get, and the Pd-B inside it? What was the exact time history of this event? Was the input power, voltage, or current changed?] What Rich does not do is note that this drop is preceded by a an exponential rise from about 2500 hours to 3600 hours. Apparently, Rich expects the reaction to continue at some steady level, with detailed explanations given for any deviation from this. The data show strong variations in output over the 4750 hour run. He interprets this as "noise" instead of evidence of a physical process - whose details are not understood. There is noise in the data, but it is consistent with the calibration data and does not obscure the actual process at all." [The core issue is nuclear or artifacts, in terms of dealing with possible "evidence of a physical process". All too conveniently, both trains of explanation, nuclear or artifacts, at this point can explain anything. So it is certainly unwarrented to regard the issue as settled by the highly incomplete report of Arata & Zhang.] >From Mike Carrell, Nov. 2: "The cooling for the A&K cell is provided by clean water circulating through an immersed but separate system. It is extremely improbable that this system will display so erratic behavior that its structure and performance need be monitored and documented. If the reported effect were of the order of tenths of a percent above unity, perhaps such would be needed. But that is not what is shown." ["extremely improbable"? In a search for artifacts, the cooling system has to be investigated for its actual properties, if we hope to establish any believable case for history-making anomalies.] >From Geosas aol.com, Nov. 2: "Somebody suggested that dissolved H2 and O2 in CF electrolytic cells could recombine and cause calorimetric errors. According to my Rubber Bible, the solubility of H2 in water is about 2 cc/100cc, = 4.5E-05 moles, and of O2 in water about 5cc/100cc = 11 moles. The oxygen will be in surplus [So, surplus O2 could react with other impurities.] so only 4.5E-05 moles of H2O will be formed per 100 cc of electrolyte. The heat of formation of H2O is about 55 calories = 230 joules per mole, so the heat produced at around 25 deg C will be only some 0.01 joules for 100cc of electrolyte. This is equivalent to 10 volts and 1 amp (10 watts) for 1 millisecond. The H2 solubility will probably be rather less due to other dissolved substances in the electrolyte. Whichever way you work it out, errors from this source will be negligible." [I am glad to know this. Still, as the months pass during a run, the chemistry of the electrolyte and of the cooling water will become very complex. What reactions might develop that could transport significant amounts of heat about the system?] >From my post, "Four possible calorimeter artifacts", Oct. 30: The search for possible artifacts in cold fusion experiments, when attempted, is not an attack on cold fusion, or, if ever successful, a shaming rebuke to the researchers affected. The shared exploration of possible artifacts is vital in any program that seeks to open up new territory. Finding and sharing the paths that don't work helps us all eventually focus efficiently on what does work. The natural process of a research team is to focus single-mindedly on its chosen path. Naturally, an emotional investment develops that makes for an overly defensive posture to possible criticism. Yet, for one's own good, and the common good, criticism has to be actively encouraged, supported, enlisted, sought out, and carefully attended to. This requires tact on all sides, the willingness to abscribe good will to others, and, I suggest, a rich seasoning of humor. This morning, Sondra and I read from "Journey Beyond Words," by Brent Haskell, and settled into the familiar embrace of palpable silence. Deep in one corner of my psyche, a stream of comments and images emerged, persistently stirring the tranquility of mind. I will exorcise these thoughts by sharing them. They are about four possible artifacts in calorimetry. 1. thermister: Simple malfunction? Electrical short causing intermittent local ohmic heating? Sensitive to temperature, pressure, chemicals? Electronic glitches? Picking up signals from AC power lines and local RF? Were these possibilities checked out only before the experimental runs, during, or after, once or many times? With respect to the Arata-Zhang cell, when was the control Pt-Pt run done, and for how long? The experiments ran for over four years. 2. electrolyte or coolant flow: If the flow happens to be reduced 10% without being noticed, the result will be a spike or persistent 10% temperature rise, neh? Bubbles, suds, trapped gas pockets, gunk, metallic plating, ceramic deposits, loose parts? All can cause intermittent or persistent blocks of flow, with resulting artifacts of temperature and power output rises, spikes, and drops. Who knows what evil lurks deep in heart of opaque flow systems? Only the skeptic suspects. Only the thorough investigator knows. Also, variation in the pump due to deposits, bubbles, wear and tear, and electric power changes has to be considered. A detailed, precise, continuous record of flow is needed to establish valid claims of excess power in flow systems. 3. heterogenous flow: Persistent, segregated hot and cold flow streams within the piping, like cream patterns in stirred coffee, so that a hot source within the cell can cause a temperture rise in the outlet thermister, typically mounted on the outside of the pipe, that is more than the actual average temperature of the flow. A 10-20% spurious rise could invalidate much cold fusion calorimetry. Since a cooling pipe is immersed in the warmer electrolyte, wouldn't there be a tendency for only the outer layer of the flow to be be warmed and to carry this signal to the outlet thermister? Water is an excellent medium for heat transport, neh? Precautions have to be taken to definitively ensure actual thorough mixing before the outlet thermister. A related possibility is the Ranque-Hilsch tube effect: vortexes become hot on the outside and cold on the inside. Are vortexes developing in the flow? Changes in viscosity due to the chemical witch's brew developing gradually in the flow may also help produce these artifacts. 4. Mike Carrell asked how could there be electrolyte deposits in the top of a cell from evaporation, if the system is closed with 100% humidity. Bubbles popping at the surface would scatter droplets onto the top surfaces, and gradually deposits would form. Are such observed, rarely or commonly? If the deposits short out electrical wires, unmeasured ohmic heating could generate excess energy in the cell. So all possible electric sources near the system have to be considered, instruments, pump, heaters, etc. A leak in the system could cause a trail of electrolyte to connect with a distant electrical source." >From Mike Carrell, Nov. 3: "With respect to A&Z, the total experimental time was perhaps four years, but the run in question was 198 days. The length of the Pt-Pt control experiment is not particularly relevant, it was long enough to show the variability in the heat measurements; the test runs were longer to integrate the 4He production the production of substantial energy." ["not particularly relevant"? But in long runs of months, the chemistry of the electrolyte and of the cooling water will shift complexly, and thermocouples and pumps may become variable, and leaks may develop, and so on, so length of the control run has to be as long as the experimental runs, or it means little, in terms of exposing artifacts. There needs to be many control runs.] Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmforall earthlink.net 505-986-9103 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 07:19:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12146; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:16:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:16:15 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:49:51 -0500 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: <19971108151957257.AAB249 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"tA8xh3.0.iz2.-88Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12595 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Harold Aspden discusses an experiment reported in a paper by R.G. Zinsser, "Kinetobarische Effekte - ein neues phonomen?" in Umshau, 5, p152, 1975. Aspden's summary: An energy pulse communicated at high frequency across a capacitative coupling is absorbed by a specimen suspended in a torsion balance. After the pulse has subsided, a unidirectional torque prevails in the system for up to two hours for no apparent reason. It is as if the energy is stored by some kind of unseen flywheel that feeds energy back to the apparatus slowly once the power is switched off in the system. Aspden shows a sketch of the apparatus, which suggests that the capacitor has an air dielectric with one plate anchored to the laboratory frame and the other attached to the torsional apparatus. The apparatus consists of a horizontal bar suspended by wires at its center, counterbalanced so that it is level, with a mirror at the horizontal pivot point by which angular displacement can be measured. A mass at one end forms one plate of the capacitor. Aspden takes the persistent torque as evidence of a rotating aether cell, set in motion by the original electrostatically coupled force, then persisting and dragging the torsionally suspended mass with it. While this experiment is not the same configuration as that cited, there is enough similarity that Jean-Louis Naudin and other interested parties may want to follow up on the original paper and Aspden's work. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 07:26:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13539; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:25:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:25:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3464767B.4EE1 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 08:26:03 -0600 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 Subject: [Fwd: Cold Fusion Authorities] Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Rp6A13.0.SJ3.TH8Pq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12596 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: nntp.earthlink.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.219.14.11!CTCnet!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!news-penn.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!xenitec!zorch!fusion From: 72240.1256 compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) Subject: Cold Fusion Authorities Reply-To: 72240.1256 compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) Sender: scott zorch.sf-bay.org Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Message-ID: <199711041303_MC2-26B6-8FCB compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:05:45 GMT To: >INTERNET:fusion zorch.sf-bay.org Alan M Dunsmuir, who makes up facts as he goes along, wrote: But Fleischmann DOES NOT persist in his claims. He is back at Southampton University, and has washed his hands of CF - although he will not go so far as to recant, which I suspect is out of defference to his ex-colleague Pons. First, he is not back at Southampton U., he is retired at home. Second he has not washed his hands of CF. He is hard at work on collaborative experiments. He works on CF every day, from 5:00 a.m. until evening. He has nothing to recant, because the CF effect has been replicated in hundreds of laboratories around the world at high sigma, including the labs at Dunsmuir's former employer, Shell Oil, which has published papers at the last three ICCF conference. You can learn more about Fleischmann's views in "Infinite Energy" magazine, issue 11. It features an 11 page interview with him. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 08:41:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17729; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:36:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:36:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:37:29 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: {off topic} Re: Tesla Headlines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ivPgm3.0.vK4.jJ9Pq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12597 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Jim - > > > Tesla Presents Plan To Crack Earth! (To tap > > limitless Free Energy) > > [snip] > > > Anybody want to add to this list? > > Not here. Try some new-age sewage list. *Those* people seem to be out on a > mission to permanently discredit the reputation of that incredible engineer > and inventor. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Lighten up, jeez.... The fact is I hold Mr. Tesla in high regard as much as anyone . I built a couple of his resonant transformers. It was only a joke, sorry if you don't appreciate my sense of humor. Jim O. > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 09:39:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04728; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:32:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:32:49 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:27:22 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer , Greg Watson Subject: The original post ...Greg (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Rvx9U2.0.j91._8APq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12598 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Greg Dear Vo., Hey folks.... To the supporters ... you support. To the detractors, nay sayers and other: 1] We got a guy who is doing his level best to send some good ideas down the pipes..... and back it up with a lot of data. 2] Without question he has put in time, faith, money, goodwill. 3] Name 10 ... or even two who have done as much or as openly as Greg has .... in the last 50 or 100 years. Now: You do the same... follow points one and two... Then: You might be in a position of be equal... but it still would go against the grain to fault him. Or at least it would seem so to me. Think about it. From where I sit he told a good piece of it. I was bale to replicate the track quite easily... but that is because magnetic fields, materials and circuits is my main area. This is my opinion. Greg: Do what you do. AND: Be true to you... don't let events get to you. If it goes, it goes. Everyone: Remember, grace is best. John Herman Schnurer PS: I get hammered some for gravity work.... I expect to be more so, from time to time. Maybe one day I will have nice clean effect of more power than the nice clean reproducible effect I do now.... BUT: The effect of gravity modification is not MY effect.... and credit goes to those before who showed me. It is not my effect any more than the sky is my sky. AND: Science is FUN.... should be anyway.... Don't lose sight of the fun and the wonder! JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 09:59:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10654; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:55:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:55:54 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:55:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199711081755.JAA02467 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Could I win a dinner from Ross? Resent-Message-ID: <"VgBIE1.0.Lc2.dUAPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12599 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sure. I'd be happy to buy anyone a dinner who contributes, AND, comes out here to collect! (that ought to keep my expenses down and allow a one on one discussion in the event anyone takes me up on it!) As for Hamdi, who would have to travel quite a long distance, I could buy you two! So, where is the site? Later, Ross >Hi Ross, > >"... it is concluded that: 1) particles must be a wave structure composed of advanced and retarded quantum waves from an oscillator whose frequency is a property of an ether-like medium. 2) The waves link all matter together to produce Machian natural laws. ..." > >This is an article of Milo Wolff titled The Eight-fold Way of the Universe. > >If you promise a dinner (pizza) I'll tell you where it is located. :3) But it is possible that you know already where it is. (If you visited this "site" recently) > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 10:55:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21702; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:50:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:50:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:51:21 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SMOT leveling Resent-Message-ID: <"4-Fps.0.-I5.iHBPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12600 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:40 AM 11/8/97, Barry Merriman wrote: >If no simple self leveling version (which seemingly must make use of >a liquid) is possible, then in the ultimate commercial version >you will probably need to put 3 screw-adjustable legs on the >bottom and set of x and y axis leveling bubbles embededd in >the block (as is done with analog precision balances), or perhaps >a small embedded plumb bob, so that it can be accurately >and conveninetly leveled manually. > >-- >Barry Merriman Some more thought along those lines: One of the best ways to check level on a new formica countertop is with a ball bearing. A good sized one, about 1/2" dia. is best. If the SMOT has a flat smooth top surface area available, it is then just a matter of placing a ball bearing there and seeing which direction it rolls. Only two screw-adjustable legs and one fixed are needed. Can make your own leveler by putting three screws though piece of plywood, facing down. Then grind tips of screws flat. Place SMOT on top of plywood and adjust screws until SMOT level. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 11:47:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00418; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:44:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:44:08 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:43:56 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: List Server Freenrg Subject: Blue Hole is 3D sphere In-Reply-To: <34646087.B15A72B2 microtronics.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"PRWLf1.0.M6.64CPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12601 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Greg Watson wrote: -=snip=- >>Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:22:23 +1030 >>Basically the method is to position the arrays and ball to be on each >>others centre line and use a level track to find the static null point >>(where the ball stops in the middle of the array. The track is then >>cut to effect a exit at that point. The ball therefore doesn't enter >>the negative declining flux wall (Blue hole) but exits down the Blue >>Hole's boundary. Remember that the "Blue Hole" is not a hole but a 3D >>sphere. Greg, I think I wrote about this before, (maybe it didn't make it too..) The security industry uses millions of reed switches and magnects to contact protected areas..(doors, windows etc.) There is a point we call a "NULL" when the magnet is so center (for clean finished installion look), that the reed is neither openable or closable depending on it's starting state. We initially over-came the problem but sliding the magnet one way or the other to to let the reed switch do its thing.. but then it looked like a half-ass installation by a cross-eyed installer. (about 15-20 years ago), the maufactures heard enough complaints about this, that nowdays almost all contacts have their magnets slide over a bit BEFORE they seal 'em in place. (Resulting in the cases being alignable -visually- and the magnets offset (mm)) We were always troubled by NULL! Now it looks like it is another good indicator of the BLUE-HOLE existence! :) From thousands of hands-on installations (since 1975) I can concure that it is indeed 3D spherical! So, what used to be a curse :) looks like may be a blessing, it is indeed a magnetic/electrocircuit NULL Area (where NOTHING SEEMS TO WORK IN THIS AREA (albeit very small)). Zeroing in on the Blue-Hole-Sphere with you :) -=se=- p.s. this applied to Normally Open AND Normally Closed contacts, as well as converted(powered) Noramlly Open to Closed mat circuits which could be 100+ feet away from the magnet/open reed switch. The Null was a Null was a Null. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 12:33:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12144; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:28:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:28:37 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:28:28 -0800 Message-Id: <199711082028.MAA12102 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Could I win a dinner from Ross? Resent-Message-ID: <"yqsDg.0.az2.qjCPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12602 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greetings All; >"... it is concluded that: 1) particles must be a wave structure composed of advanced and retarded quantum waves from an oscillator whose frequency is a property of an ether-like medium. 2) The waves link all matter together to produce Machian natural laws. ..." > >This is an article of Milo Wolff titled The Eight-fold Way of the Universe. > (news breif appended below to back up comments here); About a year ago, I met with Steve Carlip at Davis and discussed my notions to him. He considered, and still no doubt considers them to be without merit. However, he has now apparently managed to put together a paper where he studies the notion that the quantum vacuum can boil. So I ask you, what is the difference between the semantics of the quantum vacuum, and aether? Nothing I say. The ability of the aether to boil is completely simple, and easy to understand despite our having no easy access to any reason to believe that it should. Once you realize, however, that in an aether ocean where the aether can boil, that you must study the universe keeping in mind the notion that you must conserve aether in all interactions, then it becomes apparent that both the amount of aether in something is the amount of "mass" in that thing, and second, that in all exothermic reactions where we think that mass is converted into energy, that instead, aether has been emitted. This is nothing more complicated than stating that all exothermic reactions are aether emissive. The reason is, aether emissions accelerate the standing wave structures that emitted that aether. And so we find that exothermic reactions such as fusion, result because of the breach of confinement of a huge ball of aether condensate from the interior of a huge black hole in the event we call the big bang. That boiling, was rampant until all of the standing waves became phase and frequency locked and the boiling and inflation shut off. Today, the continued boiling and aether emission requires the interactions of multiple of these standing waves to change the geometry of their standing waves and thus their capability to confine aether internally. Thus, at the Planck scale, there reside tiny droplets of that aether condensate, a relic of the aether condition inside of the BH that breached inertial confinement and gave rise to our universe of standing wave resonances (matter). BOILING TOPOLOGY. If Einstein hadn't introduced the so-called cosmological constant (a fudge factor, denoted by the Greek letter Lambda, meant to preserve the then-apparent static density of the universe) into his gravitational equations, nature might have invented one anyway. For one thing, according to modern field theories, the vacuum is not empty but filled with virtual particles which (through a process called quantum fluctuations) zip into and out of existence, and Lambda has come to be seen as the energy density of the vacuum. Furthermore, the "inflationary" version of the big bang model calls for something like a nonzero Lambda in order to expand the early universe at a rate much higher than we observe today. The universe having evolved to its present state, however, it would now be convenient if Lambda were very close to zero. Although not presenting a complete theory of quantum gravity, Steven Carlip (UC Davis, 916-752-8786,carlip dirac. ucdavis.edu) has at least sought to explain the Lambda mystery in a model which spans the distance scales from near the Planck realm (10^-35 m), where space becomes granular (and where the fluctuations arise), all the way up to the cosmological scale (10 billion light years). Carlip compares the universe to a pot of water being heated. The addition of energy makes the water hotter, but only up to the boiling point. Thereafter, more energy serves only to boil the water faster. Analogously, larger Lambdas only make the universe "boil" more. That is, the topology of space-time is merely driven into an ever more complicated tangle of subtle distortions and wormholes. Carlip's framework, which calls upon recent developments in group theory and non-Euclidean geometry, makes it very unlikely that Lambda would have a negative value, and may well explain why Lambda is so close to zero.(Physical Review Letters, tent. 24 Nov.; as usual, journalists can obtain copies of PRL articles by contacting AIP Public Information at physnews aip.org) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 12:41:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26726; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:38:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:38:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:38:57 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"owKML1.0.WX6.wsCPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12603 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I have no personal experience of this measurement, but youcan try an >experiment that consists in measuring the current versus voltage in a >cell, you should see a cut off in the current at 1.23 , which >corresponds to delta G. So if you actually wish to do calorimetry you >need to measure delta H, therefore the actual value of the delta H is >1.47 V. > >One could eventually make a refrigerator that way, but it is not very >practical since you easily loose the 0.24 V in the Joule heting of the >electrolyte. > >To answer your question clearly, >the delta G of the reaction is 1.23 eV >the delta H of the reaction is 1.47 eV. > >In calorimetry, it is the latter value that we use. >-- >Jean-Paul Biberian Let me check my understanding of what this means electrically speaking, as I think that was the focus of John Schnurer's original question. If R is the resistance of the cell, then V = I*R I = V/R Let's assume we run the cell at 1.47 V. We input Wi watts: Wi = I*V = V^2/R = I^2*R Wi = 2.1609/R watts In a perfect cell Wg electrical power goes to gas evolution: Wg = 1.23*I Wg = 1.23*(1.47/R) = 1.8081/R watts Some of the energy Wa for gas evolution comes from the ambient heat: Wa = 0.24*I Wa = 0.24*(1.47/R) = 0.3528/R watts However, conservation of energy implies that exactly Wi - Wg = 0.3528/R watts is left over to heat the cell, so no cooling will be observed. Additional voltage applied simply results in more heat generated. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 14:02:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA31182; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:58:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:58:58 -0800 Message-ID: <3464E0A8.9FDB9A7D microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 08:29:04 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT leveling References: <3463D9FC.5904591E microtronics.com.au> <34646BD6.3076@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"k7pFg.0.Zc7.V2EPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12604 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > > Greg's moneyback guarantee is contingent on operating the SMOT > on a "level surface", since it obviously would not be able > to roll around if it is tilted too much, even if it is OU. > > As was noted by various attempted replicators, it can be quite > difficult to get sufficiently level surfaces for delicate > rolling tests. > > Greg: does the new plastic version of the SMOT float? If it > did, it would be easy to machine it so that (at least > with no ball present) it would float perfectly level in > a dish of water. If the balls are light compared to the > plastic block, they would not disrupt this level, and that > would be a simple way to make an adjustment-free self-leveling > smot....just take it out of the package, then add water :-). > > If water is too jiggly, some more viscous liquid, like oil, > might work better. > > If no simple self leveling version (which seemingly must make use of > a liquid) is possible, then in the ultimate commercial version > you will probably need to put 3 screw-adjustable legs on the > bottom and set of x and y axis leveling bubbles embededd in > the block (as is done with analog precision balances), or perhaps > a small embedded plumb bob, so that it can be accurately > and conveninetly leveled manually. > > -- > Barry Merriman HI Barry, Floating in liquid is a good idea, but its not that touchy. Just put the ball on the flat top surface and shim the edges with 80Gsm A4 paper bits until the ball stays still. 80Gsm paper bits are 0.1mm thick. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 14:11:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00744; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:09:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:09:02 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tabletop Fusion Experiment Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 22:08:26 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <34640e1b.439627 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971107211237.00a28620 spectre.mitre.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971107211237.00a28620 spectre.mitre.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EWwld2.0.XB.yBEPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12605 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:12:37 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote: [snip] > The production of neutrons with an arc discharge in deuterium is almost >trivial. You can buy thyatrons that do just this. But the neutrons come >from stripping, not from fusion. [snip] Robert, Could you give me an abbreviated explanation of "stripping"? TIA, Robin. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 14:22:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12520; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:19:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:19:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:18:49 -0800 Message-Id: <199711082218.OAA22526 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: off topic, sentient meat Resent-Message-ID: <"cJWk03.0.Y33.oLEPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12606 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> >> >>Subject: Captains Log, Stardate 9986.104 , "Sentient Meat" >> >>"They're made out of meat." >> >>"Meat?" >> >>"Meat. They're made out of meat." >> >>"Meat?" >> >>"There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different >>parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed >>them all the way through. They're completely meat." >> >>"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to >>the stars." >> >>"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come >>from them. The signals come from machines." >> >>"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." >> >>"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat >>made the machines." >> >>"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me >>to believe in sentient meat." >> >>"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the >>only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat." >> >>"Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based >>intelligence that goes through a meat stage." >> >>"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for >>several of their life spans, which didn't take too long. Do you >>have any idea the life span of meat?" >> >>"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the >>Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." >> >>"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the >>Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the >>way through." >> >>"No brain?" >> >>"Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made >>out of meat!" >> >>"So... what does the thinking?" >> >>"You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. >>The meat." >> >>"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" >> >>"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. >>The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?" >> >>"Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." >> >>"Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they've been >>trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their >>years." >> >>"So what does the meat have in mind?" >> >>"First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore >>the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and >>information. The usual." >> >>"We're supposed to talk to meat?" >> >>"That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by >>radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?' That sort of >>thing." >> >>"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?" >> >>"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." >> >>"I thought you just told me they used radio." >> >>"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You >>know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk >>by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by >>squirting air through their meat." >> >>"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do >>you advise?" >> >>"Officially or unofficially?" >> >>"Both." >> >>"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any >>and all sentient races or multibeings in the quadrant, without >>prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase >>the records and forget the whole thing." >> >>"I was hoping you would say that." >> >>"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make >>contact with meat?" >> >>"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say?" `Hello, meat. >>How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we >>dealing with here?" >> >>"Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat >>containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they >>only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of >>light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact >>pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." >> >>"So we just pretend there's no one home in the universe." >> >>"That's it." >> >>"Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the >>ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? >>You're sure they won't remember?" >> >>"They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their >>heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to >>them." >> >>"A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be >>meat's dream." >> >>"And we can mark this sector unoccupied." >> >>"Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any >>others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" >> >>"Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence >>in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic >>rotations ago, wants to be friendly again." >> >>"They always come around." >> >>"And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how utterly, cold this >>galaxy would be if one were all alone with no-one to talk to but >>meat." >> >>*********************************************************************** >> >><---- End Included Message ----> >> >> >>-> Posted by: w9sz prairienet.org (Zack Widup) >> >> >> >> >> >> > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 14:39:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA15037; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:37:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:37:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:36:29 -0800 Message-Id: <199711082236.OAA23729 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo Resent-Message-ID: <"v7WBf3.0.tg3.JcEPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12607 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Ross Tessien wrote: > > "But, according to the current thinking, > there is no manner for there to manifest a > Doppler shift other than for an object to be > moving through space relative to the observer. > So none of the discourse I have read makes sense. > It is like you are trying to prove there is a > red shift there via the intensity measurements." > >Hi Ross, > >Please expand the above statement. I don't think >I understand what you are getting at. > >Jack Smith Greetings Jack; If I was in our atmosphere, a substantive ocean of air, and I had a huge volume of liquid air in a tank. Then, outside of that tank I has some whistles to emit sound at a single frequency. we all know that if I blew those whistles while on a train passing by your location, you would hear them sound too high, then Doppler shift to lower frequency as I pass by and head away. Now, imagine that I begin blowing my whistle outside the location of the tank of liquid air, but the valves are closed. You will hear the whistle at its normal frequency. Now, if I break open that tank of liquid air and it begins boiling, I will have a bunch of vapor air accelerating and racing away from my location in all directions away from the boiling liquid air. So the fact that the air is racing past and away from me as it expands, means that the whistle waves are going to be stretched out in that moving volume of air heading past me and toward your location. That stretching will Doppler shift the whistle just as though I were on a train headed away. The difference is, this time it is the air that is rushing past me as it expands. The air is not rushing past you as fast because it has already expanded, and the wavelength is fixed in the outer ocean of air. Now, as for the red shifting of galaxies and quasars. A quasar is a huge black hole that has breached confinement and you have in essence, a liquid aether condensate core that is boiling. So, the stuff of the ocean of our universe is literally flowing out past the stars and other objects emitting photons, and as a result, the photons are red shifted. The difference is, in this case it is space that is rushing outward past the stars and not the stars rushing out away from us. What this allows is that quasars are much closer to us than astro physicists think today. But Arp and others have collected huge amounts of data showing that this must be the case. The problem has been, there has been no theory to explain why one should believe in an anamolous non velocity red shift. The above, I think, gives you the mechanism. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 15:07:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09744; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:04:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:04:13 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34643FC8.235D0CDE verisoft.com.tr> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:00:45 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- Resent-Message-ID: <"U6Xag2.0.4O2.i_EPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12608 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi - > :3) That's a Turkish smiley, right? Nice moustache! I think the main problem I have with the logic of the setup is that I just don't feel completely convinced that the ionic thrust has been counterbalanced or eliminated. Even though there might not be any obvious hissing jets or flows, a larger volume of somewhat ionized air in the room may be made to move all at once and circulate imperceptively, all the force of which sums back onto the electrodes. I don't know that this is happening, but I'm not thoroughly convinced by the setup that it isn't. As is usual for reports of this type, there's too much information left out, like the composition of the balls as you mentioned. That other experiment they had further down the page, with the single ball and the car battery? That's awful. They say it twists and moves - sure it does. Presumably the earth has a magnetic field where they did this one? I wonder if they even thought of that. But I still see the main experiment with or without nylon string. Do you think it would help eliminate the ion objection if the entire ball-and rod-structire were encased in a thick dielectric shell? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 15:11:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10480; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:06:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:06:07 -0800 Message-Id: <3464E114.9327B37 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 01:00:52 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Could I win a dinner from Ross? References: <199711081755.JAA02467 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Z-vbt3.0.gZ2.T1FPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12609 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > > Sure. I'd be happy to buy anyone a dinner who contributes, AND, comes out > here to collect! (that ought to keep my expenses down and allow a one on one > discussion in the event anyone takes me up on it!) > > As for Hamdi, who would have to travel quite a long distance, I could buy > you two! > > So, where is the site? > http://www.vif.com/users/apeiron/current.htm Thanks for your invitation, you should be sure that I will not miss this opportunity when I travel close to you. I did not finish the paper yet, but I am sure you will be amazed. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 15:33:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20836; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3464E836.51D3 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:31:18 -0600 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 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Cold Fusion Authorities] Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gg0dv3.0.U55.xOFPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12611 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!recycled.news.erols.com!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Authorities Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:03:52 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199710311833.NAA61990 pilot004.cl.msu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Alan M Dunsmuir wrote: [...] > But Fleischmann DOES NOT persist in his claims. He is back at > Southampton University, and has washed his hands of CF - although he > will not go so far as to recant, which I suspect is out of defference to > his ex-colleague Pons. I suspect something different: he does still believe it but is worn down by it. At the end of FPALH-90, there is a remark to the effect that the affair has been hard on the nerves. F is not that young, either; in fact he has been officially retired for a decade or more. As for deference to a colleague, I always had the feeling that it was F who was the driving force. I could be wrong. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 15:34:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19884; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:25:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:25:17 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34643FC8.235D0CDE verisoft.com.tr> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:20:25 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Resent-Message-ID: <"TZXHd2.0.Us4.OJFPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12610 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hamdi Another possible source of thrust may arise from an assumption about the experiment: the air in the room was probably assumed by the experimenters to be essentially neutral. We don't know for sure if they accounted for this, but they didn't say anything about it, unless I missed it in their text. There's usually an excess of negative ions in many environments, although positive excesses happen too. Maybe there are even situations very close to neutral as well. But the negative case is most common. If the electrodes are sitting in an open air negatively charged environment, there should be a thrust towards the positive pole with perhaps very little visible evidence of disturbance of the surrounding air. This situation could provide for the larger scale and harder to notice coupling of the electrodes to the room's air volume which I mentioned earlier. Easy solution? Run a positive ion generator in the closed room for some hours prior to the experiment. If the electrodes then still move towards the positive pole, then I think this objection can be cast aside. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 15:47:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15126; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:42:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:42:48 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:42:40 -0800 Message-Id: <199711082342.PAA27645 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Could I win a dinner from Ross? Resent-Message-ID: <"NsaNb3.0.9i3.tZFPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12612 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >http://www.vif.com/users/apeiron/current.htm > >Thanks for your invitation, you should be sure that I will not miss this opportunity when I travel close to you. I did not finish the paper yet, but I am sure you will be amazed. Looking forward to the paper, what ever it contains. As for the paper above, I looked it over really quickly just now. Thanks for the referal. It is very interesting and it is really very close to what I have been discussing with all of you. Also, I looked up Harold Aspden's work and that is radically close to what I have been describing as well. As for the present paper, and I think Aspden's work (though I have an email querry in to him to see if I missed his stand on this point since he has a lot of work out there and I have not read all of it), I think they are on the right track, but have missed one key feature of the universe ocean of aether. That is, aether must be conserved in all interactions. They implicitly use this tenet when they work with their wave structures. But I didn't read in either of their posts where they explicitly identified "mass" as "amount of aether confined in a given standing wave structure". Once you make that identification, then you come to realize that fusion in stars must be releasing aether. And then when you begin to contemplate spacetime as an acoustic structure of resonances in the topology of a manifold, you come to realize that spacetime around a star will be curved away from the star by that flow of aether. (It is also curved toward the star by the effect of filtering out incident wave energy arriving from deep space, and so the spacetime curvature we measure via planetary motions is the difference between the two offsetting behaviors.) Therefore, both of them, I think, miss the point that stars are emitting aether. Further, as for Wolff, he stated that black holes don't exist. Therefore he has failed to calculate the masses of muon and tauon as a ratio of electron thus realizing that aether has two properties, vapor and condensate. Once you come to realize this, it becomes clear that if you cause to manifest (via a large stars collapse) a sufficiently large kinetic convergence of aether, you can as well induce a condensation of that aether at smaller radii when the aether all runs into itself inside of the spherical convergence. That leads to a hydraulic jump, and if the KE at some radius (event horizon where v = c, and KE of the aether on this side of the convergence plus the KE of the aether on the other side of the convergence is 2 * (mc^2/2) = KE = mc^2 ) is large enough to induce that state change, then you will induce a condensation of the very substance of the universe itself, aether. Thus, you CAN have a black hole. Wolff did not account for this property of the aether, and did not account for the conservation of aether and thus it's flow out of stars that are fusing matter and "releasing energy". That release of energy in the acceleration of particles is accompanied by a release of the aether confined in those particles. That simple point is the key to my theory, and it is what all other aether theorists I have read to date have missed. Aether Conservation is paramount to understanding the true nature of our universe. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 15:52:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23321; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:48:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:48:51 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:44:49 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: {off topic} Re: Tesla Headlines Resent-Message-ID: <"N7jx_1.0.Ji5.WfFPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12613 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim - > It was only a joke, sorry if you don't appreciate > my sense of humor. I know it was, but it afforded me an opportunity to bash the new age weenies. I wasn't after you, it was aimed at them. You wouldn't believe some of the posts that came in to the Tesla list a while back. There was this fellow named Amargi who was legendary. Setting up a world grid with his buddies, going to use "Tesla Technology" to beam nice hippy vibes and music to the whole world via aetheric scalar Merkaba fields bla bla bla. It took about a year to top him. A legal secretary from Hollywood posted how Tesla tech in the hands of the secret black military government was ruining her life by broadcasting negative thoughts and emotions to her through her vagina via the toilet paper she used in public restrooms. I swear I'm not making this up. Now you'd think that would be pretty much the end of it. But there are actually so many people like that woman out there, that they even have their own magazine!!! Yup, there's a magazine (Zine category, I forget the name) devoted to people being victimized by negative emotion broadcasts to their genitals by the secret government. Damn near makes my head want to pop. And you wonder why people sometimes get a little edgy when they're reminded of the junk myths surrounding Tesla and his work? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 17:35:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03650; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:05:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:05:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3464FA80.884C35FA verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 02:49:20 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ----- References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pQgen.0.lu.JnGPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12614 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Hamdi - > > > :3) > > That's a Turkish smiley, right? Nice moustache! Yes and no. Yes, most of Turkish males (specially at province) have moustaches. This one like the moustaches of authentic wrestlers or ancient palace guards. But what I am intended is a funny nose. > > I think the main problem I have with the logic of the setup is that I just > don't feel completely convinced that the ionic thrust has been > counterbalanced or eliminated. My intention is somehow the effect is related to a new phenomena (at least a possibility). But a single kind of experiment could not give a strong argument but speculation. [snip] > > That other experiment they had further down the page, with the single ball > and the car battery? That's awful. They say it twists and moves - sure it > does. Presumably the earth has a magnetic field where they did this one? I > wonder if they even thought of that. What they claimed observed as anomalous is the inward twisting both of the conductor strings. This should not occurs in classical terms. > > But I still see the main experiment with or without nylon string. Do you > think it would help eliminate the ion objection if the entire ball-and > rod-structire were encased in a thick dielectric shell? Yes, this is needed. still 30uA leak is to much to ignore. I think most of leakage occur between two balls where the strength of the electric field is maximum. This directional current combined with copper wires form a loop and create and magnetic field a nd a moment possibly interacting with Earth field. This should be avoided absolutely by reducing leaking currents to few uA. > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 20:01:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA27053; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:56:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:56:31 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:54:57 -0500 (EST) From: lewis edward X-Sender: lewis3 staff1.cso.uiuc.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: preliminary note In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ChfCl3.0.dc6.kHJPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12615 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Edward Lewis P. O. Box 2827 Champaign, IL 61820 Nov. 4, 1997 Preliminary Note: This is a preliminary note of general observations, and I am working a little from memory. I would like to put up a more accurate one after checking over my notes. Is There Radioactive Stimulation of Radioactivity in Electrolysis Cells? Purpose In order to raise funding and interest for researching this phenomena and to find collaborators, some striking observations are described. However, these are only preliminary results. More experimentation must be carried out to define the effect and be sure that there is no conventional explanation. This may be a very important phenomena for several reasons, and testing for this effect is encouraged. Testing would be easy to do by simply placing radioactive materials near operating devices and measuring any effect. Money for patenting may be in order, since I have the rights to two patent disclosures. This note is meant to present a description of general observations of an effect that would be easy for people to test for themselves, and to present some explanatory ideas. A more accurate report requires studying my notes more. Since the results were not consistent from the first week of observation to the second, perhaps a conclusion may be drawn. Since pinching the tube usually caused a significant surge of CPM as registered by Geiger counters in the second week and turning on the pump while the electricity was on usually or always caused the same in the first, perhaps it is the inflow of liquid that caused the effect. Also, the long term CPM increase that was measured in the first week of 40 or 50 CPM seems significant. No testing was done to determine the wavelenth of any radiation output from the cell. Thought the effect was surprising and seemed to be usually repeatable, I am not sure what was causing it. But I could not think of any other reasons for the results except for the emission of radiation from the cell. I also kept rather hapharzard notes, especially the first day. Experimental Description There was evidence that a radioactive object increased the radioactivity from a CETI thin-film coated microsphere electrolysis cell(1) as measured by three different Geiger counters. The object was a large piece of apparatus composed mainly of aluminum and steel that was used in other experiments that was irradiated at the experimental atomic reactor at the U of I so that the steel parts of it had turned into Cobalt 60. This piece of apparatus was about one and a half meters long and was measured by the Geiger counters to have a count per minute (CPM) rate of 40,000 at one end and 30,000 at the other and 10,000 or 5,000 along the middle. There was thin steel sheeting of a fume hood between the electrolysis apparatus and the piece, and the cell itself was about 1 and a half meters away from the end of the piece that equipment apparatus that measured 40,000 CPM. The cell was a fairly fresh one that had begun operation in the week that the effect was first observed, if I remember correctly. During the day the effect was first observed and the radioactive piece of apparatus was near, there was a CPM rate averaging about 100 or 110 about 1/3 of a meter around the cell, but with the rod of the Geiger counter placed within about 4 or 5 centimeters of the casing of the cell, the CPM rate averaged about 150 as was measured several times. On the day the effect was first observed it was found that when the radioactive piece of apparatus was near the cell, there were surges of CPM increases within 10 seconds after turning on the current to the cell and the pump after having turned the current and the pump off for a few minutes which lasted up to twenty or thirty seconds or perhaps more. But during more extensive tests a week later, the results were more sporadic, perhaps because the cell had deteriorated or had been depleted. By the second week the cell may have been clogged by flakes of the bead coatings. Though there were not many tests for the effect when the radioactive piece was not near the cell in the first week, in general it seems that if the radioactive piece was not in the room or on the other side of the room there was little or no increase of radioactivity measured. During the second week when tests were done when the radioactive piece was on the other side of the room, there was almost never any radioactivity that seemed like a significant increase over the base rate. To generalize the observations during the two weeks, I conjecture that it was the flushing the cell with fluid when the electricity was on and the radioactive piece was near that would generally cause significant surges of CPM increases within 15 seconds that might last more than 30 seconds. Observations During the Day of the First Week During the first day of testing it was found that while the radioactive piece was near turning off the electricity to the cell and turning off the pump for the fluid through the tubing and the cell for a few minutes, and then turning the electricity and pump back on at the same time usually or always caused a significant jump of CPM of up to double or triple the base rate after a few seconds and within ten seconds that lasted for at least a few seconds. And in several tests it was found that the most significant variable was the fluid flow. In one test for example, it was found that after turning off both the electrical current and the pump for a few minutes and then turning on only the current to the cell, there was an insignificant surge of CPM of at most about 10 or 20 CPM, if any. But when the pump was then turned on about a minute later after letting the cell sit with only the current on, after about 5 or so seconds the CPM jumped from an average of about 125 to 280 or 300 CPM for about 8 seconds. One or two other tests confirmed this effect. This is evidence that the jump was not caused by turning on the current or the pump, since there would have been an immediate jump of CPM, but caused by the flush of new fluid into the casing. During the test that was described, while I was holding the Geiger counter, I also strongly felt some sort of energy from the cell. The energy was hard to explain, but it was as if a large electrical switch was turned on as the CPM jumped. So the radiation or energy may be dangerous. Observations During the Second Week These observations were followed a week later by methodical testing with a Geiger counter that was held by a clamp next to the cell and that was attached to an electronic counter that counted the counts that were registered. In various tests that were carried out then, the results were more sporadic. There was much less radiation if any from the cell, and less of a jump in CPM, if any, after turning on and turning off the pump. This may be because the conditions in the cell had deteriorated. The flow of fluid seemed to be much less then a week earlier, only a trickle, as if the cell was clogged, and the pump sounded differently, as if it was running dry. It seemed to me that there was a much greater fluid flow earlier. It was found later after opening the casing that the coatings of the beads were mostly gone, so I suspected that perhaps by the second week of operation, the coatings had flaked off and this may have impeded the flow of fluid. But the decrease or lack of surges of CPM in these latter tests when turning on or turning off the pump precludes the explanation that the previous surges were caused by simple electrical static of some type. In fact, it was found that simply repeatedly pinching the tube through which the fluid flowed in order to force the fluid into the casing would usually after a few seconds and within about 30 seconds caused a jump of CPM from about 100 to 200 or more. And surges seemed to last up to 20 or 30 seconds sometimes, at least. Pinching the tube may have flushed liquid into stale or dry areas in the casing. However, when the radioactive piece of apparatus was set on the other side of the room about 8 meters away there was usually little or no significant surge effect from pinching the tubing and turning the equipment on and off. Then the base rate measured near the cell was much lower at about 40 or 70 CPM which was also background level rate so that measuring any base rate radiation above background was impossible. The background radiation seemed to vary a lot from day to day. Description of General Effect The general effect that was discerned during these tests was that there was higher CPM registered by Geiger counters when the radioactive piece was near, but not when it was out of the room or on the other side of it. There was a higher base rate during the first week, and significant surges of CPM increases were effected both weeks. Hypotheses and Conjectures This radioactive material was sitting near the fume hood during most or all the runs of the various electrolysis cells, so it may have influenced the operation of the cells and may have caused the production of elements if there were any. I only tried to check one or two other cells for radioactivity, and didn't find it. But I checked in a quick fashion because I wasn't expecting there to be any. It seems that if a cell does become radioactive, it may do so only temporarily. The proper conditions may be lost over time. This is not the first report of stimulation of these anomalous phenomena by radioactivity or electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths. In particular, V. A. Filimonov(2) reported that a neutron source greatly increased the cold fusion phenomena. Kapitsa(3) wrote that electromagnetic radiation could form globular volumes of plasma or ball lightning. Since then, researchers have experimentally produced ball lightning-like plasmoids using electromagnetic radiation. According to Kapitsa's calculations the wavelength would be equal to 3.65 times the diameter of the resulting plasmoid. I think atoms are plasmoids, and that plasmoids of various sizes produce the various cold fusion phenomena. In particular, gamma radiation may stimulate atomic reactions, modify atoms, or form atoms during various stresses such as electrolysis. Energy and substance may be leaving various devices in at least three anomalous ways that people haven't taken into account. As plasmoids of various types and sizes, as electrical currents and surges(4), and as plasmoid wave phenomena that are a transverse wave that may affect materials very little, but which may convert to electrical current upon contacting conductors. Matsumoto may have found traces of plasmoid waves around an electrolysis cell(5). Acknowledgements I would like to thank G. Miley, Mike Williams for setting up the equipment, and the CETI company. The CETI company does not agree with these ideas or support the publishing of them. References and Notes 1) For information about the equipment and the general experimental procedure for the various runs, see G. H. Miley et al., "Quantitative Observations of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis," Proceedings of the ICCF-6, Hokkaido, Japan (Oct. 14-17, 1996). 2) V. A. Filimonov, "A New Cold Fusion Phenomenon," sci.physics.fusion newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion aol.com), January 21, 1995. 3) P. L. Kapitsa, "The Nature of Ball Lightning," in D. Ritchie, ed., BALL LIGHTNING, Consultants Bureau, New York, 1961. 4)T. Matsumoto, "Discovery of a New Kind of Electrical Current," abstract submitted to the ICCF-6, Hokkaido, Japan (Oct. 14-17, 1996). 5)T. Matsumoto, "Interference Phenomena Observed During Cold Fusion," Fusion Technology, 21, 179 (March, 1992). From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 20:58:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28190; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:54:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:54:05 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 04:52:49 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <346c397a.23821951 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jfJ5s3.0.Ju6.Y7KPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12617 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:38:57 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Let me check my understanding of what this means electrically speaking, as >I think that was the focus of John Schnurer's original question. > >If R is the resistance of the cell, then > > V = I*R > I = V/R > >Let's assume we run the cell at 1.47 V. > > >We input Wi watts: > > Wi = I*V = V^2/R = I^2*R > Wi = 2.1609/R watts > > >In a perfect cell Wg electrical power goes to gas evolution: > > Wg = 1.23*I > Wg = 1.23*(1.47/R) = 1.8081/R watts > >Some of the energy Wa for gas evolution comes from the ambient heat: > > Wa = 0.24*I > Wa = 0.24*(1.47/R) = 0.3528/R watts > >However, conservation of energy implies that exactly Wi - Wg = 0.3528/R >watts is left over to heat the cell, so no cooling will be observed. >Additional voltage applied simply results in more heat generated. [snip] This sounds correct to me. It becomes interesting in terms of cheap energy however when the cell is operated at a voltage of 1.23 volts iso 1.47. This "forces" it to extract heat from the environment in order to electrolyze the water. (I see this at a molecular level as "hot" (fast) molecules contributing the extra .24 eV/H, which then results in the average temperature of the electrolyte dropping, so that heat flows from the environment into the cell). Interestingly perhaps, if this interpretation is correct, then there really isn't any reason I can see, that it shouldn't also work at voltages even lower than 1.23, making use of only the very "hottest" molecules from the tail end of the Boltzman distribution. I am curious as to what voltage can be obtained from a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell operating at maximum efficiency? Any takers? (I suspect that this will be near 1.47 volts, as the product of the fuel cell (Ballard?) is a liquid. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 20:58:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA03934; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:53:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:53:27 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 04:52:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tG8qG2.0.Nz.37KPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12616 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:20:25 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] > >Easy solution? Run a positive ion generator in the closed room for some >hours prior to the experiment. If the electrodes then still move towards >the positive pole, then I think this objection can be cast aside. I would still like to see it carried out in a strong vacuum. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 21:03:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA04851; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:02:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:02:11 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:02:02 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS - AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY +smileys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xWTBV1.0.dB1.GFKPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12618 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Smiley's On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: >>Hamdi - >> >> > :3) >> >>That's a Turkish smiley, right? Nice moustache! >> Seriously, I like it! I started letting my mustache go in April (to remember the smot workings date?) any way the kids are all over me about WAXING, to which I say NO.. While it is past my chin (1/2"+) I was thinking of the fu-man chu look :<)= but, i didn't like the ascii, So HATS OFF to the ":3)" IF that is what it's for. Maybe I should start a goatee? :<)=- Nah, the '3' wins hands down! If Hamdi won't take it I will! (but, too gray/white in the middle :3)*- 8^) never could grow mutton-chops anyway! -=se=- ROFAL - wife likes it too! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 21:14:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA06318; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:13:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:13:15 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: preliminary note Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 05:12:41 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <346e45bf.26964055 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uTpv33.0.XY1.dPKPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12619 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:54:57 -0500 (EST), lewis edward wrote: [snip] >Experimental Description > > There was evidence that a radioactive object increased the >radioactivity from a CETI thin-film coated microsphere electrolysis >cell(1) as measured by three different Geiger counters. The object was a [snip] Horace, This may be confirmation of your hypothesis that a third "fast" particle can bring about "wave collapse". 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 23:26:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA21861; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:21:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:21:08 -0800 Message-ID: <34656468.6F957ABB microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:51:12 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT ou proof: experiment results References: <3464C06C.3172AD0B pavilion.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"m4Ot_.0.SL5.ZHMPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12620 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rob Dowse wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > HI All, > > > > Attached are two test set-ups that, IMHO, prove the SMOT Mk2 is > > capable of OU. > > > > The first test set-up clearly shows that the interaction of the SMOT > > Mk2 magnetic field and the steel ball is NOT conservative. > > > > > > Hi Greg and all, > > I have tried to verify Greg's first test. > > I collected 600 data points for this test. > > There is noise in the data caused by random(?) friction which does > affect the results quite a bit (ie ivisible dirt in the tube causes > chaotic side to side oscillations as the ball decends). > > Perhaps the magnet's relation to the ball needs to be optomised? Any > other comments before I try another data collection attempt. > > 8/11/97....NB two gifs are today resent separate, one is a graph of > the data, the other is a drawing of test rig. I tried yesterday as > one file but it did not seem to post. > > Thanks... > -- > > --------- > Rob Dowse HI Rob, Thanks for the data and graphics. Seems to be a wide variation in the rollthrough elevations. Suspect your release point energy varies more than the rolling losses. I have had this same problem. I used a ferrite rod and coil to control the release point. The ferrite has almost no residual magnetism and gives good repetitive releases. I have redone my rollthrough tests and will update my data. Don't know where the 0.5mm "A" ball results came from. Best I can generate today is a 1:3.5 ratio. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 01:18:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA16971; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:14:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:14:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:15:33 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: preliminary note Resent-Message-ID: <"_zOmB3.0.094.DyNPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12622 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:12 PM 11/8/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:54:57 -0500 (EST), lewis edward wrote: >[snip] >>Experimental Description >> >> There was evidence that a radioactive object increased the >>radioactivity from a CETI thin-film coated microsphere electrolysis >>cell(1) as measured by three different Geiger counters. The object was a >[snip] >Horace, > >This may be confirmation of your hypothesis that a third "fast" >particle can bring about "wave collapse". > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Could be, but very inconclusive like so much else. I sure would like to see somebody blast one of those really big low temp. condensates with high energy particles. Actuallly it probaly happens spontaneously - with cosmic rays. Only necessary to wait for a hit and have counters around the condensate to see what results. Thanks for thinking of me and my kookie ideas! The idea that particle stimulation of loaded metals can stimulate fusion and particle emmision is not new. See: Nelson Ying and Charles W Shults III, "Cold fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement by Boson Simulation", Infinite Energy, Vol. 1, No. 1, March-April 1995. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 01:21:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA16983; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:14:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:14:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:15:26 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"fkwyT2.0.G94.GyNPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12623 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:41 PM 11/4/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >To: Vortex > >Around 1797, Rumford (Phil.Trans.,1798) used a blunt >borer in a cannon and succeeded in boiling by friction >26.5 pounds of cold water in 2 1/2 hours. > >If you calculate out the horsepower ... [snip] > >Regards, Frederick If I use the folowing: 540 kcal/kg - as the heat of vaporization of water 1 BTU = 1055 J = 252 cal 1 lb = .4536 kg 1 KWH = 3.6x10^6 J 1 hp = .746 kw then I get the following for steam creation: 540 kcal/kg = 2143 BTU/kg = 972 BTU/lb = 2.26x10^6 J/kg = 4.98x10^6 J/lb = 1.383 KWH/lb = 1.85 hp*hr/lb If I haven't made a mistake above then: (26.5 lb)/(2.5 hr) = 10.6 lb/hr = 19.61 hp Rumford was putting out about 20 hp mechanical energy to generate that much steam. Is this right? Of course, if the above is correct, one would be lucky to build a steam engine that would generate much more than 5 hp from the above rate of steam generation. What I like about steam engines is that the waste heat can be used to heat houses, which is a fairly important application here in Alaska. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 01:27:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA30408; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:14:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:14:21 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:15:29 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace Resent-Message-ID: <"56yG_1.0.2R7.ixNPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12621 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:48 PM 11/7/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> > >> In practice this could be a bit more difficult than I thought because my >> regulated supply is rated at 2-20 volts. Will have to insert resistance to >> drop the voltage across the cell. Since cell resistances float around I >> will have to monitor/control cell voltage or current by hand to some >> extent. Could put a couple cells in series to reduce the amount of >> handholding. >> >Hi, Horace! (your kid in college yet?) > >How about using a zener diode in series with your supply? ... [snip] > >Frank Stenger Gnorts Frank, Thanks to you and all that contributed to the hydrogen thread. Scott mailed some stuff to test with, so let me see what I can come up with as an attempt at a cooling cell. Didn't really want to take up so much bandwidth with this, as the prospects for ou are slim at best. I confess I just haven't had time to read everything on vortex, and have been picking away at messages in a haphazard order. I'm really busy (shouldn't be involved here now) and also there is so much noise and off topic stuff here to wade through lately. I guess that must be because there is no red hot item in the queue at the moment. But not to worry, such must be not be to far away. My son just got his SAT and AP scores (1600 and 5, all perfect), and he has a gazillion other cudos, including being system administrator and web master at his school, and being a National Finalist in ThinkQuest (web page competition.) Deadline for lots of scholarship applications has already gone by though, so maybe none of this really matters. His main choices at the moment seem to be Stanford, MIT, Cornell, and U of Illinois. Stanford, MIT, and Cornell don't offer any merit based academic scholarships, and since we took our IRA's and all our retirement savings and put them toward paying off mortgages instead of into IRA's and Keough plans, the financial aid system sees our retirement stuff as capital for school. We just can't afford that. Don't really know the status of scholarship possibilities elsewhere yet. He wants to major in computer science, but also wants to continue with piano performance, and has interest in exploring physics. He has won lots of statewide piano competitions, and wants to compete at the college level, but doesn't want to major in music. His standards are very high so it's going to be tough for him to find just the right school, and it may be too late for that. I think he might be much better off if we were on welfare now. It's a stressfull time. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 02:11:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA19955; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:07:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:07:34 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:03:33 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Resent-Message-ID: <"i-jmy1.0.ft4.ajOPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12624 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin -- > I would still like to see it carried out in a strong > vacuum. Oh, me too. I was just thinking quick and dirty, something practical to get the glitches out one by one if you have to. What about the vacuum though? It would have to be a pretty big chamber. Presumably in a vacuum (or otherwise) there would be no reason for induced electrostatic forces between the electrodes and the walls to favor one polarity over another as long as any movement of the electrodes resulted in a very small displacement from a position in the very center of a large chamber or room. Can you think of any reason it should - other than the hoped for anomaly itself? In the SAIC experiment, they had unequally sized electrodes, and a shaped vacuum chamber built to try to balance out the forces on the walls geometrically. That sounds pretty hard, where as a symmetrical setup would keep that simple. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 02:37:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA02591; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:34:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:34:42 -0800 Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <346581E5.1BBA6A8D mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 04:27:01 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: <199711082236.OAA23729 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NRiOU.0.Pe.17PPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12625 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: ... "Now, as for the red shifting of galaxies and quasars. A quasar is a huge black hole that has breached confinement and you have in essence, a liquid aether condensate core that is boiling. ... The above, I think, gives you the mechanism. Later, Ross Tessien" Hi Ross, Thank you for the explanation, but I have another question. Let me preface it by saying that the "proof" of the existence of black holes has always struck me as carrying derivation from design equations to an extreme. And the so-called experimental evidence for the existence of black holes seems tenuous. So, since a black hole is supposed to exist because NOTHING can escape from its gravitational field, how is it possible for aether (which is the carrier of photons)to "boil out" of a black hole? Again, for me, the mechanism is the important thing. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 03:53:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA09560; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:48:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:48:57 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:46:15 -0700 Message-ID: <01bced05$1651a4c0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"_8aXJ3.0.IL2.eCQPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12626 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 2:21 AM Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >At 1:41 PM 11/4/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>Around 1797, Rumford (Phil.Trans.,1798) used a blunt >>borer in a cannon and succeeded in boiling by friction >>26.5 pounds of cold water in 2 1/2 hours. >> >>If you calculate out the horsepower ... >[snip] >> >>Regards, Frederick > > >If I use the folowing: > >540 kcal/kg - as the heat of vaporization of water >1 BTU = 1055 J = 252 cal >1 lb = .4536 kg >1 KWH = 3.6x10^6 J >1 hp = .746 kw > >then I get the following for steam creation: > >540 kcal/kg = >2143 BTU/kg = >972 BTU/lb = >2.26x10^6 J/kg = >4.98x10^6 J/lb = >1.383 KWH/lb = >1.85 hp*hr/lb > >If I haven't made a mistake above then: > >(26.5 lb)/(2.5 hr) = 10.6 lb/hr = 19.61 hp The steam vapor at 212 F carries 970.3 btu/lb. The heat to bring the water from 70 F to 212 F is 212 - 70 = 140 btu/lb, thus 970.3 + 140 = 1110 btu/lb x 10.6 lb/hr = 11,769.2 btu/hr.or 3.27 btu/sec. At 778 ft-lbs/btu or 1.415 x 550 ft-lbs/sec = 1.415 horsepower/lb-second x 3.27 = 4.625 HP. For every pound of cannon ball, rule-of-thumb is 600 pounds of cannon/lb of ball. Figuring a "two pounder" that's 1200 pounds of iron to bring up to around 212 F, plus heat losses. So I figure for iron 0.2 btu/lb x 1200 x 140 deg F rise = 33,600 btu or another 5.3 horsepower to heat up the cannon. Twice that if it was a "four pounder". :-) > >Rumford was putting out about 20 hp mechanical energy to generate that much >steam. Is this right? I don't think he was putting out over 2 hp, but the rest is OU from Hydrino formation in the iron-water-iron friction interface, and it is up to an experiment to find out. As I said this could explain "pitting" in propeller cavitation, heat in the P&F cells, the Potatov Vortex Pumps, The Griggs Pump, And "Sonoluminescence-Heating Effects". > >Of course, if the above is correct, one would be lucky to build a steam >engine that would generate much more than 5 hp from the above rate of steam >generation. > >What I like about steam engines is that the waste heat can be used to heat >houses, which is a fairly important application here in Alaska. Cogeneration works just as well from I.C. engines. Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 04:22:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA11069; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:16:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:16:24 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: SMOT leveling Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 06:54:49 -0500 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: <19971109122015852.AAA182 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"ctMVn3.0.ti2.NcQPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12627 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Floating in liquid is not a good idea. You have no idea where the center of gravity is, and the block is apt to float with the magnet side lower. Further, you have a ball rolling around, changing the center of gravity. We already have a delicate experiment made replicable by Greg's hard work. Introducing new unknowns by floating it is not sensible science. It would take significantly more work of Greg's part to devise a demonstrator that would float correctly. What is a good idea is a bubble level on the base and three screws to level it on any surface for the demonstration to amaze your friends and neighbors. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 04:33:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12499; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:28 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971109072501.006d29e8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 07:25:01 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: cold fusion technical publication rate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"FekR03.0.633.lmQPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12628 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Cold fusion is real. We have reviewed the world literature which continues at a significant rate. Anyone care to guess what the annual rate is? or which countries are leading the scientific race? ==================================================== Cold fusion is also consistent with conventional physics. More information is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 04:35:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12499; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:28 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971109072501.006d29e8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 07:25:01 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: cold fusion technical publication rate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"FekR03.0.633.lmQPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12628 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Cold fusion is real. We have reviewed the world literature which continues at a significant rate. Anyone care to guess what the annual rate is? or which countries are leading the scientific race? ==================================================== Cold fusion is also consistent with conventional physics. More information is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 05:41:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA07711; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 05:36:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 05:36:30 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Single Bubble Sonoluminescence Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 06:33:31 -0700 Message-ID: <01bced14$121dc140$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"ngB9g.0.Pu1.SnRPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12629 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex A new web site, www.sonoluminescence.com is pushing an sound generator kit that is supposed to be better than the UCLA-Hiller setup. I think a single "pulse" delivered to the bottom center of a metal "cup" with a pointed rod actuated with a solenoid or a hammer would do just as good for a lot less money. :-) One of those "automatic center punches" might work also. Other than that, using a pointed electrode against the bottom of the metal cup and hitting it with the current from dumping a few joules from a capacitor bank might start a bubble also. Some of the single bubble sonoluminescence experiments are being conducted down around - 120 C. That's "Cold Fusion" too. ain't it? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 06:19:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11902; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 06:12:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 06:12:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3465C4B9.28C8 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 09:12:09 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214@mail.eisa.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oIPDL3.0.uv2.OJSPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12630 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > I would still like to see it carried out in a strong vacuum. > Right, Robin! An easier first step would be to enclose the active portion of the device in a large cardboard box - cover the box with joined sheets of aluminum foil - suspend the box with, say, 5 feet of 75 ohm coax along with 3 lengths of wire to make a good 4-line suspension - ground the aluminum foil to building ground via the outer coax and/or the bare wires - and feed high-voltage to the device thru the center conductor of the coax. If you need two "floating" high voltage leads, then use two coax lengths and 2 wires. This amounts to suspending the whole "laboratory" (the box) from a force gage. If the box deflects with the device on, rule out aerodynamic and static electric forces. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 06:44:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14214; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 06:36:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 06:36:37 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:31:27 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Vacuum Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"sJQqU2.0._T3.rfSPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12631 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See notes: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Robin -- > > > I would still like to see it carried out in a strong > > vacuum. > > Oh, me too. I was just thinking quick and dirty, something practical to get > the glitches out one by one if you have to. What about the vacuum though? > It would have to be a pretty big chamber. > > Presumably in a vacuum (or otherwise) there would be no reason for induced > electrostatic forces between the electrodes Vacuum will not prevent attraction or repulsion ... how would it? and the walls to favor one > polarity over another as long as any movement of the electrodes resulted in > a very small displacement from a position in the very center of a large > chamber or room. Can you think of any reason it should If the voltage is high electrons flow... this can cause particle flow reaction. - other than the > hoped for anomaly itself? In the SAIC experiment, they had unequally sized > electrodes, and a shaped vacuum chamber built to try to balance out the > forces on the walls geometrically. That sounds pretty hard, where as a > symmetrical setup would keep that simple. What SAIC experiment? > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 07:59:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25635; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:54:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:54:31 -0800 Message-Id: <3465CC50.4EB0DB6A verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:44:32 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214@mail.eisa.net.au> <3465C4B9.28C8@interlaced.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YTMho1.0.OG6.roTPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12632 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > > > > I would still like to see it carried out in a strong vacuum. > > > Right, Robin! An easier first step would be to enclose the active > portion of the device in a large cardboard box - cover the box with > joined sheets of aluminum foil - suspend the box with, say, 5 feet > of 75 ohm coax along with 3 lengths of wire to make a good 4-line [snip] I understand that you fixed the ball setup with the faraday cage. This is OK, but this not the same experiment. I propose and other setup which is more compatible with the original: /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 1 o \ (+)-|| ||-(-) / o 1 | \ || || / | | \ || 3 || / | 7 grounded | fixing\ || || / | wires | wires \ || || / | | \|| ||/ | 2 o___________ o __ o ___________o || | | || || | 4 | || || | | || || | | || || | | || || | | || || | | || || | | || || | | || 6 faraday cage || | | || || | | || || _|_ _|_ || || (_+_)==(_-_) || || 5 . || || . || || . || || . || || . || || . || ||__________________|.|_________|| monitoring hole Faraday cage is suspended by four grounded wires(7) to the ceiling. Faraday cage have two small apertures to allow to pass the ball setup wiring. Balls setup (5) is suspended from a fixed frame(3). If the faraday cage does not move while the ball setup is moving, electrostatic forces are ruled out. Even at this condition, magnetic forces could cause the ball setup to move primarily interacting with Earth magnetism. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 08:26:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23656; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:24:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:24:08 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:23:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971109112301_1422142260 mrin38> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"eRQQR.0.Yn5.dEUPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12633 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a post of Nov. 6, Larry Wharton referred to "the reactor electrode." What electrode? The BLP gas-phase cells that I've seen described aren't electrolytic. They have a heated metal filament in them, not an electrode. In a post written c. Nov. 4, Larry made a telling point re the experiments of "Panatelli" (presumably meaning Piantelli), to the effect that he could have been off in the calorimetry by a factor of two if he didn't take into account the cleaning effect of the hydrogen atmosphere in which the nickel rod was placed. Good point, possibly a crucial point, but what does it have to do with the Mills-type gas-phase experiments? In a post of Nov. 6, Michael Schaffer wrote, "In the Piantelli experiment and in the diagrams of Mills' experiments that I have seen the calorimetry consisted of measurements of the temperature rise of the heated reacting surface." Later in the same paragraph, Michael added, "potassium or other catalyst vapors in the Mills cells might change the reacting surface, too. Therefore, this simple calorimetry technique is unreliable in the specified environment." I see Michael's point with respect to the Piantelli experiment, as described in the 1994 paper by Focardi, Habel & Piantelli; but I don't see what that has to do with the Mills-type gas-phase cells. Where is the "reacting surface" in the latter? Michael, where did you see those diagrams of Mills-type gas phase cells? If on the BLP website, could you provide the web page? I'm at a disadvantage is discussing this, because I still don't have direct access to the Web, so I haven't viewed the BLP website for a couple of months. Maybe Mills has invented yet another kind of cell since then. But the last time I looked, his kind of gas-phase cell had a heated metal filament in it, the purpose of which was to dissociate molecular hydrogen, so that the hydrogen atoms could react with potassium ions from a vaporized catalyst (KNO3 and KNO2 have been mentioned as the vaporized material). The reaction occurred not on a metal surface but rather in a small volume of heated gas around the hot metal filament (platinum and tungsten have been mentioned as the metal). Judging by the comments of Scott Little and Mike Carrell, both of whom can access the BLP website on their own computers, the calorimetry described for the experiments with Mills-type gas-phase cells was quite different from the heat measurements described in Focardi, Habel & Piantelli 1994. That's my recollection, too. But BLP has a big website, and maybe Michael was looking at a different page. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 08:28:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23738; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:24:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:24:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:22:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971109112253_1759591476 mrin86.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: collis netcity.it Subject: Re: Asti workshop Resent-Message-ID: <"4E6Hk1.0.mo5.DFUPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12634 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Peter Glueck commented that Francesco Piantelli's system looked very interesting and that his long absence remains a mystery. I agree. Piantelli's 1994 co-authors, Sergio Focardi and Roberto Habel, also weren't listed among the prospective attendees for the 1997 Asti workshop. Have Focardi, Habel & Piantelli dropped out of the Italian CF scene? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 08:53:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00162; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:50:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:50:25 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:51:28 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"euxa11.0.F2.FdUPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12635 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:46 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip a bunch of good calcs] Ok, agree with your numbers. I goofed converting kg to lbs. Thought that looked wrong. Thanks! > >I don't think he was putting out over 2 hp, but >the rest is OU from Hydrino formation in the >iron-water-iron friction interface, and it is >up to an experiment to find out. [snip] > >Regards, Frederick Yes, worth an experiment. However, I think there is cause to think maybe some water was lost and the heat came from oxidation of the steel. With so little in the way of shavings it is logical to think the rest of the steel oxidized. But where did the rust go? Maybe the rust/water mixture spilled over the side of the cannon and evaporated. The water boiloff/evaporation on the cannon sides would still be counted towards cooling the cannon, though maybe some water made it off the cannon to the ground? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 09:34:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09177; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:29:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:29:51 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Sliding Water Luminescence? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:27:28 -0700 Message-ID: <01bced34$c0f07e40$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"T00oF1.0.IF2.ECVPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12636 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex If one inserted a four-blade rotor inside a 4" I.D. glass or quartz "pipe" such that the clearance was 0.002", more or less, and spun it at 24,000 rpm so that the water is sliding over the glass at about 400 feet/second. Might it be possible that there could be "luminescence" that may be visible to the eye, or possibly in the Infrared? Any o-u possibilities here? Got your router up to speed, Frank S? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 09:44:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01751; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:40:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:40:03 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:37:42 -0700 Message-ID: <01bced36$2f1d5680$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"nDPsb1.0.ER.mLVPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12637 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 9:55 AM Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >At 4:46 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip a bunch of good calcs] > > >Ok, agree with your numbers. I goofed converting kg to lbs. Thought that >looked wrong. Thanks! > >> >>I don't think he was putting out over 2 hp, but >>the rest is OU from Hydrino formation in the >>iron-water-iron friction interface, and it is >>up to an experiment to find out. >[snip] >> >>Regards, Frederick > >Yes, worth an experiment. However, I think there is cause to think maybe >some water was lost and the heat came from oxidation of the steel. The oxidation of a pound of iron gives about 1,800 btu. Rumford got about 4,300 grains (4,000/7000 lbs) of iron residues. :-) With so >little in the way of shavings it is logical to think the rest of the steel >oxidized. But where did the rust go? Maybe the rust/water mixture spilled >over the side of the cannon and evaporated. Maybe the "horses" drank it. :-) The water boiloff/evaporation >on the cannon sides would still be counted towards cooling the cannon, >though maybe some water made it off the cannon to the ground? > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 10:08:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14178; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:05:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:05:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:06:38 -0900 To: "Frederick J. Sparber" , From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"wKmEq.0.NT3.ijVPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12638 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:37 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >The oxidation of a pound of iron gives about 1,800 btu. Rumford got about >4,300 grains (4,000/7000 lbs) of iron residues. :-) > Gee, I thought you said, "He only got about a half pound of iron filings for his effort, so it must have been mostly friction work." Maybe the residue was rusted. If 4000 lbs rusted, that would be 7.2x10^6 BTU. That dwarfs the 2.94x10^4 BTUs to boil the 26.5 lbs of water. Looking at it another way, less than 1 percent of the residue had to rust to account for the heat. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 10:12:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15549; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:11:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:11:17 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: , "Horace Heffner" Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:09:35 -0700 Message-ID: <01bced3a$a3418f00$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"mIgVs.0.ro3.3pVPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12639 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: Frederick J. Sparber ; vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 11:05 AM Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >At 10:37 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >> >>The oxidation of a pound of iron gives about 1,800 btu. Rumford got about >>4,300 grains (4,000/7000 lbs) of iron residues. :-) Horace, 4,300 Grains is 4.3/7.0 pounds! :-) >> > > >Gee, I thought you said, "He only got about a half pound of iron filings for his >effort, so it must have been mostly friction work." > >Maybe the residue was rusted. If 4000 lbs rusted, that would be 7.2x10^6 >BTU. That dwarfs the 2.94x10^4 BTUs to boil the 26.5 lbs of water. > >Looking at it another way, less than 1 percent of the residue had to rust >to account for the heat. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 11:48:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA14708; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:45:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:45:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:47:14 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Quasars Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"192Pr2.0.kb3.HBXPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12640 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From Letters to the Editor, New Scientist ,April 1995 ,pg 54: Quasars must be very distant because of thier enormous red shift. For us to be able to see them at all at such distances they must also have great sources of power, faint though they are. And ,because they are so distant we are seeing them young, so their spectral lines don`t evince a lot in the way of heavy elements. Now the best theory about their power source (that they comprise juvenile galaxies falling into biggish black holes) has been shot by the Hubble telescope: lots of quasars don't have galaxies near them (New Scientist, Science, 21 January). Imagine (and I wish I had some green ink in which to pen this) a number of spacecraft moving about our own galaxy. Further imagine that these are fusion-powered by an efficient drive that only emits appreciable amounts of radiation directly aft. We would only be able to see the ones that ,by chance, are moving directly away from us. They would exhibit no tangential motion. they would be very faint. They would have enormous red shifts. And they would only display the spectra of light elements. In fact ,they would look exactly like qua... Adrian Bowyer University of Bath From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 11:59:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16039; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:56:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:56:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34661546.2AE1 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:55:50 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214@mail.eisa.net.au> <3465C4B9.28C8@interlaced.net> <3465CC50.4EB0D B6A verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2HL8X1.0.Ww3.QLXPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12641 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > I understand that you fixed the ball setup with the faraday cage. This is OK, but this not the same experiment. I see your point, Hamdi, but it is hard for me to see the harm in making the two high-voltage leads you show in your sketch rigid rods. If this nullifies the effect, it is indeed very strange! > > I propose and other setup which is more compatible with the original: > (snip Hamdi's sketch) I'm sorry I missed your selected configuration, Hamdi - I have not followed this thread closely. Your point is a good one - perhaps if the effect could be verified in the more complex setup, the one I proposed could be used for routine tests? In fact, much could be learned (perhaps) if it would work in one configuration and not the other? One might also argue that perhaps ANY Faraday cage might nullify the effect, for other than electrostatic reasons, since it seems to be dealing with some unknown force. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 13:42:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07602; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:21:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:21:44 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:21:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199711092121.NAA25393 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Quasars Resent-Message-ID: <"UeLwb2.0.bs1.dbYPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12642 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > > From Letters to the Editor, New Scientist ,April 1995 ,pg 54: > > Quasars must be very distant because of thier enormous red shift. For > us to be able to see them at all at such distances they must also have > great sources of power, faint though they are. And ,because they are so > distant we are seeing them young, so their spectral lines don`t evince > a lot in the way of heavy elements. > > Now the best theory about their power source (that they comprise > juvenile galaxies falling into biggish black holes) has been shot by > the Hubble telescope: lots of quasars don't have galaxies near them > (New Scientist, Science, 21 January). > > Imagine (and I wish I had some green ink in which to pen this) a > number of spacecraft moving about our own galaxy You would have to imagine a lot more than just that. Many have huge, multi light year long radio emissions that bulge out into tremendously large radio galaxies as they are often called. These emissions are in both directions, and normal to our line of sight (or at least at an angle to it). So any such space craft would have to additionally send out jets normal to the direction of propogation, obviously that notion is absurd. But since you bring up quasars, you ought to know that they can easily be explained if they are in essence, white holes. And the existence of white holes can easily be explained if you consider that our current paradigm thinking regarding black holes is incorrect. In another recent article written by Steve Carlip of Davis, it has been put forward that the quantum vacuum can boil, thus anticipating that the quantum vacuum has two states of existence. I will call these liquid and vapor for familiarity, and will call the quantum vacuum medium simply aether, the old name for it from eons of thought. You see, we think that a black hole results from the hole pulling everything inward. This is nonesense. The aether vapor of our universe is flowing into the BH's and all of the aether resonances we call matter are flowing in along with it. Inside the event horizon, the aether vapor runs into itself due to the geometry of the spherical convergence. This leads to a hydraulic jump, and commensurate amplification in the energy density, aka aether pressure. When a super sonic aircraft flies through moist air, flash condensation of the water vapor leads to the formation of a sort of cotton ball cloud that is attached to and flies along with, the craft. It is quite a sight. the same supersonic condensation is occuring inside of the event horizon (and at the innermost Planck scale E-35 meter diameter convergence of matter waves for that matter). The event horizon is simply the radius at which the inflow velocity reaches c. and the core of the bh inside, is a huge ball of aether condensate. It is **inertially** confined and at extreme pressure, ie, ~E111 eV/m^3. If you breach confinement of that beast, it will shoot out of its cocoon. And such will be the case if you have two BH's orbit one another. They are both inertially confined, but only one can win! The smaller BH is going to finally breach confinement as the inflow fails to maintain confinement of the core. When that happens, a jet is going to shoot outward toward the other BH (probably a source of gamma ray bursts when smaller BH's merge in galaxies). for two huge BH's, such as the cores of two merging galaxies, the PE inside the BH's should allow the smaller of the BH's to blast its way like a rocket out and away from the larger hole. The larger hole will swallow up the emitted jet, and the smaller core will blast out and away from the region of the merger due to the recoil from the emissions. the problem with this is, however, that the core which previously was inertially confined, no longer resides at the convergence of the aether momentum as the larger BH has stolen the total of the inflow of aether from the surrounding ocean we call a universe. And so this smaller BH now finds itself exposed, and no longer inertially confined by the super sonic inflow of aether vapor to maintain the intensity of the pressure of the hydraulic jump. So what is the smaller BH to do? Well, simple, maintain its inertial confinement, but this time via boiling. This is how the plasma in a laser ICF reactor manages to prolong the time duration of the fusion process in the huge devices such as at LLNL, and the proposed billion dollar larger version of same. The explosion of the matter away from the core of both the fusion pellet plasma, and the exposed BH core, lead to it taking time for the boiling process of disipation to transpire. In the case of the BH, this process will take a very long time because we are talking about a blob of aether condensate that accumulated from inflow over billions of years. So when you see discussion about quasars, what you are reading about are white holes, IMO. And the reason they are red shifted is not necessarily because they are moving away from us, but rather because they are boiling away aether and thus emitting in essence, brand new space. ie, we are comfortable with the notion of the expansion of the universe, but notice that with that assumption comes the necessity of the volume of space between the Milky Way and neighboring galaxies must be increasing. This is the prominent explanation. However, no one supposes that all of that extra space that appears must actually be emitted! Quasars are just one tiny contribution to the formation of new aether vapor. The process has been going on since the BB, when a huge huge core of aether condensate breached confinement in a similar manner. That core, however, exploded into a rarefied region of aether vapor, and so the entire core boiled at once. Sort of like boiling water in a microwave oven, you get nothing for a long time, then the entire volume flashes all at once. Any way, the emission of new aether vapor is taking place all the time in stars throughout the universe. That, is the source, of the expansion of the universe. And we missed it when we incorrectly interpreted Einsteins equation, E = mc^2 to mean that mass is not conserved. It is, but what we call empty space is massive. What we call "mass" is simply the amount of aether associated with a localized standing wave in and composed of, aether. You have never seen, or sensed anything that was not aether in motion. Everything is aether resonances of one form or another. That is what atoms are, they are solitons in aether. Aether is not some whispy, not really there stuff that is relegated meerly to the propogation of EM wave energy and photons. Aether is the stuff out of which matter itself is composed. It is the ocean of substance that has an organized structure of acoustic standing waves permeating it, which waves we call "spacetime". Aether is conserved. Aether is rigid, ie compressible. Aether has no tensile quality, it is a fluid. Aether has two states, vapor and condensate. Aether is massive. The velocity of propogation of waves is dependent on local aether density (this leads to refraction, aka gravitational lensing, and it leads to the aether being a dispersive medium and that leads to the ability to form solitons, aka Light Bullets in laser optics, and aka matter or particles in QM) Spacetime is an acoustic standing wave structure permeating the ocean of aether we call a universe. Matter consists of soliton standing waves coupled to the spacetime wave manifold of resonant energy. Forces are nothing but the interaction of the waves surrounding this soliton and the waves surrounding that soliton. The aether has no **intrinsic** mechanism for exhibiting a tensile pull on any part of the aether or any soliton composed of that aether. However, wave interferences that are in phase opposition do induce a precession of the solitons toward one another, and ergo lead to an apparent attraction force mechanism. Thus, electric, nuclear strong forces can exhibit what we call an attraction mechanism, but this is only because we are ignorant to the role of the balance of the universe. BTW, some quasars are very bright intrinsically. ie, you could see 3C273 with a small 4 inch backyard telescope pointed in the right direction. and as for their being distant objects, read up on the work of Arp, Burbidge and others who have shown that quasars tend to be grouped around forground galaxies. ie, you can have a galaxy at a very low redshift value of say Z = 0.14, but then you can have an anamolously high number of quasars around that galaxy with red shift values of Z = 2.0 etc. If the Z values are interpreted as being due to velocity Doppler shifting, then the quasars must be billions of light years in the background of the forground galaxies. Ergo, there is no reason for the grouping phenomena, it would be accidental. However, if quasars are emitted during the merging of super massive bh cores, then the sputtering of blobs of aether condensate is more understandable and you would expect to find high red shift objects around highly disturbed local galaxies. That is indeed where we see them, though the concept of non velocity red shifting is so controversial that journals won't accept papers discussing it, but then we know about that in the CF industry! Despite this phenomena, more and more evidence is accumulating that there are anamolous red shifts all over the universe. and we are seeing these papers slowly be allowed to be published, and slowly they are taking hold. The real crux of the problem is actually quite simple. We believe that a bh pulls things in. If that is the case, then nothing could get out and away from those out stretched arms. But think carefully about that notion and see if you can see that it is absolutely absurd and unfounded. We do not in the least, according to today's theories, know that gravitation is a pull. All we really know is that two objects accelerate toward one another according to an equation F = GMm/R^2. But no where in that equation, or in the derivations, is it stated that gravitation is a pull exerted between the two objects. That notion is a creation of our feeble brains that like to attribute the action to the two objects we think are involved. But what we are blinded to is the fact that there is a third object involved in this scenario, namely, the balance of the universe. The two objects we like to study, are equally accelerating away from the rest of the universe as they are toward one another. So, does it make more sense to you that the earth, sun, Andromeda galaxy each have little tenticals that reach out and touch each and every proton, electron etc. in your body such that they all pull on you with just the right amount of force? Or, does it make more sense to you that the universe is permeated with wave energy, and that the matter in your body filters out some of that wave energy because it is out of step with the resonances of the soliton wave forms, or just atoms, that compose your body? In the former situation, those tenticles must know how hard to pull depending on how far away you are, and it leads to quite a spaghetti mess with strings crossing strings throughout the universe, all pulling and getting wound into knots. In the latter situation, all you need to contemplate is the view factor of the objects filtering out the incident radiation. This is so simple that Le Sage described that the mathematics were identical in Newton's day. Any way, if a BH is pulling things in, then you cannot expose stuff that fell in to the exterior universe ever again. You get a non sensical singularity. While if a BH is the result of a run away convergent inflow that crushed the aether into a more dense state, then everything is being literally blown inward, and the interior is extremely pressurized and waiting to explode outward. Do a web Search for "Alan Bridle's Home Page" and take a look at his images of quasars and their radio jets and tell me that it doesn't look just like you had some form of breach of confinement! Alternately, look for the "3CCR Atlas". In that atlas there are about a hundred beautiful full color images of quasars radio jets showing them flow, ram, bend, etc. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 13:42:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA08136; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:25:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:25:49 -0800 Message-ID: <34661C61.1B1E earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:26:09 -0600 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: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, ceti@msn.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, dennis@wazoo.com, design73 aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, rgeorge hooked.net, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, jaeger eneco-usa.com, bockris@acs.tamu.edu Subject: Motorola 1995-6 CETI cells? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"e6Msd3.0.u-1.RfYPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12643 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John E. Steck, and vorts, Gene Mallove in Infinite Energy # 7, Mar.-April, 1996, page 3, wrote: "Motorola tested Patterson cells, and found that wtih at least one cell they were able to turn the input power off, walk away, and have the output power of 20 watts (thermal) continue for at least a half a day! Electrolyte was flowing through the cell at a sustained input/output temperature difference (delta-T) of 15 degrees C at a flow rate of about 20 ml/min. Hard to fake those numbers!" On Thursday afternoon, Sept. 4, 1997, Christian Imert at CETI in Sarasota, Florida in a pohone call told me that as a result of their tests, Motorola offered to buy out CETI for $ 15 million, but was refused. I've heard about Motorola tests several times, and want to check out the details. Does anyone have any references, the dates, the location, the laboratory, the researchers, whether specific CETI people helped run the tests, any discussions on the Net, etc? Thanks, Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 13:47:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28796; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:38:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:38:01 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:33:58 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Vacuum Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Resent-Message-ID: <"KuX3W1.0.r17.sqYPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12644 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John - Vacuum prevents flows of ionized *mass* (in this case, air) coupled to charges existing on the electrodes. It does nothing for induced charge, the polarization that takes place in otherwise neutral matter in the presence of electric fields. That's why a symmetrical situation between the electrodes and the walls becomes imoportant. The thrust due entirely to the reaction mass of emitted charged particles on the electrodes in a vacuum at the power range here would seem to be negligable, although I haven't tried to figure that out numerically. Even then, that thrust would mostly be symmetrically balanced out, since the bulk of it would be electrons and ionized molecules discharged from the cathode towards the anode which are the ends of the barbell-shaped arrangement from this experiment. > What SAIC experiment? They did contract work for the Air Force. 1983 or thereabouts, 19kv on assymetrical electrodes in a shaped vacuum chamber, looking for the Biefeld-Brown effect. It was mostly null, with a slight thrust detected towards the *negative* polarity at one point. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 13:48:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA29898; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:46:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:46:14 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3465C4B9.28C8 interlaced.net> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:42:21 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Resent-Message-ID: <"L80tK2.0._I7.ZyYPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12646 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank - > If the box deflects with the device on, rule out > aerodynamic and static electric forces. Haven't you ruled out the anomaly too with this setup? The capacitance in the foil surrounding the electrodes would neutralize the net assymetry - the net charge separation - on the whole system that you're trying to examine in the first place. Even though it's grounded, it would still act as a capacitor 'aimed in the opposite direction' since both electrodes are affecting it from the inside. Don't you think? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 13:53:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12367; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:43:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:43:38 -0800 Message-ID: <34662E95.57C interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 16:43:49 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: MAGNETOSTRICTIVESONOLUMINESCENCEOU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gQZg01.0.813.9wYPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12645 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I goofed. Frank Stenger wrote: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Then I could wrap a driver coil around the >glass tube and drive with the oscillator. If the nickel slug were the >right length and suspended at its center with a teflon spider, maybe >it could be excited in its fundamental mode with a loop at each end and >a node at the suspension spider. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess with a center suspension on the nickel slug, I should excite it at its 1/2 wave frequency, not the fundamental like I said above. Let's see, I get the velocity of sound in nickel as 4973 meters/sec. If I use my oscillator at 75 kHz then I guess: wavelength = velocity/frequency = (4973 m/s)/75000 /s = 0.0663 meters = 6.63 cm so, a half-wave slug of nickel should be 3.31 cm long, or about 1.31 in. Does this look right? I have some almost cubes of nickel but I don't think I could get a slug more than 1 inch long - I guess I would need to boost the frequency a bit. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 14:17:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04287; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:13:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:13:57 -0800 (PST) From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3463D963.65D1 interlaced.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:17:34 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace Resent-Message-ID: <"syHoW.0.s21.ZMZPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12647 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re voltage regulator: Radio Shack sells an integrated voltage regulator for about $2.00 in a "bubble pack". I forget the type number---LM-317 or some such? The outpot voltage is set by a an external resistance ratio. See instructions on the back of the bubble package. It also can be connected to regulate current, too. It does have a minimum output operating voltage: I don't remember the value, but it is around 1.25 V, so it might be marginal for Horace'e work. This unit is simple and reliable. It can dissipate a few watts in free air, maybe about 10 watts on a good heat sink. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 14:49:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22973; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:41:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:41:54 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <346c397a.23821951 mail.eisa.net.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:46:05 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"y3nWx.0.ic5.mmZPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12648 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I haven't been folling this thread very closely. However, off the top of my head, I think that part (or maybe all) of the difference between 1.47 V for enthalpy and 1.23 V for free energy of water <--> H2 + 1/2 O2 reaction is the entropy change (the gases have much more entropy than the liquid), plus a small contribution from the PV work. I don't have time to check this out now. But those of you interested in this thread should do the homework before getting too speculative. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 15:40:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00584; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:37:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:37:05 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971109112301_1422142260 mrin38> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:41:16 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"tyT7f.0.29.WaaPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12649 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: T. Stolper wrote: > >I see Michael's point with respect to the Piantelli experiment, as described >in the 1994 paper by Focardi, Habel & Piantelli; but I don't see what that >has to do with the Mills-type gas-phase cells. Where is the "reacting >surface" in the latter? > >Michael, where did you see those diagrams of Mills-type gas phase cells? If >on the BLP website, could you provide the web page? I am at the same disadvantage now, too. The BLP web site links to experimental results no longer work! So I couldn't go back and review their information. The list of references is now also very truncated from its former glory (though as I remember, not many of the references were generally available). >From a few things that I saved from earlier browses, there are phrases to the effect of hydrogen gas "flowing over" the catalyst. This implies a surface, and if the reaction occurrs at the catalyst surface, then this would be a "reaction surface" (my words, though). The BLP calorimetry is described, rather than shown. Also, their latest posts referred to "Calvet" calorimetry. I could not find out what this is, so I will have to hold comments on this part of their work. ***Please note that on BLP and other Vortex subjects I speak my own opinions and not those of General Atomics. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 16:28:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04777; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:09:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:09:46 -0800 Message-ID: <346650D3.5D2F interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:09:55 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Trrzr2.0.ZA1.93bPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12650 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > The capacitance in the foil surrounding the electrodes would neutralize the > net assymetry - the net charge separation - on the whole system that you're > trying to examine in the first place. Even though it's grounded, it would > still act as a capacitor 'aimed in the opposite direction' since both > electrodes are affecting it from the inside. Don't you think? > You may be right, Rick, but since the "device" seems to be a rather compact electric dipole, I would think that most of the action would be localized near the dipole. The field energy around the dipole would fall off like 1/r^3 I think, so I would hope that if the box were big enough it wouldn't be much different than having the device in a closed lab room. I was assuming that the supposed force was independent of (or insensitive) to the fringe areas of the dipole field where they termimate on room walls or big box walls. This certainly may not be a valid viewpoint. Let's put it this way, if the device were fixed inside of a grounded Faraday cage and STILL caused a net force to act on the cage - time for high blood pressure! If the device won't work in the cage, then why did it work in a lab room - or outside - the fringe field of the dipole will always terminate on something, be it the room walls or the nearby trees and ground, etc. Maybe you need Hamdi's variation of the Faraday cage, but if this force is all this picky, it makes a valid test quite tricky. (poem?) I wonder if this device could run with one electrode at ground but still isolated in a localized dipole. The reason I say this is that I have a mothballed 100 kv power supply but the thing has the negative side at ground. I have suspended two coke cans from the + terminal and they certainly are repelled by the like charges at 100 kv! This is no Van de graff, it can output about 200 watts at 100 kv. Let's see, a high vacuum pump - a 48 inch fluoresent light tube modified with accelerating rings - a proton source at one end, a target at the other ----- anyone for a 100 kv proton interaction neutron source? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 16:39:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09442; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:33:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:33:24 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:32:37 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <34674cf4.11458307 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <971109112301_1422142260 mrin38> In-Reply-To: <971109112301_1422142260 mrin38> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NSrKA1.0.JJ2.IPbPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12652 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:23:01 -0500 (EST), Tstolper aol.com wrote: >In a post of Nov. 6, Larry Wharton referred to "the reactor electrode." What >electrode? The BLP gas-phase cells that I've seen described aren't >electrolytic. They have a heated metal filament in them, not an electrode. > >In a post written c. Nov. 4, Larry made a telling point re the experiments of >"Panatelli" (presumably meaning Piantelli), to the effect that he could have >been off in the calorimetry by a factor of two if he didn't take into account >the cleaning effect of the hydrogen atmosphere in which the nickel rod was >placed. One thing bothers me slightly about this. How do we know that "decreased emissivity" isn't actually CF, that has always been discounted as a change in emissivity? IOW has the "cleaning action" and decrease in emissivity been confirmed by methods other than a change in heat flow? Also, does this effect occur with any gas other than hydrogen? Is it stronger with hydrogen absorbing metals? [snip] I know I'm going to get stomped on for this, but it had to be said.:) 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 16:41:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24979; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:33:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:33:49 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: preliminary note Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:32:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <34663f43.7952589 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pL66t2.0.766.dPbPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12651 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:15:33 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >The idea that particle stimulation of loaded metals can stimulate fusion >and particle emmision is not new. See: > >Nelson Ying and Charles W Shults III, "Cold fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and >Probability Enhancement by Boson Simulation", Infinite Energy, Vol. 1, No. >1, March-April 1995. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > I'd love to, but that is one of the ones a friend lost while moving. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 17:08:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16624; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:04:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:04:32 -0800 Message-Id: <34664BBE.219F4C26 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:48:14 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen-Horace References: <3463D963.65D1 interlaced.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"o23TL.0.a34.VsbPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12654 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > > Re voltage regulator: > > Radio Shack sells an integrated voltage regulator for about $2.00 in a > "bubble pack". I forget the type number---LM-317 or some such? LM317 comes in TO-3 as 1.5A output and LM317-L in TO-220 supply up to to 0.5A I am currently using LM 338 which supply 3A. My PS could not descend below 1.52V. I could not find a non-electronician solution for lowering the voltage without suffering voltage variations due to loading and to thermal drifts. Anyway the below setup may help (but needed be tested: 2N3055/ regulated 3-5V MJE3055 suppy o--------+---+----| e|-------+--------o out Vin | | _\_/_ | Vout | | | | | R1| | +------(---+ | |_| | | | | |/ \| | +--------| |---+ | Q2 |\e e/| Q3 | | |___| small signal hfe >200 R2| | | |_| 1K | | | |_| Gnd | | o--------+------------+---------------o Vout = Vin * R2/(R1+R2) For Vout/Vin = 1/3 : R1=1K R2=2K Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 17:12:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02753; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:05:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:05:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34664281.4A48D435 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:08:49 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6@verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214@mail.eisa.net.au> <3465C4B9.28C8@interlaced.net> <3465CC50.4EB0D B6A verisoft.com.tr> <34661546.2AE1@interlaced.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"insWE3.0.tg.wsbPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12653 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > > > I understand that you fixed the ball setup with the faraday cage. This is OK, but this not the same experiment. > > I see your point, Hamdi, but it is hard for me to see the harm in making > the two high-voltage leads you show in your sketch rigid rods. If this > nullifies the effect, it is indeed very strange! I am not sure that I understand what you say. Where is the problem with my proposed setup? What is the very strange? > > > > I propose and other setup which is more compatible with the original: > > > (snip Hamdi's sketch) > > I'm sorry I missed your selected configuration, Hamdi - I have not > followed this thread closely. Your point is a good one - perhaps if > the effect could be verified in the more complex setup, the one I > proposed could be used for routine tests? In fact, much could be > learned (perhaps) if it would work in one configuration and not the > other? One might also argue that perhaps ANY Faraday cage might > nullify the effect, for other than electrostatic reasons, since it > seems to be dealing with some unknown force. > > Frank Stenger I have the same opinion with Rick Monteverde. Your setup could nullify the effect, because the a mirrored electric field distribution between balls and cage acting to the cage may create these "anomalous forces on opposite direction could reduce ore nulli fy total forces acting on system. The advantage of my setup is creating simply a smaller laboratory with moving walls (hanged Faraday cage) which any force electrostatic or ionic force applied from the ball setup could be detected. The original setup (http://members.aol.com/overunity/elec pexp/elecpexp.html) does not offers to detect any reaction forces and still claim the Newton third law is violated here. Author is contented with listing and calculating of possible forces (with classical physics) acting on the setup and stating these for ces are one or two order of magnitude less then the forces than the needed. (What long sentence!). Anyway, your setup is more simple to build and test and if positive result is obtained this will be far more interesting and we will be in real trouble to find an explanation for this in classical terms. But negative result does not invalidate the origina l claims. I am just figured (unfortunately) that even a opposite force acted on the cage at my setup and causing a movement will not invalidate the original claims. (I originally thought it will). Who advocate the author claims could explain this counter action as not action reaction forces between cage and the setup but a independent force acting from an unknown frame (ether?) to the cage as a result of the electrical stress created on the cage. Although this is a weak argument but it could not be falsified simply . I am surprised how the things are becoming so complex in a while! :3) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 17:25:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA19605; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:22:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:22:03 -0800 Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <346651DA.6CB23985 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:14:18 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: <199711082236.OAA23729 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OhkjO2.0.Eo4.w6cPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12656 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: ... "The difference is, in this case it is space that is rushing outward past the stars and not the stars rushing out away from us. What this allows is that quasars are much closer to us than astro physicists think today. But Arp and others have collected huge amounts of data showing that this must be the case. The problem has been, there has been no theory to explain why one should believe in an anamolous non velocity red shift." Hi Ross, Does the following quotation represent a hopeless disagreement with your aether theory? "I most certainly agree with the conclusion that the red shift in the light of a body is indicative of its light rushing towards us and not the body rushing away from us. However, I see the mechanism as the interaction of the light of different bodies and not merely "space that is rushing outward past the stars"." Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 17:28:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04783; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:19:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:19:04 -0800 (PST) From: hamdix verisoft.com.tr Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:59:06 +0300 Message-Id: <9711092359.AA31000 rainbow.verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"tvTA82.0.fA1.74cPq" mx2> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12655 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 17:36:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA06288; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:32:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:32:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:31:47 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: Mike Carrell cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT leveling In-Reply-To: <19971109122015852.AAA182 default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Xgor11.0.AY1.iGcPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12657 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Mike Carrell wrote: -snip- >> >>What is a good idea is a bubble level on the base and three screws to level >>it on any surface for the demonstration to amaze your friends and >>neighbors. >> >>Mike Carrell >> That's what I used on the ffSMOT board. Although I ran into a problem with three bubbles. I used two (2) string-level bubbles ( about $1.95) and one (1) center-round bubble. I assumed that if I used a Router to slot the board, it would be parallel to the surface-face*.. humm.. I installed one going West to East on the bottom & one North to South on the Side. I set the round-centering bubble (about $3.95) in the middle. The board is adusted with the three carriage bolts (with the rounded head down, and end slit for a srewdriver adjustment.) --- Observation: that at no time can I get ALL to agree equally. (albeit close, very close). Maybe a bad or warpped-bubble stick I guess. Everthing Looked good and straight during install. Maybe a warped board, but it's a 1 3/4" thick Oak Door Piece, that was chosen for its (assumed) flatness and rigidity. I'm intending to get a laser shot across the corners to check this warpage out soon. --- Thought: maybe two or more bubbles in any case. --- Finally, with the ~zest~ I've seen in the roll-aways, It shouldn't be all that critical. ("L"evel of course is desired), the board was with-in a 4 foot carpenters level before the final bubble twicking. hope this might help someone, -=se=- a more expensive bubble(s)? :( the ball always reacts well on the track however, stoping at random areas, and doesn't appear to favor any low spot(s) when pushed from different areas. Now, to get the $%$^^ loop CLOSED! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 18:09:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA09901; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:00:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:00:26 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Paul Pantone Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:59:17 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <346964a3.17522077 mail.eisa.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wLDj42.0.cQ2.ugcPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12658 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Those who haven't already done so might like to check out http://www.inett.com/himac/geet.html and http://www.inett.com/himac/ppantone.html and http://www.geet.com/ 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 18:11:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01334; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:08:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:08:02 -0800 Message-Id: <34665B7E.B0B4AFC7 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:55:26 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT leveling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MhTJH1.0.fK.0ocPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12659 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve Ekwall wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Mike Carrell wrote: > -snip- > >> > >>What is a good idea is a bubble level on the base and three screws to level > >>it on any surface for the demonstration to amaze your friends and > >>neighbors. > >> > >>Mike Carrell > >> > That's what I used on the ffSMOT board. Although I ran into a problem with > three bubbles. I used two (2) string-level bubbles ( about $1.95) and one > (1) center-round bubble. [snip] Hi, Bubbles comes in very large range of sensitivity and calibration errors. Expensive ones have less or not measurable calibration errors but the curvature of the bubble tube giving the sensibility and often designed with large curvature for less sensibility . This is easing the usage. I fortunately found a very cheap user calibratible and extreme sensible short bubles (sensible to 1mm lift at one meter) problably designed for floor square ceramic mounting(I did not recall the proper term for this job). Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 18:21:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13278; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:18:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:18:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:18:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711100218.UAA06187 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "vortex" From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Sliding Water Luminescence? Resent-Message-ID: <"y-VZM3.0.OF3.8ycPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12660 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:27 AM 11/9/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >If one inserted a four-blade rotor inside a 4"... >Any o-u possibilities here? Got your router up to speed, Frank S? :-) When we 1st heard about sonoluminescence we rigged a small lobed rotor on the end of a long shaft chucked in a router and learned 3 things: 1. A long shaft sticking out of a router running at full speed can turn into an horribly unbalanced metal whip real fast! 2. A high-speed rotor spinning in an open vessel of water will usually get you real wet. 3. That particular high-speed rotor under water made no perceptible luminescence (we fully dark-adapted before viewing the experiment). The rotor wasn't fitted to anything...we just immersed it in a relatively large container and spun it up. There was lots of "cavitation noise". 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 18:22:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA02697; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:21:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:21:27 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110102246.006f933c cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:22:46 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: MAGNETOSTRICTIVESONOLUMINESCENCEOU Cc: In-Reply-To: <34662E95.57C interlaced.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Woj3.0.2g.c-cPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12661 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 16:43 9/11/97 -0500, Frank Stenger wrote: >I guess with a center suspension on the nickel slug, I should excite >it at its 1/2 wave frequency, not the fundamental like I said above. >Let's see, I get the velocity of sound in nickel as 4973 meters/sec. >If I use my oscillator at 75 kHz then I guess: > > wavelength = velocity/frequency = (4973 m/s)/75000 /s > = 0.0663 meters > = 6.63 cm >so, a half-wave slug of nickel should be 3.31 cm long, or about 1.31 in. >Does this look right? I have some almost cubes of nickel but I don't >think I could get a slug more than 1 inch long - I guess I would need >to boost the frequency a bit. We resonate sapphire rods in their fundamental longditudinal mode to measure the Q-factor of the material and a reasonably accurate formula for a mode frequency is : fn = n/(2L) (E/rho)^(1/2) Where fn = mode frequency in Hz n = mode number (ie 1 = fundamental stretching shrinking mode) L = length of rod E = Youngs modulus rho = density. I believe (E/rho)^(1/2) is in fact the speed of sound in the material so this is your 4973 m/s. Using your 75Khz then gives a length for the rod of 3.31cm. So to answer your question, Yes it does look right. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 19:02:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA16432; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:58:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:58:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <346667C6.63EA earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:47:50 -0600 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 Subject: The GEET System Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------66DE218C63D9" Resent-Message-ID: <"Wmpr32.0.b04.LXdPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12662 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------66DE218C63D9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.inett.com/himac/geet.html --------------66DE218C63D9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="geet.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="geet.html" Content-Base: "http://www.inett.com/himac/geet.html" The GEET System

The GEET System - An Invention by Paul Pantone

        I have found  another idea and this one looks 
great  The inventor Paul Pantone has developed a system 
that Cracks the fuel down no matter the fuel  or 
additives  gasoline diesel old oil or even crude oil.. His 
invention called A GEET  Global Environmental Energies 
Technology

       This is a reprint article from the magazine 
Extraordinary Science published by the Tesla Society. A 
group of people dedicated to restoring the suppressed 
ideas of Nikola Tesla But also to help in development of 
other new ideas and other previous suppressed inventions. 
they are an invaluable resource for the latest technical 
advances I am a member and  I recommend joining to help 
our voices be heard . Contact  The International Tesla 
Society  P.O. Box 5636 Colorado Springs CO. 80931 
(719)475-0918. They have a Resource guide that is full of 
publications on many suppressed ideas.
       I post this article because this man has a very 
similar but better system and I am prepared to help him in 
his fight to get the idea out. I have  seen it run and 
from what I have learned about it so far makes sense. it 
definitely had cleaner exhaust. I hope to link this idea 
out so please keep passing the information around We will WIN.
 
GEET   Technology , New Frontiers in plasma physics and 
alternative 

Energy By Paul Pantone  PO Box 439 Price Utah 84501
The GEET Fuel Processor ... The Ultimate Home Power Source.
       The Geet fuel processor may soon make it possible 
for you to own  the ultimate home production power 
plant... one that heats  your water, generates 
electricity, takes care of heating and air conditioning, 
simply by utilizing waste heat from refrigeration and 
applying it to storage or hot water, while the generator 
is giving you all the electricity you want.
       In simple definition, the  GEET  Fuel Processor 
could be called  a new type of carburetor with a miniature 
refinery built in. With it, There is no need for catalytic 
converters, smog pumps and many other costly items on cars 
, as the GEET fuel processor is not just a fuel delivery 
system it is also a pollution elimination unit! Your 
mileage will be greatly increased if you are truly 
consuming ALL of the available energy From whatever fuel 
you may be using. 
       I began working on the original concept of better 
mileage over fifteen years ago, During the fifteen years 
of testing and research, I was able to achieve the goals 
of ZERO pollution, while running  internal combustion 
engines on fuel such as crude oil, battery acid, cleaning 
solvents, even gasoline... some of the tests were done 
with mixtures with as much as 80% water
IMPOSSIBLE ???
   SEEING IS BELIEVING !
       Having demonstrated the GEET Fuel Processor 
countless times, I heard over and over " thats 
impossible." Most of the hundred scientists who have been 
invited to help in this project have Refused to even come 
out to look at it, claiming it is impossible. Yet after 
repeated showings , many potential financial  backers have 
depended on the professional opinion of qualified people, 
who did not even take the time to even look.
       One scientist -Jim _ who Wanted to help me was 
employed at a major United  States Testing Laboratory. We 
spent several days reviewing how and why the device 
worked. Jim claimed he could get all the necessary funding 
to get through the R&D stages by telling the other 
scientists at work what he had viewed, Jim told me to call 
him at work the following Wednesday. 
       When I , called the number I was informed that Jim 
was asked to resign. They told me that Jim must have been 
doing some drugs, if he truly believed  that he saw a 
gasoline engine run on crude oil with no pollution.
       This type of response is very normal to this 
inventor. Many sincere people have turned their backs and 
walked away, because of the input of knowledge of others 
who laugh and say it is absolutely not possible.
       However , a few years ago , at a smog certification 
station in California, this fuel system was demonstrated 
while being monitored and videotaped. While running a 
gasoline engine on crude oil, the final exhaust was 
actually cleaner than  the air in the establishment --zero 
pollution. This does not defy physics, it only operates 
within the most basic laws of  physics in a unique manner. 
Basics of GEET technology
        The GEET fuel processor is a self inducing  plasma 
generator. In my case, the working proto type was 
developed long before the technical analysis was  
attempted. Plasma research is a fairly new field of 
science. Most of the available text on this subject are 
from foreign countries.
        The technology used on the GEET fuel processor is 
a combination of very basic scientific principles which 
fall within most of the normal rules and laws of 
thermodynamics.
        Put quite simply  the exhaust heat is transferred 
to the incoming fuel, which is in a vacuum, and the 
overall configuration  provides a molecular breakdown 
within the vacuum , the speed of the molecular reaction, 
or breakdown, is greatly magnified.
The GEET Plasma Generator
       The phenomenon which occurs within and around the 
GEET Fuel Processor, can best be described as controlled 
lightning. As masses of cold and warm air colliding, an 
electrical discharge occurs. The specific lengths of each 
colliding mass determines the type  and the amount of 
discharge. 
       It can be a bolt of lightning, or if the 
configuration of masses is conductive to a radial  type of 
discharge it may appear as a ball of energy. Many 
discharges of this nature are so small they are not 
visible to the human eye. Others are magnified by moisture 
and radiate in an energy field which is visible as colored 
light.
       When the electromagnetic field is radial as well as 
longitudinal, and balanced to create the center of the 
plasma reaction, maximum efficiency of the field is 
accomplished. This is done within the GEET Fuel Processor, 
as the plasma is created on demand. Using a steady self 
generated magnetic field one does not have the problem of 
random Plasma clusters, as every molecule is held as a 
constant potential contributor to the demand and the 
demand controls the field which stabilizes itself within a 
specific ratio.
       The elemental components of the GEET Fuel Processor 
allow the transfer of virtually all the generated heat 
into the plasma, which further stabilizes the 
electromagnetic field, as well as increases the electron 
flow at any specific need, on demand.
        In the GEET device the plasma fields is generated 
internally. Many attempts to use external electrical 
mechanical devices to enhance the production of plasmas in 
the GEET fuel processor, have all failed. This has 
occurred because the outside interference has opposed the 
"natural" electromagnetic field, which is self-generated 
in the GEET fuel processor. Thus the entire magnetic field 
collapses and entire system shuts down. 
        In conventional generators, the means of 
introduction of the magnetic flow is perpendicular or 
angled to the plasma tube through wave guides, the 
effectiveness is diminished due the turbulence created. 
By  simply changing the position of the electrode to the 
center of the plasma field, the turbulence is eliminated, 
thus more usable energy is created. Furthermore, less 
extraneous equipment is used to produce and control the 
plasma.
        The movement within the GEET Fuel Processor is 
"focused" to the specific flow direction of the Plasma 
being created, thereby maximizing and intensifying the 
magnetic field and enhancing molecular, or atomic, 
disassociation.
        Without all other elements increasing to equal 
proportions, one cannot expect that merely increasing the 
electric arc/magnetic field will be the main reason for 
specific success of any given test. When the ideal plasma 
reaction has been created is the time to begin increase or 
decreasing all parameters involved at their respective 
equal, or balanced, increments to satisfy an increase or 
decrease in the plasma flow. In so doing one can increase 
the Plasma flow to a viable delivery state for commercial 
use. 
Plasma Flow
       All the current studied Plasma generators, 
basically share a design and operational feature in that 
they attempt to PUSH the Plasma chamber.  One of the 
unique differences of the GEET Fuel Processor, is that 
reduced pressure (vacuum), PULLS the Plasma, which 
enhances the homogenization of the newly created fuel.
        An additional stabilizing feature within our 
Plasma unit is the recirculation zone is through and 
beyond both ends of the magnetic field, thus intensifying 
and further stabilizing the plasma.  The size of the 
recirculation zone needs to coincide to all other 
parameters within specific limitations- depending on the 
fuel source-and demand at any given time.
        The exact length of the Plasma generation chamber 
needs to be fully adjustable, to compensate for changes in 
the molecular density or massive expansions of the fuel 
being used for Plasma.  An example of this would be when 
20% battery acid is mixed with 80% saltwater and used as 
fuel; it needs a shorter Plasma chamber than the one 
needed for Alaskan Crude Oil.
       If the same or larger unit is chosen for the acid 
mix, the normal running temperatures are exceeded, and the 
balance of the plasma field is at its optimum performance 
when ambient air and the  final discharge  are at the same 
temperature, and air quality at both points are equal.
       When the plasma field tube is too short or too long 
for the density of the fuel being used, it overheats the 
high end or forms ice on the low end, respectively.  This 
characteristic is further evidence by numerous tests.  
When pollutants are noticeable there is an imbalance.
       The direction and configuration of heat applied, 
was made on many of the prior units to formulate 
conclusions.  The specific natural flow of self generated 
energy which does create its own fields (outside of 
lightning, and natural phenomenon).
       Other plasma generators using outside applied power 
seem to have less technological reason and practical use 
than the GEET fuel processor which requires no outside 
power.  Since the energy field which is radial and 
longitudinal, as well as self generated and constant, we 
may assume that the current-voltage characteristic of the 
GEET plasma field is a pulsating direct current.
New Theories Needed
        With the proper team of open minded scientists, 
this technology should be easily understood. since 
prototypes already exist. A few months ago, when the 
inventor invited scientists from all over the country, to 
help in compiling a reasonable theory or formula for why 
the invention works, he found very few takers.
       One scientist, Dr. Andreas Kurt Richter, spent most 
of a week at the inventors home as a house guest. There 
were hours of discussion on physics and unknown phenomenon.
In a letter, dated July 3, 1995, Dr. Richter states,
I am a consultant to Paul Pantone in the search for the 
scientific and 
technical explanations to understand the operation of this 
energy device.                  According to my present 
knowledge it should not work and I would not believe   it 
had I not seen it with my own eyes. It is my opinion that 
Mr. Paul W.  Pantone has invited an amazing energy device 
or engine with potential as  yet unheard of.
       Another scientist, Dr. Grant Wood, has similar 
comments. Dr. Wood has taught automotive science for most 
of the last 35 years.
       I am still seeking scientists, doctors, 
manufacturers, and all other professionals to assist me, 
not only in this but hundreds of other inventions and 
products and concepts.
Testing
       Getting testing done or the interest to get them 
done at such places as Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, 
Southwest Research Laboratories Universities, etc., is 
difficult. First you must convince them it works, and then 
have a ton of money. These laboratories have expressed 
that testing would be a waste of money, and their valuable 
time. Most simply do not understand this device. 
       To get testing done, the inventor went to numerous 
companies including Cooper Industries, Briggs and 
Stratton, Waukesha; (this list is quite long), and in most 
cases these industries were not interested, even though 
many sent representative out and can convey that the 
prototypes did in fact work. 
At first, most of the tests were accomplished on small 
internal combustion engines. Combustion studies were done 
in furnace applications to enable the inventor a better 
fuel study.
       In 1983, I approached the small engine 
manufacturers in an effort to gain knowledge and technical 
support. Up to this point I had used old beat up equipment 
for most of my testing. Briggs and Stratton was the only 
company willing  to discuss such technology which is 
advanced, they wanted to be the first engine company to go 
public.
       A few years later in 1987, I did go to Wawatosa, 
Wisconsin and ran this engine, hooked up to their testing 
dyno. These test were done on crude oils, gasoline, and 
fuel oils, mixed with water. They knew the engine worked 
and would be controversial and suggested that I try to 
market the device the device in third world countries. I 
still want to market the device in the United States first.
       A few test engines have been tested in cars. Now a 
240 kW Waukesha Generator (Model #H2475) has also been 
retrofit with the GEET Fuel Processor and the only thing 
needed to get this into production is automatic controls 
and money. 
A Pollution Solution
       Many have asked what the true value of this 
technology is. To being with, please place a value on what 
would it be worth, in dollars and cents, if you could just 
double the mileage/performance on every car, truck, 
locomotive, ship, furnace, boiler, hot water heater, etc., 
not to mention reducing pollution, on a world wide 
application?
The truth is that if you only disposed of some forms of 
toxic waste, it would be invaluable to man. And if you 
generated energy from raw crude oil, without the need for 
refineries, this would satisfy many countries all by itself.
       Although the automotive field is very large, our 
global buildup of toxic waste has become my first choice 
for production. This can be accomplished in a reasonably 
short time by installing electronic controls to the 
necessary control components.
       Utilities and communities can greatly benefit from 
the GEET Fuel Processor, while running power plants, 
desalinization plants, pumping plants, etc., all the while 
getting paid to take toxic fuel to run the plants. When 
toxic waste is transported from coast to coast there is 
always a danger of accents, and by locating toxic disposal 
units throughout the country this will shorten the risk 
and distances traveled, providing more safety to the 
public. 
        GEET (Global Environmental Energy Technology), was 
formed as a holding company for this technology. Patent 
applications have been filed for the US and foreign 
Countries. The GEET Business Trust is exclusively 
authorized as the only licensing agency of the technology. 
The Trustee/CEO of GEET is J.D. Stueben, PO Box 70283, 
West Valley City, Utah 8417-0283.
You Can Own One Soon 
       Since this technology was published in the Exotic 
Research Report and its subsequent demonstration at the 
New Energy Symposium in Denver this April, many 
developments have taken place. Contracts are being 
prepared to utilize this technology on locomotives and 
power plants in other countries and the future looks 
promising. 
       However, I want to insure that the technology is 
not suppressed. So in the interest of humanity, 1000 units 
of my original prototypes are being made available at 
$2500 each. 
       A Ford Pinto 2300 Engine has been recently 
converted to use the device and is now in the shop being 
tested. We are expending every effort to make this unit 
available to Ford Pinto owners (with the 2300 Engine) 
within the next 30 days.
       To obtain a GEET device, contact me (Paul Pantone) 
at (801) 637-2654. For those who are attending the 
upcoming International Tesla Symposium (July 18-21), we 
hope to have the car at the symposium for demonstration as 
well as our smaller prototypes. We will make a full 
demonstration of the engine.
--------------66DE218C63D9-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 19:07:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06221; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:01:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:01:33 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:50:44 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <346a7557.21798397 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"P12Od3.0.7X1.CadPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12663 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:46:05 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: >I haven't been folling this thread very closely. However, off the top of >my head, I think that part (or maybe all) of the difference between 1.47 V >for enthalpy and 1.23 V for free energy of water <--> H2 + 1/2 O2 reaction >is the entropy change (the gases have much more entropy than the liquid), >plus a small contribution from the PV work. > >I don't have time to check this out now. But those of you interested in >this thread should do the homework before getting too speculative. [snip] Almost all of it is indeed due to the latent heat of evaporation of the water. I thought however that the latest Ballard fuel cells produced liquid water as their "end product", so presumably this means that they should be able to produce almost the full 1.47 volts/cell. Comments? 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 19:18:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08690; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:15:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:15:45 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Sliding Water Luminescence? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:13:16 -0700 Message-ID: <01bced86$96817b80$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"2CECk2.0.d72.VndPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12664 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Sliding Water Luminescence? >At 10:27 AM 11/9/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>If one inserted a four-blade rotor inside a 4"... >>Any o-u possibilities here? Got your router up to speed, Frank S? :-) > >When we 1st heard about sonoluminescence we rigged a small lobed rotor on >the end of a long shaft chucked in a router and learned 3 things: > >1. A long shaft sticking out of a router running at full speed can turn >into an horribly unbalanced metal whip real fast! Don't we know it? I was thinking in terms of a short "rotor", say 1 1/2" thick with grooves on the edge, with very close coupling to the router drive-motor. >2. A high-speed rotor spinning in an open vessel of water will usually get >you real wet. Not if you guide the water in a closed or semi-closed setup. >3. That particular high-speed rotor under water made no perceptible >luminescence (we fully dark-adapted before viewing the experiment). Not quite as meticulous as the equivalent of a viscosity measuring apparatus, except driven at turbulent flow velocities with the shear plane where you want it. If you are looking for visible light 0.4 to 0.7 microns that approach is okay, but if you want to "see" Infrared with either a suitable photoconductor or Night-Vision equipment you better have the action out where it isn't absorbed by the water. I suppose you could wrap IR sensitive Film around the glass "pipe". > >The rotor wasn't fitted to anything...we just immersed it in a relatively >large container and spun it up. There was lots of "cavitation noise". Sparks in water will give you lots of "cavitation noise"too. :-) If you look at the IR-UV absorption properties of water (or even glass) I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't see anything. Regards, Frederick > >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 > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 19:19:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09246; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:17:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:17:27 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:12:14 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Voltage...Re: Hydrogen-Horace In-Reply-To: <34664BBE.219F4C26 verisoft.com.tr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"OZkhx3.0.MG2.5pdPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12665 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear vo., and Horace, When experimenting REMEMBER: Wahtever the "it" is... that you control it... it does not control you. The "zero volts" of what you reference to is under YOUR control. Simply use 2 317s ..... set one to 3 volts..... this is now "zero" .... and set the other to whatever level ABOVE 3 volts that your desire. I now return control of your experiment to you.... AND: If you use three 317s then one can be used as current regulator. SO: One is the arbitrary "floor" [at 3 volts above zero] number two is configured as voltage regulator.... and this is followed by number 3 .... which you set up as current regulator... Control. J On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > > > > Re voltage regulator: > > > > Radio Shack sells an integrated voltage regulator for about $2.00 in a > > "bubble pack". I forget the type number---LM-317 or some such? > > LM317 comes in TO-3 as 1.5A output and LM317-L in TO-220 supply up to to 0.5A > > I am currently using LM 338 which supply 3A. My PS could not descend below 1.52V. > > I could not find a non-electronician solution for lowering the voltage without suffering voltage variations due to loading and to thermal drifts. > > Anyway the below setup may help (but needed be tested: > > 2N3055/ > regulated 3-5V MJE3055 > suppy o--------+---+----| e|-------+--------o > out Vin | | _\_/_ | Vout > | | | | | > R1| | +------(---+ | > |_| | | | > | |/ \| | > +--------| |---+ > | Q2 |\e e/| Q3 > | | |___| small signal hfe >200 > R2| | | > |_| 1K | | > | |_| > Gnd | | > o--------+------------+---------------o > > Vout = Vin * R2/(R1+R2) > For Vout/Vin = 1/3 : R1=1K R2=2K > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 20:08:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24110; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:04:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:04:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34667666.DE4566EB verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:50:14 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Voltage...Re: Hydrogen-Horace References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qLyDV2.0.eu5.QVePq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12666 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > Dear vo., and Horace, > > When experimenting REMEMBER: Wahtever the "it" is... that you > control it... it does not control you. > > The "zero volts" of what you reference to is under YOUR control. > > Simply use 2 317s ..... set one to 3 volts..... this is now > "zero" .... and set the other to whatever level ABOVE 3 volts that your > desire. > > I now return control of your experiment to you.... > > AND: If you use three 317s then one can be used as current regulator. > > SO: One is the arbitrary "floor" [at 3 volts above zero] > number two is configured as voltage regulator.... and > this is followed by number 3 .... which you set up as current regulator... > > Control. > Hi John, This solution is not complete. Let me correct this: 317 could not sink! I just tried it now. It show high impedance. But if the sinking (lower) 317 is loaded to gnd and passing a current more than the electrolyse cell pass, the problem could be solved. Diagram: o o * . 4.3 V Icell +---[upper 317]-----------------+ | 3.0 V * o | +---[lower 317]--+------+ . * | | | | o | | Ir | __||__.__||__ | | | |~~||~~~~~||~~| | resistor| | | ||o || | | load |_| | || ||o | | | | || || | Gnd +----------------+ |_____________| Resistor load should be selected for Ir should be greater than Icell. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 20:15:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25119; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:10:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:10:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34667B27.9DA earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 21:10:31 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, ceti@msn.com, dennis@wazoo.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov Subject: Mitchell Jones on CETI heats Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7E452D644035" Resent-Message-ID: <"VBCor2.0.O86.vaePq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12667 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7E452D644035 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://xp11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c21cenlogic-0404961633320001 austin-1-13.i-link.net%3e&server=db96q1&CONTEXT=879133482.570491261&hitnum=11 --------------7E452D644035 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="getdoc.xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp" Content-Base: "http://xp11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?rec num=%3c21cenlogic-0404961633320001 austin-1-13.i-link.net%3e&server=db 96q1&CONTEXT=879133482.570491261&hi tnum=11" Deja News - Article
Deja News Home · Resource Directories New!
-------------------------------------
Quick Search · Power Search · Search Filter · Interest Finder · Browse Groups

 Article 12 of exactly 57 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous< br>Article		 [Next Article]
Next
Arti cle		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Re: John Logajan Compunds the Rothwellian Bogosities!!!!!
From:         21cenlogic i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Date:         1996/04/04
Message-ID:   <21cenlogic-0404961633320001 austin-1-13.i-link.net>
Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
[More Headers]


In article <4ji9jd$1a9i saba.info.ucla.edu>, Barry Merriman <barry> wrote:
[snip}
> 
> >Funny thing, we never have heard very much directly from 
> >Miley, Bowles, Motorola, etc.  The reports always come from the ENECO/CETI 
> >crowd, and you know how (un)reliable their reports are.  
> 
> Perhaps you don't, but I have talked to Miley about it directly
> and recently. He doesn't know how the device works, but is pretty 
> well convinced that it produces apparent energy. He plans to publish
> some results this spring/summer.
> 
> >
> >I'm not familiar with your technical terms. How much is 'mucho 
> >energy' in Btu's? 
> 
> Well, Miley's group has run their SOFE demo rig, which puts out
> ~5 watts apparent, for ~0.1W electric in, for 30 days continuous.

***{Thanks, Barry! I have been wanting to hear the numbers from Miley and
Bowles for months! Since Miley's ratio of output to input is about 50,
that puts him in the same ballpark as the SOFE demo (which was 80 to 1),
and is wildly beyond what could be explained by pump energy, magic
crystals, heat pump effects, or any of the other skeptical theories that
have been put forth here. True believers in orthodox science, of course,
will not be impressed. Like more traditional cranks, they will simply
raise the decibel count and redouble their efforts. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> That is mucho, I'll let you convert to BTU's :-). (Of course, that 
> ignores the pump energy, but its far from clear how the pump energy could 
> actually show up as the temperature difference across the cell).
>  
> >
> >As for the new research partners, I understand that Frank Znidarsic has
worked 
> >himself into a frenzy attempting to promote the Patterson cell
> 
> I doubt Frank is what they mean by a research partner. Frank seems 
> to be a freelance, harmless crank (in that he apparently buys into 
> a great many over unity devices and wacky phyiscs theories).
> 
> >My read on the situation is that the 'support' from Miley, Bowles, etc. 
> >was more wishful thinking than fact, and the PowerGen claims are a 
> >definite turn-off to anyone with a reputation to protect.  
> 
> Your read on this is definitely wrong. Didn't you watch the Nightline
> show on CETI? Miley and Bowles came right out making
> public statements on national TV, 2 months after PowerGen, that 
> they are stumped by the apparent performance of this device, as measured in 
> their own labs. Miley also says as much in person, and they are doing
> ongoing research on the device, most definitely.
> 
> 
> >The Znidarsic plans are pure fantasy. 
> 
> Sure, but Frank is not even in consideration here.
> 
> >
> >
> >->Perhaps you mean the Power-Gen demo? Would you care to point out what 
> >you consider the telling flaw?
> >
> >
> >
> >As for 400 W for 2 hours and 1,300 W for a few minutes (I think the
claim was 
> >15), either is enough to raise the liquid near to the boiling point
even with 
> >the pretend 'cooling tower' -- but the max temperature claimed was only
about 
> >35C. 
> 
> Well, lets do a quick reality check: assume there were 18 feet
> of tubing in the ``cooling tower'' (an estimate Jed gave once,
> based onphotos),  and that it was standard 3/8'' ID 
> tubing. The surface area of such a tube is roughly 2*pi*r*L ~ 0.2 meter^2.

***{The logarithmic mean of the inner and outer surfaces is the correct
value. In cases such as this one, where the area of the outer surface of
the tubing is less than twice as large as the area of the inner surface,
we can use the arithmetic mean of the inner and outer surface areas [to
wit: (Ai + Ao)/2] rather than the logarithmic mean, and thereby simplify
our calculation. The result of this procedure will be within 2% of the
correct value. --Mitchell Jones}***

> Typical thermal conductivity of plastic is 0.2 Watt/(meter*deg C). If
> the tubing wall is 1/16 inch = 0.0042 meters, then the rate at which
> it can conduct heat is
> 
> (conductivity)*(area)/(thickness) = (0.2 * 0.2 / 0.0042 ) Watts/degree C
>                                   =  100 Watts/degree C

***{The expression you are using is derived from Fourier's formula, and it
should be emphasized at the outset that calculations based on it describe
the performance of an idealized *perfect* heat exchanger. Real heat
exchangers always conduct substantially less heat than this calculation
would seem to indicate. With that caveat in mind, Fourier's formula yields
the following expression for the rate of heat conduction across a
cylindrical barrier:

Q = k*A*difT/difX

In the above, Q is the rate of heat conduction across the barrier, k is
the thermal conductivity, A is the logarithmic mean area, difT is the
*average* temperature difference from the inside of the cylinder to
ambient (i.e., integrated around the entire flow loop), and difX is the
thickness of the barrier. [Note: difT is used rather than delta-T because
we have been using delta-T to denote the temperature difference from the
input to the output of the cell.] To put it in the form used by you,
above, we would rewrite as follows:

k*A/difX = Q/difT

The units used by you were: [W/m*degC]*(m^2)*/m, which reduces to W/degC,
and thus is correct. 

As noted above, we can use the arithmetic mean of the inside and outside
areas in place of the logarithmic mean when Ao < 2*Ai. Since Ao =
2*pi*(.00635)*18*12*(2.54)/100 = .219 m^2, and Ai =
2*pi*(.0047625)*18*12*(2.54)/100 = .1642 m^2, this condition is met. The
arithmetic mean area, Am = (.219 + .1642)/2 = .19 m^2. 

Other values are: k = .2; difX = (1/16)*(2.54)/100 = .00159 m. 

Result: Q/difT = (.2)*(.19)/.00159 = 23.9 watts/degC, not 100 watts/degC
as calculated by you. --Mitchell Jones}***  

> 
> Thus, a 10 degree C temperature differential---such as you cite, 
> based on 35 C internal temp--- from the electrolyte 
> to the air is enough to drive 1000 Watts of heat conduction to the
environment.

***{Incorrect. To drive 1000 watts of conduction, difT = 1000/(23.9) =
41.8 degrees C.

Turning to the fabled 1344 watt run, difT = 1344/(23.9) = 56.2 degree C.
Since the claimed delta-T on the 1344 watt run was 16 degrees C, that
gives a cell inlet temp of 20 + 56.2 - 8 = 68.2 degrees C, and a cell
outlet temperature of 68.2 + 16 = 84.2 degrees C.  

As I noted when I posted a less simplified version of these calculations
several months ago, they assume perfect mixing of the air on the outside
of the tubing, and of the electrolyte on the inside--i.e., that no
boundary layer of warm air clings to the outside of the tubing and no
boundary layer of cool electrolyte clings to the inside. In the Power Gen
setup, neither of these conditions were met, for two reasons: (1) Air was
drawn away from sloppily coiled tubing on the inside of the heat exchanger
by a tiny 3.5 watt muffin fan. This fan was inadequate to provide a good
approximation of perfect mixing, and would have permitted an insulating
boundary layer of warm air to form on the outside of the tubing,
particularly in shielded locations. (2) As the electrolyte heated up, a
barrier layer consisting of thousands of tiny bubbles the size of salt
grains would have built up on the inside of the tubing, due to the fact
that the solubility of gases decreases as the temperature increases. This
layer was plainly visible in my own experiments, and would have slowed the
flow to near zero on the inside surface of the tubing at Power Gen. Bottom
line: these circumstances guaranteed that the condition of perfect mixing,
as assumed by the Fourier formula, would not be met. The temperature of
the abortive 1344 watt run would *not* have reached equilibrium at a cell
outlet temperature of 84.2 degrees C, but at considerably higher
temperatures that would almost certainly have been well above boiling. (In
my 1100 watt experiments, the temperature was still continuing to increase
when I shut the apparatus down at a temperature of 85 degrees C.) In any
case, the 1344 watt run is a dead issue. Cravens denied that it was at
equilibrium, and Jed now admits that the temperature was still rising. 

The more important matter has to do with the alleged 469 watt run, which
supposedly had an inlet temperature of 35 degrees C and an outlet
temperature of 41.7 degrees C. Given those numbers, difT = (35 + 6.7/2) -
20 = 18.35 degrees C. For that run, the calculated heat dissipation would
be (18.35)*(23.9) = 438.5 watts. On the face of it, this is not very far
from Jed's calculated number of 469 watts. However, to repeat: 438.5 watts
denotes a theoretical upper bound of heat exchanger performance, because
it assumes conditions of perfect mixing which, in real heat exchangers,
are *never* met. No real heat exchanger constructed like Cravens' will
ever dissipate 23.9 watts/degree C, and thus the only way to determine the
capabilities of these kinds of exchangers is to construct one and measure
its performance. 

I accomplished that measurement in my Magnum 350 run #9, when I reached an
equilibrium reservoir temperature of 62 degrees C, on a run producing 458
watts at a flow of 1 liter/min. The setup was comparable to Cravens setup
at Power Gen in terms of essentials, and, to the extent that it differed,
it would likely have been more efficient, not less so. Since room
temperature was 13.3 degrees C, a conservative estimate of difT would be
(62 - 13.3) + 6.7/2 = 52 degrees C. This means that my actual heat
exchanger, constructed in a way that would make it *more* efficient than
Cravens, dissipated 458/52 = 8.8 watts/degree C, rather than the
theoretical limit of 23.9 watts/degree C as derived from the Fourier
formula. 

Since the measured difT for the low power run at Power Gen was 18.35
degrees C (see above), the implication is that it was producing about
(18.35)*(8.8) = 161.6 watts.  --Mitchell Jones}***   

> So, I fail to see why you feel it would reach a boiling temperature. 
> Their device probably could not achieve this peak transfer capacity, but 
> 400 watts dissipated for a 10 C temp difference doesn't seem that wild.
> 
> Now, granted the air coming out of the cooling tower would have to exit
> the tower at a high temp, but since there was no measurment 
> of this, that is not a contradiction. If air were moving at 1 cubic foot 
> per second through the tower = 3 grams/sec, then at 1 J/gm*C heat
> capacity  100 watts of power would raise its temp by 30 C. Given that 
> the exact throughput and temp raise are unkown, these numbers do
> not seem unreasonably high...the air coming out would feel hot, but
> not uncomfortably so. It could be around 150--200 F.
> 
> So, based on this its not clear to me why you view the numbers mentioned
> in various reports as gross impossibilites. They don;t seem that extreme.
> Perhaps I'm missing something?

***{Ignoring the arithmetic errors (we all make them!), the main problem
with your analysis seems to be a failure to realize that the Fourier
formula defines a theoretical upper limit for heat exchanger performance,
rather than giving a method of predicting the behavior of an actual heat
exchanger. The calculations that actually predict are more involved, and
entail the use of film coefficients and other complications. --Mitchell
Jones}***
 
> 
> >Shame on you for perpetuating the PowerGen fiasco.  
> 
> Who is perpetuating? Repeat after me: it was a public _demo_, it
> doesn't have much bearing on whether the device really works. 
> It does say something about the confidence of the CETI folks in
> their device though.
> 
> PowerGen was not a scientific experiment. All I'm saying is that 
> the numbers floating around---1300 Watts for a few minutes, 400
> Watts for two hours or a hlaf an hour or whatever, don't seem
> radicallly inconsistent with any other reported data, as the estimates
> above suggest. 

***{Jed's original posting gave impossible numbers both for the high power
and low power runs at Power Gen. I have no idea what the output was in the
botched high power run, and I don't think anyone else does, either. For
the low power run, the best estimate would seem to be a bit less than half
of the 469 watts that Jed calculated--i.e., about 160 watts. (This ain't
shabby, by the way! Input was .1 watt, and that gives a COP of 1600 to 1!)
--Mitchell Jones}***

 I don't understand your desire to dismiss the 
> CETI device based on this rather poorly diagnosed, second hand
> reported demo, when there are much more detailed, in lab experiments
> being done by real, more independent scientists such as Miley.

***{The attitude which you express here is absolutely correct. With a
power input in the low power run of .1 watt, the flow rate would have had
to be effectively zero in order for the device to have not been over
unity. With the return flow to the reservoir plainly visible through the
transparent walls, it is simply inconceivable that an error of that
magnitude could have taken place. The device was wildly over unity, *and
there aren't any ifs, ands, or buts about it*. --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> >I guess that we can't 
> >really expect much better from someone who measures energy in 'muchos'.
> 
> I measure Miley's output in muchos because I don't have the actual
> data, and I don't want to spread misleading rumors about his
> research. As I said, mucho roughly means their SOFE device run 
> for 30 days continuous.
> 
> If you suggest I use muchos because I'm lacking in either knowledge 
> or scientific skepticism, you are grossly--laughably so--mistaken.

***{For sure. Barry Merriman, heretofore, has been one of the most
stubborn doubters to post to this group. Anyone who hasn't noticed that is
a newbie extraordinaire! --Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> The reason I find this device interesting is primarily that its
> effect is large, robust and has been replicated by at least two
> independent academic scientists/engineers. That this has occured
> is not simply hearsay, as I have spoken to Miley himself about it,
> for example, not to mention public demos such as SOFE and the
> Nightline TV show.
> 
> That said, I still doubt it really produces energy. But I also
> admit that what it does do is entirely unexplained at this point.
> Your comments about bad thermometry and faraday efficiency are
> far from an explanation of anything, given the previous paragraph.
> -- 
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

***{P.S. I would have posted this sooner, but my first version was eaten
by my machine. This is a rewrite. I didn't enjoy going through it all
again, and I am posting it in haste because I am sick of looking at it.
Result: it may contain some obvious errors. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------7E452D644035-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 20:21:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA15410; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:11:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:11:06 -0800 Message-ID: <34666809.36D2 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:48:57 -0600 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 Subject: Paul Pantone and Other Links Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------5F041AB55AD" Resent-Message-ID: <"QwKbE3.0.Ym3.PbePq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12668 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5F041AB55AD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.inett.com/himac/ppantone.html --------------5F041AB55AD Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="ppantone.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ppantone.html" Content-Base: "http://www.inett.com/himac/ppantone.ht ml" Paul Pantone and Other Links

Paul Pantone and Other Links




     Since placing my information on the internet I have
learned that there are even more inventions on fuel
efficiency out there. I have talked to other inventors that
were so afraid one admittedly used an alias for mail and
another, who had a story done on him and his idea in a
major magazine 20 years ago, didnt want me to mention his
name in my information, he was developing a system and
wanted no more of the hassles he received when he went
public before. He told me he had been chased by people with
guns trying to get him alone, and ended up moving
underground through a church and out of the country for a
few years. He said he would send me some new information he
was working on, but I never received it. There are many
other inventors who are not quite so shy, but still have
come in the back door to get their inventions out. 
      One such inventor, Paul Pantone describes his idea as
a new type of carburetor with a refinery built in. I found
out about him from an article in Extraordinary Research, a
magazine put out by the Tesla society (reprinted later). 
His system has obvious similarities to all super carbs but
has been told it works as a self-inducing plasma generator
cracking into mostly Hydrogen producing practically no
pollution. After initial phone conversations, I sent him my
book.  He was so impressed , he wanted me to come see him
and his unit. I told him I could not afford such a trip and
he offered to pay my air fare for me to visit and see his
system. I was impressed with the many people working with
him to get his idea out and further develop it into other
applications. I was very impressed with the clean exhaust
running from his demonstrators. Although no load or
efficiency tests were demonstrated, I am confident he will
demonstrate further proofs on the overall improvements,
because I know what is possible. He states 2-3 times
improvement and clean air. I have seen positive results in
clean exhaust analysis. I hope to help him to finally get
this idea out to the masses. 
     His system is beautifully simple, he increases heat
and vacuum and has a rod in the center that is said to be
tuned to a resonant frequency causing this reaction to
break the molecules down into their lowest form, hydrogen.
He must be doing something right because he can run the
engine along time with no catalyst fouling and has run on
crude oil and many other fuels, even toxic mixtures with
practically no pollution. 
     I personally believe that thermal resonant cracking is
occurring, cracking the fuel into lighter gases such as
natural gas methanol and hydrogen. This thermal resonant
cracking may be causing the plasma reaction. The molecules
bounce back and forth between the cold rod and the hot
outer pipe. the rod would remain cold because of
endothermic heat transfer. The rod diameter and length are
determined by the density of the fuel, or specific gravity
and may be the combination of water and crude to the equal
density of gasoline for similar rod sizes Also knowing
pressure and heat are related I failed to remember time.
Time is relevant because of the space traveled along the
rod. Paul connected with me when he said he built a longer
tube and rod for the bigger engine but then found the same
short length would do. I went to higher temperatures and
pressures but had a longer time exposure. Too long a time
exposure and mileage could go down, not up. It is a matter
of balance and Paul seems to have it worked out nicely. 
     I want to support him and encourage others to help get
this idea out finally, for all our benefit. 
      I am including reprints of his information and story
that may assist you in understanding and helping with this
idea. 
      To any doubters out there, please just simply go and
follow the links that have been established by other
inventors and investigators of this high mileage idea and
see the overwhelming similarities and unity in just wanting
to get the idea out. The truth is there. Help set us free
by passing this information. on to others. 
     Another contact I have made is Donald Novak .I mention
him in my book reports section, but apparently I had only
one section of his report "100 Miles Per Gallon Seminar,"
Since talking with him he sent me his complete book and
supplement. He has far more proofs and understandings on
this idea. 
     He explains three different systems to vaporize the
fuel.  He has copies of the Pogue patent, "the Fish" with
extensive diagrams, a blower design by Rudolf R. Laesig of
Westchester Pa., and also a French patent that refers to "a
thermo-chemical decomposition of water contained in the
mixture, leading to a particular state of matter, that is
plasma, with a view toward the production of hydrogen and
its direct use as the effective energy agent in any
internal combustion engine or for heating." 
     Mr. Novak also has an explanation of a Plasma furnace
in his supplement . His explanation and information are
fascinating in that we can take it beyond cracking as this
plasma fuel would even be more efficient. He has been
fighting the BS of the political system and has seen many
successful systems done on a small scale but also states
that he has seen others disappear when trying to get it
into mass production. 
     He has copies of his original publication from 1979
available and also offers his time and insights to help get
the idea out . He says that additives should not stop the
reaction and that I am missing some things in my process
that can be made simpler by using aviation aluminum, an
alloy with magnesium for the catalytic evaporation surface.
I have learned of "zeolites", a group of crystalline
alumino-silicates that are used as a catalysts for petrol
refining from some articles on the internet, Also I was
told by a metallurgist that most all steels have some
aluminum in it.. I have not tried aluminum as a catalyst
but hope to this year in conjunction with the GEET 
system. 
      Mr. Novaks book is one of the first super carb books
and is informative proof that a better system is possible.
The political machinery under corporate pressures have
ignored the many inventions that jeopardize their empires. 
      To purchase Mr. Novaks book at a special internet
price $25.95 + $4.00 S+H send check or money order to Don
Novak Energy Research Development, PO Box 602 Keewatin MN. 
55753. His book was published to help us all. His phone is
(218) 778 6728 and will discus these matters with anyone. 
      I learned of Don through the net at an energy
information site by Bob Lyons at this link

It is an impressive site on super carb technology and other
efficient systems that have been ignored or given the run
around by the political system.

Other Links

There are getting to be many information sites on super carbs on the net. The following is a list with brief descriptions and URLs - Fuel and Water vaporizer for an engine by Fred Muhr at - this link
Catalytic Cracking Reactors by Aspen Systems transforms diesel into methane ,ethane, propane and butane.-also hydrogen for fuel cells at this link
- The Fuel Atomizer 2000 by Wyoming Instruments increases 30%-140% according to their results on various vehicles and decreases pollution. at - this link
- The Ultimate Fuel Economy Book by Mike Holler is another excellent presentation of the various super carbs and their operation. He also puts out a high fuel economy newsletter he calls Dromedary sharing any information he gains to help get the idea out He really is into it!
- Secrets of the Super Mileage Carburetors By Allan Wallace Presents 6 Systems in his book to prove they work. $15.00 Satisfaction Guaranteed
- The MPG Club say they offer unbiased objective reviews on any submitted product and also has pictures and reference from other patents An interesting site. I will contact them myself soon and refer them to my book and GEET
- the Neutrino Group has an energy suppression site that lists many different suppressed ideas that are more efficient, some from the 1950s I have never heard of. at this link
- Patrick Beddard of Car and Driver raises some questions on Gunnerman and his A-21 fuel but seems to be a bit government negative considering the other articles on A-21, a fuel that is about half water. check his information. at this link
-Springfield News-Leader Feb. 9, 96 has a positive story on A-21 fuel at this link
-The Seattle Times ,same date has another positive story on A-21 fuel at this link
- Business week , Engines run on water ,Talks again on Rudolf Gunnerman mentioning a Nickel Catalyst and Caterpillar Inc. seriously looking at this was Aug 94. How come we never heard about it yet? check it at this link
-The Office for Science, Engineering and Technology, Nevada State, has a release on A-21 fuel and the E.P.A. approval. All positive .
-Gannet news service put out a story on A-21 fuel Looked positive at this link

     As far as the information on A-21 fuel goes, it is
along the same principles as Thermal Catalytic Cracking,
just done in a different way in the cylinder at combustion.
.I think it is not as efficient as cracking the fuel before
air mixing and combustion but helpful in understanding what
is possible with the many ways of achieving better
efficiency .  - the Keely Net BBS has an extensive site on
many suppressed ideas Super carbs, free energy, flying
saucers, other medical technology.

-Definition of Catalysts by J.N Armor for anyone who needs it can be found at this link
- Harold H. Kung a professor from Center for Catalysis and Surface Science has more information on catalysts at two sites. Interesting reading. at this link
at this link
- articles on Zeolites catalyst crystalline aluminosilicates , 4 sites to date at:

-The Fitch Fuel Catalyst shows a modest gain of 20% and 65% less pollution at
-The Triple Charger advertising up to 40% gains and less emissions.
-The Twin -Eco lizer vapor Pressure Enhancer a multi alloy is inserted to fuel to aid in combustion , Similar to The VITALIZER.
-Twin Eco has a Fitch Fuel Catalyst aid in performance and emissions.
-Ace Performance has an Electrostatic Carbon Control Valve a 20% gain.
-POWERTECH 2000 Uses a Crystaline metal alloy in contact with the fuel for small gains in economy , better starts and reduced pollution.
- BROQUET Fuel Catalyst is just dropped into the tank developed in 1941 at this link
The KYNETICY Power Pack, a fuel conditioning system that uses magnetic at this link

      This is what was found to date compliments of Scott
DeMars of Stillwater MN. one of the many contacts I have
made who are also working to get and share this great idea
This is just the few that are onto the net already, think
how many more must be out there if this internet is in its
beginnings. Please before we are censored off, copy and
share this information. While we can get it done.  Thanks.
--------------5F041AB55AD-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 22:27:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA02816; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:19:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:19:48 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:19:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971110011911_-692683079 mrin84.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"dFU7x1.0.sh.2UgPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12669 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-09 11:35:25 EST, you write: >>>SNIP<<< << The reaction occurred not on a metal surface but rather in a small volume of heated gas around the hot metal filament (platinum and tungsten have been mentioned as the metal). Judging by the comments of Scott Little and Mike Carrell, both of whom can access the BLP website on their own computers, the calorimetry described for the experiments with Mills-type gas-phase cells was quite different from the heat measurements described in Focardi, Habel & Piantelli 1994. That's my recollection, too. But BLP has a big website, and maybe Michael was looking at a different page. Tom Stolper<< All, Tom has got it correct, and even without access to the BLP site! I am continuly amazed by people posting incorrect information who do have access (at least I think they have access. I could be wrong on this) to the BLP site. As stated in my last post on this subject, here is the path: http://www.blacklightpower.com Once in the site go to the file: NFSECT2.PDF (Adobe Acrobat Reader (tm) is required to read .PDF files (the reader is a free download from the Adobe web site)). The file contains a complete writeup of the Calvert calorimity of a Mills Gas Phase Cell. There are additional .PDF files (NSFSECT---- at BLP that contain references and additional experimental writeups. Just jump, download the files like I did, read them at your leisure and THEN post your thoughts. I know more informed posts will result from first reading and understanding the source material. Very interesting reading. I am unable to copy/paste these files due to the contained graphics in PDF format files. Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada Return-Path: Received: from relay15.mail.aol.com (relay15.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.74]) by air13.mail.aol.com (v36.0) with SMTP; Sun, 09 Nov 1997 11:35:25 -0500 Received: from mx2.eskimo.com (mx2.eskimo.com [204.122.16.49]) by relay15.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id LAA28105; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:25:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23656; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:24:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:24:08 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper AOL.com Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:23:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971109112301_1422142260 mrin38> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"eRQQR.0.Yn5.dEUPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12633 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 22:43:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA15658; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:38:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:38:23 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34664281.4A48D435 verisoft.com.tr> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> <3465C4B9.28C8@interlaced.net> <3465CC50.4EB0DB6A verisoft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:52:14 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Resent-Message-ID: <"qxIcM.0.Wq3.IlgPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12670 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi - > Who advocate the author claims could explain this > counter action as not action reaction forces > between cage and the setup but a independent force > acting from an unknown frame (ether?) to the > cage as a result of the electrical stress created on > the cage. Although this is a weak argument but it > could not be falsified simply. I'm not so sure that's a weak argument. It sounds like a good one to me. Only problem I can see is, as soon as the position of the electrodes swing closer to one side of the cage than the other, induced electrostatic attraction can take over, pulling the closer end in with more force than the balancing force on the opposite end that's now further from the wall of the cage. I was thinking maybe a more restricted motion to the electrodes relative to the cage along with a strain gauge might be of some use. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 9 23:55:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA12547; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:48:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:48:03 -0800 Message-ID: <3466AE49.37AD earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:41 -0600 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, ceti@msn.com, dennis@wazoo.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege fnal.gov Subject: Mark Hugo on Cravens early CETI cell work Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------70497FAC6B9F" Resent-Message-ID: <"gK_1b2.0.v33.nmhPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12671 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------70497FAC6B9F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/files/histppc.txt --------------70497FAC6B9F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="histppc.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="histppc.txt" Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:48:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Some history and information... [Regarding the Patterson Cell] * * PART 1 * - In reading a variety of postings, and forcing myself to think about the "Patterson Power Cell" I began to realize that not having the rather close connection with the goings on at CETI which I have had, and not knowing all the details I know, can lead to some confusion and a lot of "misinformation" and unnecessary speculation. - Therefore I would like to give some background on my association with Patterson/Redding/Cravens, etc. and what I have seen and what I have observed. - In Sept. of '94 I heard via the grapevine that Patterson had a "totally reproducible" Cold Fusion device. What I did at that time was to contact Patterson/Redding and discuss the results of Patterson's work on the phone. At that time Jim R. was very open, and quickly faxed me several pages of hand written data taken from several runs of his grandfather's cells. - I went over the data carefully, and the first thing I noticed was that the calibration runs only involved recovery of about 35% of the input heating as an output DeltaT*mdot*Cp (temp. diff times flow times heat capacity). I then noticed that all the results were based on scaling the output power by multiplying whatever was observed by DeltaT*mdot*Cp by (1/.35) This is what Patterson quaintly called "the aliquout method". - During about the next week of talking with Patterson/Redding et. al., I received a copy of the cell geometry, some pictures, etc. And I was able to figure out that the calibration heating was done by a heating coil wrapped around the OUTSIDE of the cell tube. - I pointed out to Patterson, et. al. that there was a serious problem here, as the transition to electrolysis heating could mean a more effective heat transfer, and thus change the "effeciency" of the calorimetry. - Enter- Cravens.... * * PART 2 * Patterson History, Part Deux (II, or 2) - Some of the data, however, even if one presumed the "excess" was coming from the shifted thermal balance, was giving over 100% output based on straight DeltaT*mdot*Cp for the output, and V*I for the input (i.e. neglecting the D2 and O2 gas/energy loss factor). - For this reason, I felt that Patterson may indeed have a viable Cold Fusion device. - At this time the question came up of how to improve matters, and I recommended Dennis Cravens to Patterson's group. - Dennis and Patterson got together over the phone, and within a couple weeks, Dennis flew to Sarasota Florida, met Patterson, and ended up going back to his home in Texas with a cell in hand. - Now I have to approach Dennis carefully. He is a good experimentor, and no fool. But he does has his excentricities. Two of his prime excentricities are that he eschews the use of computers AND the use of chart recorders for gathering data. - This makes him terribly dependent upon "hands on" observations recorded in a notebook. Nothing wrong with this approach, over all. After all, Rutherford elucidated the size of the nucleus with hand recorded data collected over a year's time. And his conclusions stand to this day. However, there is a slight problem with regard to the pace of technical development as any college physics student who runs Rutherford's experiment in one or two days and analyses the data in a day using computers, would quickly point out. - Despite these minor glitches, Dennis was quickly able to improve the Patterson results by putting the Patterson cell in a Dewar, and getting about an 87% recovery in the "calibration" mode. - After doing this Dennis performed the heavy water work and in essense obtained the 20-50% excess level for the 7-10 watt input... - This was about Jan of '95, or last year. - Then Dennis realized, "It would be nice to run a 'control' for this experiment!" Not a bad idea, and of course, the control concept was to use H2O and LiSO4. - So that's where we get into the really weird stuff!!!! - See "History of the PPC, Part III" * * PART 3 * History of the World (Excuse, PPC) Part III - So Dennis set up to run the PPC using H2O and LiSO4. Now this is where I have just gotten bits and pieces. In fact in late Feb. and early March '95, Dennis was rather circumspect about what he was telling me about his results. I think he had some doubts about his own sanity because of what he was seeing. - >From what I can put together, when Dennis fired up the LiSO4/H2O cell, he almost from the start began to get over 100% recovery of the input power in the output. (This at about the 10 watt input level.) This was somewhat of a surprise for Dennis, as he was pretty sure NOTHING had changed significantly about the experiment except the change from D2O to H2O. - So in sratching the head, and wondering what to do, he decided to do a "power range" observation. I.e., run the power over a range. From what I understand he decided to start high, and go low. That's where it got really funny for Dennis, as he went down below 5 watts input, and continued to observe a 5 degree delta T for a 15ml/minute flow. He eventually got to the .5 watt realm and was still getting the 5 degrees delta T. - Now somewhere in this time frame, from what I recall, Dennis began to get suspicious of his own instruments, so he began to figure he needed to back up his work. That led to the installation of Thermistors in the flow. - Same result! - Now time frame wise, we are now moving into the middle of March '95. At this time Redding is beginning to take everything at face value and figure that he's really got "hot property" with regard to the PPC and his grandfather's patents. And ICCF5 is coming up. - That's where I and my good friend, and brillant control systems designer, Leon Sojka of Beaverton Oregon come in. - See history of the PPC part 4. * * PART 4 * History of the Patterson Cell, Part 4 (IV) - So on the 17,18,19 of March, 1995 Leon S. and I found ourselves in Jim Redding's apartment in a suburb of Dallas, TX, attempting to install a 16 channel, LabTech Notebook (TM) run PC based data gathering system on the Patterson Power Cell. - Over those three days, we DID succeed in installing the data gathering system, which was subsequently allowed to "gather dust" due to the aforementioned problem with Dennis Craven's deep seated and abiding and overiding fear of computers. - Despite this difficulty, this was an opportunity for Leon and I to work with the Patterson cell HANDS ON. During our time in TX we managed to: 1. See the Patterson beads be taken out of and put back in the cell. 2. See fresh LiSO4, approximately 1 molar be made up for use in the experiment. 3. Measure the input to the cell with our own VOM's and precision resistors. 4. Observe evidence of the cell producing 5 watts out for .3 watts input. - Now we DID experience an experimental difficulty while we were there, which (alledgely) was addressed by Dennis Cravens promptly and before the demonstration was brought to France. I.e., we discovered a "cross talk" between the electrolysis and the thermistors and the thermocouples. - Dennis was rather surprised by this "cross talk" and claimed not to have seen it prior to meeting with us at Redding's apartment. His claim on this is probably CORRECT! Because he personally had installed the thermistors and thermocouples some days before and attempted to isolate them from the flow by coating them with epoxy. We noticed the "cross talk" getting worse with time, and in point of fact by the time Sunday rolled around on us (the third day) it was pronounced enough to make the thermistor and thermocouple readings worthless when the electrolysis was on. - One could ask then, why is it Mr. Sojka and I are so sure there is "something" to be interested in, in the PPC? - We need to drop back slightly on this to figure this out. We need to note that on the second day Leon and I had gotten the computer data gathering system totally functional and we went into a calibration mode. That's when we noticed the "cross talk" between the electrolysis and the TC's and thermistors. We could put two graphs of the deltaT up on the computer screen and watch the values go to "heck" when we turned on the electrolysis power. - We agonized about this for a couple hours and then said, "HEY, we aren't here to work on the CF experiment, we are here to install data gathering. The RESISTANCE calibration heater is sufficient for us..!!" So that's what we did. We spent the rest of the second day and the morning of the third day running between 2 watts input to 8 watts input and calibrating everything on an absolute basis. - Thus we came to the point where by the afternoon of that Sunday, the third day,we felt that we had a 2 to 8 watt thermal calorimeter which was accurate to within an easy +/- 5% absolute value. - We noticed that at for example the 5 watt level, which for our about 15ml/min flow generated a 5 degree C deltaT, the temperature as measured by the precision thermistors and the thermocouples agreed with each other within about .1 degrees C. - The final and most important observation came after we were quite confident in the measurements made using the calibration resistor and we decided one last time to check the device during electrolysis. As soon as we transistioned from about 5 watts into the calibration resistor to the electrolysis we observed (again) the values from the thermistors and the TC's diverged completely and went "way out" (in different directions) Fortunately we became distracted and left the electrolysis on for about a 1/2 hour. Then even more fortunately we turned off the electrolysis WITHOUT turning off the computer data gathering. To our surprise the TC and Thermistor values immediately JUMPED to about 5 degrees C each, again agreeing within about .1 degree C each. We subsequently cycled the electrolysis on and off several times and watched the system for about 45 minutes. - We were dragged slowly and surely to the conclusion that for .3 watts input we were watching a system which could heat a 15 ml/min flow 5 degrees C consistantly, with just the barest perceptable drop in the deltaT during the "electrolysis off" observations. We KNEW this behavior was dramatically different from the resistance calibration runs where 10 minutes of stabalization time accomplished 80% of a change from one power level deltaT to another power level deltaT. (Something we had spend a day and 1/2 watching in the preceeding days.) - At that time (about 5:30 PM on that Sunday) we needed to leave to catch our planes home. And Leon S. and I left feeling that there was a GOOD reason to believe Patterson/Redding/Cravens had something. * * PART 5 * History of the World (AKA PPC) Part 5, Final.. - Now this is the FOUNDATION of my connection with the PPC. - On a personal level, I have been trying since about December of '95 to fabricate Patterson style beads. I have been doing this on my own, as it is transparent that Redding is VERY CONTROLLING and not too bright on differentiating who his friends are and who is just being patronizing. - It has come to my attention in trying to accomplish this that the Patterson beads, at least on a "hand made batch basis" are not easy to make. That is not to say that this is an inhibition. It is clear that given dedicated reasources and personnel the Patterson beads could be made cheaply an in mass. Got a few ten thousand to spare anyone??? - I have good reason to believe that the Patterson beads work precisely because the are plated onto a hydrocarbon substance and that Scott's ersatz beads are DOOMED to failure from the outset. - I also believe that the plating process generates certain conditions which are beneficial to the reactions which mere sputtering does not, although the sputtering comes close. (Thus the "partial" success of Miley with sputtered polystyrene beads.) - I think that Redding is missing the boat with not trying to make as many beads a possible and distributing them WIDELY. Certainly some people would manage to foul things up and come up with a null result. BUT I'm also convinced positive reports would start coming in. - Also, the scaling is very important. There is some evidence simple scaling to about 2 cc and raising the input temperature has produced long runs of .1 watt input and 10 to 15 watt outputs for CETI. (This work performed by an independent contract laboratory, and data which Redding is keeping under wraps, and trying to use as leverage for getting corporated big bucks.) - So that's the story. - Now time for me to shut up and get working! MDH * * END * --------------70497FAC6B9F-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 00:26:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA15686; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:22:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:22:52 -0800 Message-ID: <3466B673.22D9 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:23:31 -0600 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, qbowles@cctr.umkc.edu, ceti@msn.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms ix.netcom.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov Subject: Quinton Bowles on CETI cells Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------578C54C51DE3" Resent-Message-ID: <"zCupk.0.xq3.QHiPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12672 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------578C54C51DE3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://xp11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=6596651&server=db96q1&CONTEXT=879149623.92014506&hitnum=6 --------------578C54C51DE3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="getdoc.xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp" Content-Base: "http://xp11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?rec num=6596651&server=db96q1&CONTEXT=8 79149623.92014506&hitnum=6" Deja News - Article
Deja News Home · Resource Directories New!
-------------------------------------
Quick Search · Power Search · Search Filter · Interest Finder · Browse Groups

 Article 7 of exactly 24 Text Only  &n bsp;Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article		 [Next Article]
Next
Article 		[Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      A message from Bowles
From:         bks netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Date:         1996/02/20
Message-ID:   <bksDn1tFt.Ft4 netcom.com>
Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
[More Headers]


I have received this response from Quinton Bowles.  
Ordinarily I would not post email to the USENET, but
I did ask Dean Bowles if he had a comment about the
CETI device "for the record."  (For the truly paranoid,
I admit that I have done nothing to verify that this
email actually came from Q. Bowles)

Some mail header lines are deleted as are some portions
of my interrogatory.  Dr. Bowles response is in full.
Note that any line prefixed with a greater-than sign
(i.e. '>') was written by me, not by Bowles.  Please
be careful with excerpts!

| From qbowles@cctr.umkc.edu Mon Feb 19 11:21:04 1996
| To: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
| From: Quinton Bowles <qbowles@cctr.umkc.edu>
| Subject: Re: WSJ article linking you with CETI
...
| >Your name has been bandied about (by others) as someone
| >who has either replicated the work of Cravens at CETI,
| >or someone who has spent some time vetting his results/
| >protocols.
| >
| >Part of my real job is to contact molecular geneticists and
| >ask them about their current research.  Usually scientists
| >are very happy to talk about their work.  So I have made
| >it a habit to send a short letter to researchers whose
| >names have come up in CF discussions on the USENET, not
| >to argue the physics, which I'm not qualified to do,
| >but just to see if they're being misrepresented --often
| >the case.
| >
| >Personally, the behavior of CETI has seemed a bit 
| >bizarre, not characteristic of either scientist
| >or businessman, and I [am] somewhat familiar with both
| >groups and the hybrids, having worked in commercial
| >settings, research settings and applied science
| >startups.
| >
| >I guess all that I'm asking is if you have an
| >opinion, for the record, about the CETI device.
...
| 
| Dear Dr. Sherman:
| 
| Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.  I also didn't intend to be
| so short.  However, as you might guess, I have received so many crank calls,
| messages and e-mails that I have quit trying to answer them.  Finally, on
| 2/1/96 I officially became Assoc. Dean of the Univ of Missouri College of
| Engineering.
| 
| Now on to your questions.  I'm not as happy as I could be with our
| temperature measurements.  As a result we have made some
| investment to be able to make reliable temp measurements around 40 deg C
| with about 0.1 deg accuracy.  I will then be much more
| sure about our results.  Nevertheless, it does appear that there is excess
| energy output.  We intend to prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy analysis to try
| to detect any isotope ratio change
| between "virgin" and "used" beads.  We also have some plans for 
| going to the bureau of mines labs where they have a mass spec especially set
| up for detecting helium. If we don't find any evidence of nuclear reactions
| after that, it will be "drop back and punt" time.  We have also done some
| preliminary tests for chemical reactions and found none.  After all that
| there still "seems to be" excess heat. I am working for Kansas City Power
| and Light Company and not CETI.  I personally think CETI is doing all the
| wrong things.  However they just want to make money and get out I think.
| Hope this has been of some help to you.
|                         Yours truly
|                              Quinton Bowles>
| 


    Hope this helps,
    --bks
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------578C54C51DE3-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 00:53:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA19401; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:51 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:50:01 -0900 To: From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"0PJT33.0.3l4.ofiPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12673 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:09 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Horace Heffner >To: Frederick J. Sparber ; >vortex-l eskimo.com >Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 11:05 AM >Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment > > >>At 10:37 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>[snip] >>> >>>The oxidation of a pound of iron gives about 1,800 btu. Rumford got about >>>4,300 grains (4,000/7000 lbs) of iron residues. :-) > >Horace, 4,300 Grains is 4.3/7.0 pounds! :-) Gosh Fred! Make up your mind! is it grains or Grains? 8^) OK, let's forget about whether the leftovers were a half pound, a couple tons, or 4-7 lbs! They were all probably rusted anyway! (Sour grapes!) Rumford put a hole for a 2 lb ball into at 1200 lb cannon. Iron is 7.86 g/cm^2. So using 1 lb = .4536 kg, a 2 lb ball weighs 907 g., which occupies 115.4 cm^3. 4/3pi(r^3) = 115.4 cm^3 r^3 = 27.5 cm^3 r = 3.02 cm or about 3 cm So lets use a radius of the cannon of 9 cm. The cannon weighs 1200 lb, or 544.32 kg, which occupies 69,250 cm^3. Assuming the cannon is a cylinder, the face is pi(9 cm)^2 = 254 cm^2, so the length must be 272 cm. So, the bore should be about 265 cm long. The volume of the bore is therefore (28.3 cm)(265 cm) = 7490 cm^3. This means the grindings, grainy or not, should weigh about 7.5 kg, or 16.5 lbs. The oxidation of this could generate 29700 BTUs. At 1110 BTU/lb, that's 26.75 lbs of water boiled, just a few swallows more than the 26.5 lbs. noted by Rumford. Maybe Rumford was thirsty? 8^) BTW, there *is* a friction plate based ou device reported (perported?) to exist by the Tesla Society or one of the members. I heard metion of it on the radio Saturday. Didn't catch any details. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 04:27:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA07364; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 04:24:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 04:24:24 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:21:51 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcedd3$39c18f00$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Ej6QA3.0.uo1.tplPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12674 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 10, 1997 1:51 AM Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >At 11:09 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Horace Heffner >>To: Frederick J. Sparber ; >>vortex-l eskimo.com >>Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 11:05 AM >>Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment >> >> >>>At 10:37 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>>[snip] >>>> >>>>The oxidation of a pound of iron gives about 1,800 btu. Rumford got about >>>>4,300 grains (4,000/7000 lbs) of iron residues. :-) >> >>Horace, 4,300 Grains is 4.3/7.0 pounds! :-) > > >Gosh Fred! Make up your mind! is it grains or Grains? 8^) You're right, it is grains, most likely oats for the "horsepower". :-) > >Rumford put a hole for a 2 lb ball into at 1200 lb cannon. Iron is 7.86 >g/cm^2. So using 1 lb = .4536 kg, a 2 lb ball weighs 907 g., which >occupies 115.4 cm^3. No he din't. He was using a "blunt borer" as a frictional reamer to see what in the Hell heat was made of. He "Boiled off 26.5 pounds of water in 2 1/2 hours and got 4,300 grains (about 0.614 pounds)of iron residues for his trouble. If it was oxidized by the oxygen in the surrounding air to FeO or Fe2O3 there would be about 0.614*1800 = 1,106 Btu of heat released from that reaction. Assuming that the 26 1/2 pounds of water was being boiled off and he was carefully keeping track of the quantity used, we know from 20th Century science that there must have been 26.5* 1100 = 29,150 btus worth of work going into the system in 2.5 hours. At 2546 btu per horsepower-hour, that is 4.58 horsepower going into "boiling off" 26.5 pounds of water in 2.5 hours, plus the heat needed to heat the 1200 pounds,or more, of cannon up to a temperature hot enough to boil the water. A conservative estimate (neglecting heat loss)is about another 4.7 horsepower. > >4/3pi(r^3) = 115.4 cm^3 >r^3 = 27.5 cm^3 >r = 3.02 cm or about 3 cm > >So lets use a radius of the cannon of 9 cm. The cannon weighs 1200 lb, or >544.32 kg, which occupies 69,250 cm^3. Assuming the cannon is a cylinder, >the face is pi(9 cm)^2 = 254 cm^2, so the length must be 272 cm. So, the >bore should be about 265 cm long. The volume of the bore is therefore >(28.3 cm)(265 cm) = 7490 cm^3. This means the grindings, grainy or not, >should weigh about 7.5 kg, or 16.5 lbs. The oxidation of this could >generate 29700 BTUs. At 1110 BTU/lb, that's 26.75 lbs of water boiled, >just a few swallows more than the 26.5 lbs. noted by Rumford. Have you ever considered going into the foundry business? I think they used centrifugal casting under argon in 1797 and built the cannon around the hole? :-) > >Maybe Rumford was thirsty? 8^) There was a guy named Ben Rumson (Lee Marvin)in the movie,Paint Your Wagon. He was always thirsty. :-) > >BTW, there *is* a friction plate based ou device reported (perported?) to >exist by the Tesla Society or one of the members. I heard metion of it on >the radio Saturday. Didn't catch any details. They made anti-lock brakes to exploit this, didn't they? :-) Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 05:23:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16454; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:19:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:19:42 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:16:21 -0500 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: <19971110132304568.AAA219 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"ATQYb.0._04.idmPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12675 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael Schaeffer wrote: > Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH > Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 6:41 PM > > T. Stolper wrote: > >Michael, where did you see those diagrams of Mills-type gas phase cells? If > >on the BLP website, could you provide the web page? > > I am at the same disadvantage now, too. The BLP web site links to > experimental results no longer work! > > From a few things that I saved from earlier browses, there are phrases to > the effect of hydrogen gas "flowing over" the catalyst. This implies a > surface, and if the reaction occurrs at the catalyst surface, then this > would be a "reaction surface" (my words, though). > > The BLP calorimetry is described, rather than shown. Also, their latest > posts referred to "Calvet" calorimetry. I could not find out what this is, > so I will have to hold comments on this part of their work. > > ***Please note that on BLP and other Vortex subjects I speak my own > opinions and not those of General Atomics. When the BLP site first went up, I downloaded and printed virtually the whole contents of the site which makes a paper stack 1.5" thick. I spot checked the site when I saw the above and was able to access the "New Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen" section, which contains the discussion of the Calvet calorimeter. The "Report on Calorimetric Investigations of Gas Phase Catalyzed Hydrino Formation", a university report, yielded the text but not the illustrations, which are a few graphs. I don't know why Michael found that he could not access the technical part of the site. You absolutely must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader to download this material, as it contains diagrams and math. The Reader is a free download and can be triggered from the BLP website. The Calvet calorimeter consists of a cylinder whose "walls contain a thermopile structure composed of two sets of thermoelectric junctions. One set of junctions is in thermal contact with the internal calorimeter wall at temperature Ti, and the second set of thermal junctions is in contact with the external calorimeter wall at Te, which is held constant by a forced convection oven. When heat is generated in the calorimeter cell, the calorimeter radially transfers a constant fraction of this heat into the surrounding heat sink. As heat flow as temperature Ti-Te is established between the two sets of thermopile junctions. This temperature gradient gives a voltage which is compared to the linear voltage versus power calibration curve to give the power of reaction" The vapor phase reaction is contained entirely within a stainless steel vessel inside the calorimeter. The total energy generated therein is measured, so Larry Wharton's speculations about the effects of hydrogen cleaning on emissivity of internal surfaces is irrelevant. The term "spillover" was confusing to me also, so I asked John Farrell about it. What this amounts to is that the catalyst is placed in a boat (small, shallow container) within the reactor, and heated to vaporize part of it, creating a cloud of KNO3 vapor. Hydrogen gas is admitted, and a hot filament dissociates H2 to H atoms, which react with the cloud of catalyst vapor. There are no "electrodes" involved, no current passed through the vapor cloud. The reactions occur in a cloud of mixed gases, not at any surface. A critical experiment (which should now be in progress) is the measurement of EUV which Mills' theory predicts should be radiated from the reaction region. The H atoms are not expected to radiate in the transition to hydrinos, but the K ions which absorb the transition energy do radiate as they relax to a lower state. This experiment is difficult as no solid is transparent at the expected 300 A emission line. Thus there can be no window separating the reaction chamber from the custom-built spectrophotometer, which must peek through a pinhole and an intermediate pumping chamber which keeps leaking gases out of the spectrophotometer. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 05:25:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16565; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:21:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:21:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:15:31 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: MORE: Voltage...Re: Hydrogen-Horace In-Reply-To: <34667666.DE4566EB verisoft.com.tr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Xwaq42.0.l24.8fmPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12676 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., .. and Hamdi, Nice drawings... and for those of you who are going to do this do NOT forget capacitors of large and small values on in and out of both 317s, reverse diodes, the adjustment voltage dividers.... Hamdi you are right. I always hang a load on the regulators. Your 'pull' resistor is required. Use heat sinks. J On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > John Schnurer wrote: > > > > Dear vo., and Horace, > > > > When experimenting REMEMBER: Wahtever the "it" is... that you > > control it... it does not control you. > > > > The "zero volts" of what you reference to is under YOUR control. > > > > Simply use 2 317s ..... set one to 3 volts..... this is now > > "zero" .... and set the other to whatever level ABOVE 3 volts that your > > desire. > > > > I now return control of your experiment to you.... > > > > AND: If you use three 317s then one can be used as current regulator. > > > > SO: One is the arbitrary "floor" [at 3 volts above zero] > > number two is configured as voltage regulator.... and > > this is followed by number 3 .... which you set up as current regulator... > > > > Control. > > > > > Hi John, > > This solution is not complete. Let me correct this: > > 317 could not sink! I just tried it now. It show high impedance. But if the sinking (lower) 317 is loaded to gnd and passing a current more than the electrolyse cell pass, the problem could be solved. Diagram: > o > o * . > 4.3 V Icell > +---[upper 317]-----------------+ > | 3.0 V * o | > +---[lower 317]--+------+ . * | > | | | o | > | Ir | __||__.__||__ > | | | |~~||~~~~~||~~| > | resistor| | | ||o || | > | load |_| | || ||o | > | | | || || | > Gnd +----------------+ |_____________| > > Resistor load should be selected for Ir should be greater than Icell. > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 05:41:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13413; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:34:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:34:11 -0800 Message-Id: <3466FBC6.C6F7D8D2 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:19:18 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> <3465C4B9.28C8@interlaced.net> <3465CC50.4EB0DB6A verisoft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JDE_S3.0.VH3.IrmPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12677 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Hamdi - > > > Who advocate the author claims could explain this > > counter action as not action reaction forces > > between cage and the setup but a independent force > > acting from an unknown frame (ether?) to the > > cage as a result of the electrical stress created on > > the cage. Although this is a weak argument but it > > could not be falsified simply. > > I'm not so sure that's a weak argument. It sounds like a good one to me. > Only problem I can see is, as soon as the position of the electrodes swing > closer to one side of the cage than the other, induced electrostatic > attraction can take over, pulling the closer end in with more force than > the balancing force on the opposite end that's now further from the wall of > the cage. > > I was thinking maybe a more restricted motion to the electrodes relative to > the cage along with a strain gauge might be of some use. > Yes, restriction of movements make sense, I was thinking from the beginning. This can also specify whether static or dynamic interactions cause the effect. Maybe momentum of the "gyroscopical particles" aligned with the potential difference cause a shift of center of mass/gravity and this is the observed effect. (I love these gyroscopical particles!) :-) These experiments make sense even later ones give null results. This is because, there are large number of claims including patents, UFO propulsion systems using similar logic and setups. I think not all these claims are correct. Null results from this ex periment help also to understand how a conservative results of some experiments are misinterpreted as non conservative or as new phenomena. Too much hypothesis to now. Now we need an experimenter to drive the experiment in different fashion and claims totally different things. :-) Note: Naudin informed me, he is currently very busy to perform the experiment, and going to optimize the device. This is a wonderful news and opportunity. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 06:18:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23098; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:14:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:14:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <346708B1.337A earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:14:25 -0600 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, dennis@wazoo.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, rbrtbass pahrump.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov Subject: Letts:Thermisters, thermocouples: low RF effects Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"rBoKo2.0.pe5.sQnPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12678 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from mail.utexas.edu (mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.1]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA09752 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3080 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1997 07:33:48 -0000 Received: from dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu (128.83.168.69) by mail.utexas.edu with SMTP; 10 Nov 1997 07:33:48 -0000 Received: by dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu with Microsoft Mail id <01BCED78.B47116E0 dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:33:53 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCED78.B47116E0 dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu> From: Dennis & Kathy Letts To: "'rmforall earthlink.net'" Subject: Re: Second Arata Errata Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:30:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by belize.it.earthlink.net id XAA09752 > > 1. thermister: Simple malfunction? Electrical short causing > intermittent local ohmic heating? Sensitive to temperature, pressure, > chemicals? Electronic glitches? Picking up signals from AC power lines > and local RF? Were these possibilities checked out only before the > experimental runs, during, or after, once or many times? With respect > to the Arata-Zhang cell, when was the control Pt-Pt run done, and for > how long? The experiments ran for over four years. > > Rich, Thought I should correct a factual error in your post: thermistors aren't affected by RF to any significant degree at power levels up to several tens of watts dissipated within a few centimeters of the thermistor bead. I have worked with RF up to 1 ghz an d power up to about 30 watts. Thermocouples are indeed bothered by RF up to about 200 mhz--above 200 mhz thermocouples aren't affected much either. When thermocouples do pick up RF interference it has been my experience that the thermocouple is driven dow n--they typically read -1600 degrees or -250 degrees until the RF is removed. I have never seen a thermocouple affected by RF that was induced to read 38 degrees when it should have read 28. Your posts represent a huge amount of effort on your part and would be much more useful if you could somehow gain some experimental experience--some of your error analysis represents some good thinking about the subject but it is obvious to those of us wh o have done the experiment a few thousand times that you haven't... Best Regards, Dennis Letts Austin, TX PS I DO NOT wish to receive any of your posts via email--I do enjoy reading your contributions to the fusion newsgroup and hope you continue (and improve)... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 06:55:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29567; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:42:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:42:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:43:37 -0900 To: "Vortex-L" From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"cFBLa1.0.uD7.OrnPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12679 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:41 PM 11/4/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >To: Vortex > >Around 1797, Rumford (Phil.Trans.,1798) used a blunt >borer in a cannon and succeeded in boiling by friction >26.5 pounds of cold water in 2 1/2 hours. > >If you calculate out the horsepower assuming the water >went to steam,and the cannon weighed half-a-ton, you are >hard put to see where he got some five horsepower from >to run the boring tool. Not a windmill or waterwheel >or even a steam engine was available then for that kind >of horsepower. Twelve Clydesdales,perhaps? :-) > At 4:46 AM 11/9/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >For every pound of cannon ball, rule-of-thumb >is 600 pounds of cannon/lb of ball. Figuring >a "two pounder" that's 1200 pounds of iron to >bring up to around 212 F, plus heat losses. >So I figure for iron 0.2 btu/lb x 1200 x 140 deg F rise = 33,600 btu or >another 5.3 horsepower >to heat up the cannon. Twice that if it was a >"four pounder". :-) I wrote: [snip] >>Rumford put a hole for a 2 lb ball into at 1200 lb cannon. Iron is 7.86 >>g/cm^2. So using 1 lb = .4536 kg, a 2 lb ball weighs 907 g., which >>occupies 115.4 cm^3. At 5:21 AM 11/10/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >No he din't. He was using a "blunt borer" as >a frictional reamer to see what in the Hell heat was made of. He "Boiled off >26.5 pounds >of water in 2 1/2 hours and got 4,300 grains >(about 0.614 pounds)of iron residues for his >trouble. If it was oxidized by the oxygen in >the surrounding air to FeO or Fe2O3 there would be about 0.614*1800 = 1,106 >Btu of heat released from that reaction. So, it's not a boring experiment after all! It's a reaming experiment! 8^) So, you are saying the hole was already in the cannon, Rumford was simply widening it? Any idea how the "blunt borer" was made, its composition? Surely some kind of abrasive was used? Although, I suppose rust *is* an abrasive of sorts. Also, a 1200 lb cannon seems awfully heavy for a 2 lb ball. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 07:15:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02547; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:10:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:10:07 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971110090908.ZM4068 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:09:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 8, 10:54pm) References: <346c397a.23821951 mail.eisa.net.au> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"F41Ja.0.gd.BFoPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12680 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 8, 10:54pm, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > This sounds correct to me. It becomes interesting in terms of cheap > energy however when the cell is operated at a voltage of 1.23 volts > iso 1.47. This "forces" it to extract heat from the environment in > order to electrolyze the water. This is the very reason for my curiousity and starting this thread. I am scanning some images from the book I have. Hopefully the information can answer some of the questions. Please be patient. I will post the information to a publically accessible site and email the address. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 07:41:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06758; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:33:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:33:57 -0800 Message-Id: <346716F8.CFD0CBA8 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:15:20 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Louis Naudin , vortex Subject: Naudin Elpex experiment variation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BPOyO.0.9f1.YboPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12682 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Naudin, Congratulation for duplicating and improving the experiment. Could you test this very slightly modified setup for see forces having vertical components have also involved for the effect. Also a shift of center of gravity of the ball can exhibit the displacement that you measured. As heavy ball have larger radius, a constant percentage of shifting on center of mass could be observed as nonlinear trust as follow: mass = 4/3 * PI * r^3 * density displacement = k * r k is percentage of shift of gravity trust = displacement/len * mass = k * r^4 * 4/3 * PI * density/len if k is a proportional of applied voltage(V) and geometric properties of setup as the radius(r) and the separation(d) of the balls k could be expressed as k=k(d,r,V). Even k is inversely proportional to the radius^2 still the trust remain to the square of the radius. (I tried to show the shift of center of mass/gravity could be consistent with the results obtained with different masses.) Simply suspend the whole setup to balance arms rather than directly to ceiling: (Pleas select fixed fonts to see it correctly) _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ (-) _\ | _\ (+) \_ | /_ _/ | _\ electric wires allowing \ | \ balance to work o=========o=========o Balance | | | | | | | | | | | | | | _|_ _|_ / \ / \ | |===========| | \ _ _ / \ _ _ / Probably the trust is aligned with the axis of the dipole and this setup will not show unbalancing but, only way to be sure is to experiment it. This setup allow to observe also the lateral torque. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 07:41:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05644; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:32:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:32:57 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971110092704.ZM4172 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:27:04 -0600 In-Reply-To: Michael Randall "BG Hydrogen" (Nov 8, 4:08am) References: <199711080752.XAA11242 norway.it.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"eKuWi2.0.1O1.baoPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12681 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 8, 4:08am, Michael Randall wrote: > George Wiseman publishes a how-to-built-it BG generator book series (small > to big size generator designs) for $10 ea. available from ITS. It also > explains the BG theory as well as conventional electrolyzer operation. > If you're interested I could dig up some of my earlier BG posts or if you > have any questions just let me know. 8^) With regard to the endothermics, I would find it interesting. My apologies that it did not strike a chord the first time around! Also, any chance you might have more specific information on that book series? A keyword search didn't turn up anything. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 07:46:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11608; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:43:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:43:26 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: O-U Quench Experiment Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:39:46 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcedee$dfb4d1e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"GOOW53.0.-q2.QkoPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12683 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The 50 kilojoule/mole heat of fusion of Silicon (337 cal/gram)can be used for testing for o-u by sealing several grams in a Quartz ampoule, and heating it to/past the 1427 deg C melting point, then dropping it into a water calorimeter. The quartz should withstand the thermal shock okay. I don't think that the molten Silicon will try to reduce the SiO2 much at around 1427 C, but if it does it won't throw things off much. A bit of K2CO3 in the water for good measure? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 08:02:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11648; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:58:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:58:01 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971110095601.ZM4440 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:56:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: Rich Murray "Motorola 1995-6 CETI cells?" (Nov 9, 3:25pm) References: <34661C61.1B1E earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Motorola 1995-6 CETI cells? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"AV7ZI2.0.ur2.6yoPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12685 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 9, 3:25pm, Rich Murray wrote: > On Thursday afternoon, Sept. 4, 1997, Christian Imert at CETI in > Sarasota, Florida in a pohone call told me that as a result of their > tests, Motorola offered to buy out CETI for $ 15 million, but was > refused. I've heard about Motorola tests several times, and want to > check out the details. Does anyone have any references, the dates, the > location, the laboratory, the researchers, whether specific CETI people > helped run the tests, any discussions on the Net, etc? Many have asked me for this information via private email but I have been unable on several internal attempts to verify or refute the claim. A venture of this type would have been handled through our New Enterprises group , but there is no record of it. The only thing I can say for sure is, if Motorola really wanted the technology, this would be a moot point. I suspect this statement to be only a rumor for that reason alone. If the offer was legit and not pursued, there should at least be a paper trail. If Christian Imert at CETI is in a position to claim such a thing, have him FAX you something to back it up. If he can't or won't, that should tell you something of his or the statement's credibility. I could be wrong, this is just my perspective. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 08:03:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18005; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:00:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:00:15 -0800 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971110095943.ZM4456 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:59:42 -0600 In-Reply-To: Schaffer gav.gat.com "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 9, 4:42pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"VE1OW1.0.EP4.D-oPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12687 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 9, 4:42pm, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > I don't have time to check this out now. But those of you interested in > this thread should do the homework before getting too speculative. That's all I am trying to do. I have a half baked idea I am trying to substantiate. Good advise though. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 08:04:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11066; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:51:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:51:50 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971107143834100.AAA192 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:51:00 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Mills vs. Wharton scorecard Resent-Message-ID: <"EDGfI2.0.fi2.HsoPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12684 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell's scorecard is based on an alleged report from a university that was being paid to endorse the BLP process. I have not seen any evidence that this report actually exists and if it does that it actually confirms the process as claimed. And paid endorsements are usually totally worthless. A worthy project for Mike Carrell would be to attempt to obtain a copy of the alleged report and if successful let us know what it actually says. My arguments were directed to the general problem of gas phase cold fusion and there have been many reports, papers and patents published on the process and every one I have seen does the calorimetry as I described. The original Italian work was published in Neuvo Cimento. It is there for anyone to read. I read it. It would be useful reading for Mike. The Panatelli patent was published in Infinite Energy. I read it. The calorimetry is clearly described there. I would like to see Mike read it and let us know how he would put it on his scorecard. >Scott Little pointed out that the specific report on the BLP website shows >that the measurements were made by immersing the whole apparatus in a >Calvet calorimiter, which integrates the total energy output of the >apparatus. Arguments about the emissivity of surfaces within the apparatus >are irrelevant. > >Mills 1, Wharton 0. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 08:03:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17927; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:59:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:59:54 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:53:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Rich Murray cc: Vortex-L eskimo.com, dennis@wazoo.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, rbrtbass pahrump.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov Subject: Re: Letts:Thermisters, thermocouples: low RF effects In-Reply-To: <346708B1.337A earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"k4DaD.0.-N4.vzoPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12686 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Note: Thermistors and thermocouples in and of themselves do not, in general error due to RF, although RF heating will read. However: If the thermistor or other is connected to ANYTHING which may serve as detector, ie., a transistor of the first op map ... then you amy well have error. This is remedied by using hot wire or true heating measure devices. JHS On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Rich Murray wrote: > Received: from mail.utexas.edu (mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.1]) > by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA09752 > for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:33:49 -0800 (PST) > Received: (qmail 3080 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1997 07:33:48 -0000 > Received: from dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu (128.83.168.69) > by mail.utexas.edu with SMTP; 10 Nov 1997 07:33:48 -0000 > Received: by dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu with Microsoft Mail > id <01BCED78.B47116E0 dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu>; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:33:53 -0600 > Message-ID: <01BCED78.B47116E0 dial-114-21.ots.utexas.edu> > From: Dennis & Kathy Letts > To: "'rmforall earthlink.net'" > Subject: Re: Second Arata Errata > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:30:33 -0600 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by belize.it.earthlink.net id XAA09752 > > > > > > 1. thermister: Simple malfunction? Electrical short causing > > intermittent local ohmic heating? Sensitive to temperature, pressure, > > chemicals? Electronic glitches? Picking up signals from AC power lines > > and local RF? Were these possibilities checked out only before the > > experimental runs, during, or after, once or many times? With respect > > to the Arata-Zhang cell, when was the control Pt-Pt run done, and for > > how long? The experiments ran for over four years. > > > > > Rich, > > Thought I should correct a factual error in your post: thermistors aren't affected by RF to any significant degree at power levels up to several tens of watts dissipated within a few centimeters of the thermistor bead. I have worked with RF up to 1 ghz and power up to about 30 watts. Thermocouples are indeed bothered by RF up to about 200 mhz--above 200 mhz thermocouples aren't affected much either. When thermocouples do pick up RF interference it has been my experience that the thermocouple is driven d own--they typically read -1600 degrees or -250 degrees until the RF is removed. I have never seen a thermocouple affected by RF that was induced to read 38 degrees when it should have read 28. > > Your posts represent a huge amount of effort on your part and would be much more useful if you could somehow gain some experimental experience--some of your error analysis represents some good thinking about the subject but it is obvious to those of us who have done the experiment a few thousand times that you haven't... > > Best Regards, > > Dennis Letts > Austin, TX > > PS I DO NOT wish to receive any of your posts via email--I do enjoy reading your contributions to the fusion newsgroup and hope you continue (and improve)... > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 08:46:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18418; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:34:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:34:42 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re; A Boring Experiment Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:31:33 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcedf6$1bab9a60$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"iwLsP3.0.eV4.UUpPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12688 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: >Also, a 1200 LB cannon seems awfully heavy for a 2 LB ball. > Safety Factor, Horace. :-) Actually by the end of the eighteenth century the cannon weight was getting down to 150 pounds/LB of ball, with the powder weight running about 1/3 the ball weight. The 48 pounders were over 8,000 pounds and only needed 25 horses to haul them around. :-) I have no idea what size cannon Rumford was running the friction-heat tests on. The point is,his "calorimetry" shows at least 4.8 to 9.0 horsepower worth of heat developed at a time when "power plants" were hard put to develop half that much. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 08:50:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20776; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:46:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:46:40 -0800 (PST) From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34667666.DE4566EB verisoft.com.tr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:50:02 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Voltage...Re: Hydrogen-Horace Resent-Message-ID: <"rtcpD2.0.Y45.ffpPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12689 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just an additional note on the use of LM317 regulators; The two resistances that form the voltage divider for the regulator should add up to no more than 100 ohm. I don't remember if the Radio Shack "bubble pack" contains this information or not. I learned it the hard way the first time I used this unit. The reason seems to be that the LM317 reference pin needs a certain minimum current flow in order to operate properly. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 09:44:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01676; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:42:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:42:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:42:56 -0900 To: "Vortex-L" From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Boring Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"zt0wq3.0.4Q.tTqPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12690 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anyone have any idea how a "blunt borer" was made, its composition? Surely some kind of abrasive was used? Sand? If the barrel were cast, then sand from the cast might be present in the bore anyway. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 10:10:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06468; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:04:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:04:22 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3466FBC6.C6F7D8D2 verisoft.com.tr> References: <971107065737_1770435650 mrin51.mail.aol.com> <34638786.A3CF08C6 verisoft.com.tr> <346b3170.21764214 mail.eisa.net.au> <3465C4B9.28C8@interlaced.net> <3465CC50.4E Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:00:17 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ELECTROGRAVITY NEWS...ionized air? Resent-Message-ID: <"qbmLX3.0.-a1.aoqPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12691 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi - > Too much hypothesis to now. Now we need an > experimenter to drive the experiment in different > fashion and claims totally different things. :-) Yes; it's good to see Jean-Louis working on this. He already has an initial confirmation, I see. I hope he does further experiments with various mass-flow barriers and faraday cages too. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 10:13:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA07210; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:09:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:09:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:08:21 -0800 Message-Id: <199711101808.KAA23304 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo Resent-Message-ID: <"RYv7q3.0.Xm1.-sqPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12692 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Ross Tessien wrote: > ... > > "The difference is, in this case it is space that is rushing > outward past the stars and not the stars rushing out away from us. > > What this allows is that quasars are much closer to us than > astro physicists think today. But Arp and others have collected > huge amounts of data showing that this must be the case. > The problem has been, there has been no theory > to explain why one should believe in an anamolous non > velocity red shift." > >Hi Ross, > >Does the following quotation represent a hopeless >disagreement with your aether theory? > > "I most certainly agree with the conclusion that the red > shift in the light of a body is indicative of its > light rushing towards us and not the body rushing > away from us. However, I see the mechanism as the > interaction of the light of different bodies and not merely > "space that is rushing outward past the stars"." > >Jack Smith Greetings Jack; OK, first, let me clear up my sloppyness in the first post. I slipped and said that "space" was rushing out away from the quasar and past the stars. The problem is, in today's thinking, we have the notion of space, but we don't have the notion of aether. So when I try to discuss my notions with you or anyone, I am forced to either use my language and terminology, or yours (ie the dominant one of today). To be perfectly clear, in my model, spacetime is a structure of acoustic standing waves in a substantive aether. And it is the aether that is flowing outward away from the quasar. This does not "blow" space or the spacetime manifold of acoustic nodes away. Rather, it stretches it. To understand this, ponder for a while what would happen if you put a bunch of speakers in a wind tunnel, turned on the sound energy to set up some acoustic nodes, and then turned on the air. The acoustic nodes would shift in location, but they would not blow out the end of the tunnel! Spacetime is an acosutic structure of wave energy that is arriving from all distances across the entire universe. The power and stored PE of the oscillations of the entire universe are what will maintain the coherency of, spacetime, even when you have a localized region in our universe that is absorbing or emitting aether. So aether is the medium, and spacetime is a structure of waves, literally. Just imagine how a pot of water will form dimples all over the surface if you vibrate the pot. Those are standing waves with a nodal structure. Get a tool engraver and touch it to a pot of water if you haven't seen it before, or any device that sets up vibrations. Now, I am hoping that you are familiar with Doppler shifts because I don't really want to get into physics 101. If not though, just look up in a search engine Doppler Shift and you will no doubt find hundreds of sites explaining that phenomena. The normal explanation comes with a train buzzing past with some bell or something. You have heard no doubt sirens on passing emergency vehicles so understand that the pitch changes. But the effect there is happening in air that is stationary relative to a frame of reference. ie, if it is a calm day, then relative to the ground, the air is stationary. I don't care what either of your velocities are (ie listening and emitting cars). The point is, this is different from a situation where the medium is itself expanding, and thus one region of the medium is moving relative to another region of the medium. The normal description of the red shift of light has it that the universe itself is expanding, and thus that space is expanding. It is completely sidestepped that this implicitly means that the medium of propogation of EM energy is itself expanding. The reason is because everyone has convinced themselves that photons do not need a medium to conduct, rather, we today use the term "fields", and some how think that this hides the fact that you needed something to wave, if a wave is to propogate. Because of that, you need then to assume that it is the relative motion of the objects that is causing the red shifting of the light. ie, it is true that we managed to wind up with a whole bunch more spacetime real estate in our universe, but when it is all said and done, if you believe that the universe is an empty vacuum, then the photons have nothing to interact with along their journey. Go back to the wind tunnel for a minute. Suppose I have a pot of liquid air at one end of the tunnel and it is furiously boiling. And so there is an acceleration in the velocity of the air as it moves down the wind tunnel. What will happen to the nodes I had set up with a line of speakers down the length of the tunnel? Well, they will stretch a bit, down stream. Thus, the distance from node to node will increase. As for your comment, I disagree with it. Not that I don't think that light interacts with bodies, it does. But that interaction is really tiny due to the tiny variance in aether density as you come into a region with matter in it. The variance in the stretching of the photons as they cross space is due to the fact that the universe is a huge ocean of aether, that began as a ball of liquid aether condensate in the core of a super massive black hole. When that core breached confinement, it began boiling and expanding. The acoustic energy of those boiling bubbles bounced around and set up a structure of standing waves internal to the exploding intensely pressurized ball and that broke up the condensate into smaller and smaller droplets. Finally, the acoustic waves began to self organize just as you can do with vibrating a pot of water. And the droplets that were in the acoustic nodes no longer boiled away, while those that were not in the nodes did and were eliminated. So the "masses" won, ie the majority of droplets set the stage for the timings and locations where stable droplets of aether condensate could reside. The shape of the acoustic wave energy as you approach the droplets was curved from a rectilinear sort of a pattern, into a spherically convergent sort of pattern. Today, we call the nodal structure "spacetime", we call the remaining droplets "particles", we call the curved acoustic wave structure surrounding and maintaining the confinement of the dropltes "fields", and the boiling is still going on, but now you must combine waveforms together so that they sheild one another from the incident wave energy confining them. Thus, via reconfiguration, a percentage of the aether droplets they are confining can be vaporized even today, and we call that process "exothermy" with the dominant form in the universe being "fusion". Therefore, the reason we today have more space out there, ie the way in which the expansion of the universe has been enabled, is because there is still, a continuous outflow of aether directed away from stars and galaxies out into the deep dark universe. Therefore, a photon coming from afar, will be caused to stretch precisely because the aether, and thus the nodes, that it is propogating through and composed of, is expanding. And, the objects way out there ARE, moving away from us. The wierd thing is, they are moving away not because they have accelerated away, but rather because all stars are emitting space and so we are emitting space between one another! Just imagine bleeding some water into a glass of milk, the milk is pushed apart by the emission of new clear water. So finally, if quasars are in essence, the cores of black holes that are composed of aether condensate that has breached confinement, then, those cores will boil away very much like the big bang. However, their boiling can confine the core and preclude a huge explosion, at least until it gets very small. Then, the last burst of that core ought to arrive, and we probably observe that event as gamma ray bursts. HMMM? There is a brand new observable consequence of quasar evolution. Remember the latest Hubble images that caught a GRB fading away (I think we have bagged 2 or 3 now). Well, if there was a catalogued quasar in that position then we could prove the finite lifespan of a quasar. Any way, hope that makes things more clear. Light is a wave. A smoke ring vortex in air is a wave. And yet you could consider the smoke ring to be a particle too if you were seeing the thing from space and couldn't make out the structure. That is all the issue is with photons, we haven't admitted they have structure and based on QM thinking, they are wierd. Nonesense. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 10:40:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21748; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:33:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:33:14 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:32:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971110133236_1569596934 mrin84.mail.aol.com> To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Electrogravity -> ELPEX V1.0 - Tests results and Schemes Resent-Message-ID: <"NID8d2.0.bJ5.eDrPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12693 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have updated my web site with the first test results about the ELPEX V1.0 ( ELectrostatic Pendulum EXperiment). You will find the detailled drawing of the experiment, pictures and test results at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/elpex10.htm I would like to say thank you to Andre Tuszel for his very helpfull collaboration in my lab during the testing phase of ELPEX V1.0 and V2.0 devices. Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+1 ) ( 11/10/97 - 18:28 GMT) Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 10:45:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA23164; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:36:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:36:13 -0800 Message-ID: <3467537E.CDABDC17 axionet.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:33:35 -0800 From: Jeane Manning X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen References: <199711080752.XAA11242 norway.it.earthlink.net> <971110092704.ZM4172@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RVe93.0.hf5.RGrPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12694 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John E. Steck wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:08am, Michael Randall wrote: > > > George Wiseman publishes a how-to-built-it BG generator book series (small > > to big size generator designs) for $10 ea. available from ITS. It also > > explains the BG theory as well as conventional electrolyzer operation. > ... more specific information on that book series? > A keyword search didn't turn up anything. > > -- > John E. Steck > George Wiseman's new address:PO Box 130 Galloway BC VOB1P0 Canada ph/fax 250-429-3132 or, for USA correspondence: Box 1852, Eureka MT 59917 website, last I checked, was www.cyberlink.bc.ca/~wiseeagle/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 11:00:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26049; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:47:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:47:22 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bcea12$ce7ada80$21a6410c default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:47:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Resent-Message-ID: <"xw-ZU2.0.vM6.uQrPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12695 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell Swartz posted the Globe News article >on missing matter. Good Stuff. The observation of the gamma ray halo is good stuff. but I can't say the same for the theory that Hydrinos are generating this radiation. Even all the BLP theory published does not propose anything as ridiculous as gamma ray transitions in hydrinos. The energy is too great. As I understand it the alleged energy formula has the inverse n dependence compared to the normal formula. So then we have E(n) = 13.6 n^2 ev and for gamma rays n would be about 1000 and we need a transition from n close to 1 to about 1000 . If this were possible I would expect transitions between n values much less than 1000 to be occuring with much higher probablity. So we should see much more uv and X-ray radiation. But this is not visable. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 11:23:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18326; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:14:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:14:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34674E7D.5B8A earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:13:15 -0600 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, design73@aol.com, rbrtbss@pahrump.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, ceti@msn.com, halfox@slkc.edu, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, bssimon helix.ucsd.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, bockris@acs.tamu.edu Subject: Scott Chubb: a mediated forum? Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"2_ORM1.0.FU4.uprPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12696 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil (ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.112.13]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA11479 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:58:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil; id AA19535; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:54:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:54:48 -0500 From: Scott Chubb Message-Id: <9711101554.AA19535 ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil> To: rmforall earthlink.net Subject: Second Arata Errata...I like your postings...thoughts about a mediated forum Dear Rich, I certainly enjoy your postings and would like to keep receiving them. I think there are four important points to keep in mind with regard to peer-review and its role in resolving the "Cold Fusion" controversy: 1. The scientific process (and peer-review of Cold Fusion) really did become seriously flawed shortly after the initial stages of the controversy. 2. A potentially key element of this break-down has involved the difficulty associated with identifying appropriate "Cold Fusion" experts. 3. "Haste makes waste", especially during the information age. In particular, through an experience involved with putting together a special issue of an ethics in science journal (titled "Accountability in Research") in which I have conducted direct discussions with a number of individuals associated with conducting the review process (both at the outset of Cold Fusion and subsequently), I have come to believe that some of the break-down in pee-review of Cold Fusion can be directly related to the careless use of "information era" tools. Initially, this occurred through the world-wide dissemination by FAX machine of the initial papers by Pons and Fleischmann and by Jones et al, in draft form. Subsequently, in many cases, the internet has provided a second venue where hastily prepared documents have spawned exchanges that have had dubious scientific value. 4. Although "Haste makes waste," especially during the information age, with regard to peer-review of Cold Fusion, it is obvious that information era tools, and, in particular, the internet, provide a natural way for fostering greater communication about Cold Fusion and for improving dissemination about information concerning the subject. As I said, I enjoy your postings; and, in fact, appropriately managed, I think that the information exchanged through Vortex-L (or comparable forum) could be useful for facilitating a meaningful dialogue about Cold Fusion. One thought that I have in this regard is for you (or someone else) to seriously consider initiating a mediated forum for discussion of Cold Fusion related developments. I would go a step further than simply instituting the kind of forum set up by Bill Page (prior to ICCF5) by developing a structure for the forum in which individuals involved primarily with one area (for example, Arata/Zhang) would communicate and provide reviews of the comments provided by the other individuals that are interested in the area. Other potential ground rules might include: 1. Screening out of inflammatory comments-- 2. The requirement of a length limitation on particular submissions (in which longer submissions would have to be split into several submissions) 3. Suggestions for referees and outside review be considered by participants 4. Discussion groups be divided into groups, based on background or discipline with the proviso that information from any group can be viewed by all, but only people involved within the group be allowed to respond. Anyhow, these are simply some thoughts that I've had concerning the issues associated with disseminating information about Cold Fusion. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 12:09:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA09621; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:01:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:01:52 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:01:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971110150117_258717275 mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills vs. Wharton scorecard Resent-Message-ID: <"5j5Ln.0.FM2.kWsPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12697 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-10 13:21:47 EST, you write: << Mike Carrell's scorecard is based on an alleged report from a university that was being paid to endorse the BLP process. >> Larry, What do you mean by "paid to endorse"? That does not sound very nice. The university indeed was "paid to test" a Mills gas phase cell. No problem there. Lab time does cost. Are you saying the university falsified the results because they (the university) were paid to conduct the experiment? If I ask NASA to test a device, and agree to cover the cost of said test, am I paying NASA to endorse said device? Or am I just agreeing to cover the cost of performing the test?.......Larry? Vince Las Vegas Nevada From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 12:30:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12819; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:15:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:15:11 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971110141451.ZM6621 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:14:51 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Hydrogen - Electrolysis of H2O Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"sHJPs.0.-73.DjsPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12698 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some details as promised : This is copyright protected material and has been posted at this site briefly for discussion purposes only. Any other use is strongly discouraged. Copy and/or distribute at your own risk. -john From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 12:56:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05464; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:47:54 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcee19$eb5f0f80$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"G20i_1.0.3L1.wEtPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12699 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Larry Wharton To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 10, 1997 11:50 AM Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM >>Mitchell Swartz posted the Globe News article >>on missing matter. Good Stuff. > > The observation of the gamma ray halo is good stuff. but I can't say the >same for the theory that Hydrinos are generating this radiation. Even all >the BLP theory published does not propose anything as ridiculous as gamma >ray transitions in hydrinos. The energy is too great. As I understand it >the alleged energy formula has the inverse n dependence compared to the >normal formula. So then we have > > E(n) = 13.6 n^2 ev > >and for gamma rays n would be about 1000 and we need a transition from n >close to 1 to about 1000 . If this were possible I would expect >transitions between n values much less than 1000 to be occuring with much >higher probablity. So we should see much more uv and X-ray radiation. But >this is not visable. Come on, Larry. Physics 101. The energy at and orbit of 2.81 Fermi; k*q^2/2*r = 256 Kev. Which makes n equal to 137. :-) There is no law of physics that says that the 256 Kev has to be a single photon any more than a spectral series is one photon. >From math 101; 1 + 2 + 3...+ n = n(n+1)/2 Or, 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2...+ n^2 = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6 If you let n = 137, look what happens. :-) If you graph these you will see the Balmer, Lyman, and Paschen Series' for hydrogen. The Larmor Synchrotron Radiation Equation; W = 0.66*k*q^2*a^2/c^3 * (1-v^2/c^2)^-4 DOES NOT REQUIRE continuous radiation, that is the whole backbone of Spectroscopy. Regards, Frederick > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 13:44:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14158; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:35:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:35:26 -0800 (PST) From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:34:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971110163227_1636761028 mrin83.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills vs. Wharton scorecard Resent-Message-ID: <"mB-tx2.0.8T3.NutPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12701 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-10 13:21:47 EST, you write: << A worthy project for Mike Carrell would be to attempt to obtain > a copy of the alleged report and if successful let us know what it actually > says. > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 < Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Larry, Is there any good reason that you cannot retrieve the information you seek directly from the BLP site as I and many others have? The information at the site (university report) is in .pdf format which cannot be converted (I tried) to ascii text format and so resists posting to a newsgroup. Reason being a format with much scientific notation, graph charts and graphic content. Please try to pull the information directly from BLP, and then lets hear your critique. Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from relay16.mail.aol.com (relay16.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.72]) by air10.mail.aol.com (v36.0) with SMTP; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:21:47 -0500 Received: from mx2.eskimo.com (mx2.eskimo.com [204.122.16.49]) by relay16.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id KAA27692; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11066; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:51:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:51:50 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971107143834100.AAA192 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:51:00 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Mills vs. Wharton scorecard Resent-Message-ID: <"EDGfI2.0.fi2.HsoPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12684 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 13:44:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13955; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:34:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:34:00 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971107134712.ZM21775 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> References: Jean-Paul Biberian "Re: Hydrogen" (Nov 7, 11:38am) <3.0.1.32.19971107102031.0070aa8c mail.eden.com> <346342EA.46BC crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:33:14 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"qgpOS.0.zP3.6ttPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12700 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Nov 7, 11:38am, Jean-Paul Biberian wrote: >> No, if you operate below 1.47 V and above 1.23V, assuming there is no >> other electrical loss (resisitivity of the electrolyte). you will >> dissociate H20, and cool down your cell with the diffrence. and John E. Steck wrote: >Do you have any experimental evidence this is true? HH and I are >interested in >finding out the actual caloric value of the reaction. This could be true. I also would be interested in any experimental evidence. At the lower end of the potential range I would expect some difficulty in obtaining the energy gap from thermal energy. 1 ev is 11605 degrees K so the difference 1.47 -1.23 v = .24 * 11605 = 2785 K . The probablity of acheiving this energy from a 300 K temperature is 1/10700. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 13:58:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06434; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:54:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:54:34 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "Horace Heffner" Cc: "vortex" Subject: Cannon Manufacture Technology Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:50:47 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcee22$b448cd20$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"66OtM.0.Ma1.OAuPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12702 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Horace, I did a bit of searching on cannon making, and up to 1750 they were all cast. Then they developed a way of boring them.So by 1797 when Rumford did his experiment he may have used an "older model" in the interest of economy. The "caliber" or length of the bore was 20 to 25 times the ball diameter, so a 48 pounder would be about 2,773 cubic centimeters.Thus about 5.5 inches in diameter, and the bore about 11.5 feet for a 25 caliber device. At the other end, a 2 pounder would be about 2 inches in diameter and a 25 caliber unit would have a 4 foot long bore. I think Mr.. Rumford used a "blunt boring tool" so that he could get friction and heat, the same as what I get with most of the drill bits that I have, and judging by the smoke they are all o-u (even in lead). Given that there is always water vapor in the air, there will be some hydrogen present for so-called dry metal-to-metal friction and hydrino formation. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 14:42:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA15808; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:33:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:33:03 -0800 Message-ID: <34677DBA.A54 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:33:46 -0600 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, dennis@wazoo.com, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov Subject: CETI, Miley, Patterson at ANS, Albuquerque Nov. 16-18, free Expo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2TdPK2.0.rs3.UkuPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12703 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 10, 1997 Dear all, I called American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, [708-579-8258] about the ANS Winter Meeting, which will have a free Expo, Nov. 16-17, Sun. 10-4, Mon. 10-6, Tue. 10-6, Albuquerque Convention Center. CETI [941-951-2384], according to Christian Ismert, Business Manager, will have the usual "cramped little space", and "may" run a demo of excess power. George Miley and Jim Patterson will be present, but not scheduled to give talks about LENR. Hope to see you there! Rich From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 15:33:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06426; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:28:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:28:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3467987F.2F8A gorge.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:27:59 -0800 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen References: <199711101604.IAA13022 mx2.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MubeH.0.Ja1.tYvPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12704 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In Georg Wiseman's BG Book 2, on pp. 42-43, he discusses an experiment by Jimmy Reed. Reed used one phase of a common vehicle alternator, to power a cell with 60 3.5" x 1" plates (presumably stainless steel) 30 negative and 30 positive,(?) said to draw 2.4 volts at 14.5 amps. Although "full wave rectified," the current was estimated to be pulsed at 800 Hz, due to the engine turning at 650 RPM. Wiseman states that the electrolyzer "COOLED DOWN" during a three hour test, when gas pressure was allowed to acumulate in the electrolyzer. Also that the cooling effect was more apparent on the bottom of the electrolyzer, where the electrolyte was to be found. So: Maybe pressure--less than 50psi. Maybe pulsed power. Hope this helps. Tom Miller From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 15:38:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00848; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:33:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:33:46 -0800 Message-ID: <34680A1D.3045 itl.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:32:45 -0800 From: nick7 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off topic] Global warming References: <199711071616.KAA04646 mirage.skypoint.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"F2WJR2.0.-C.NdvPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12705 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hoping this will stop this off topic nonsense, Bill.... Chuck D wrote: <> How very American you are, dear boy. Rick M wrote (to Chuck D): <> So, what? The "volcano argument" often gets trotted out. Just because there are natural inputs of CO2 doesn't alter the fact that we are loading the climate with anthropogenic greenhouse gases faster than the natural "sinks" can deal with it. Evidence from the geologic past suggests that the climate has been seriously affected, to the point of mass extinctions of species, by natural effects such as vulcanism. Does it make sense for us to add to the natural climatic stresses? Does it make sense to risk a human created mass extinction? Clue: anyone who answers yes to either is almost certainly bonkers. Ignore them. Rick M also wrote: <> It's not a few, it's a lot, whether politicians, environmentalists, climate scientists or ordinary people. The "reason" is simply pre-emptive self preservation. Anyone who hinders the climate change rationale is gambling with other people's futures against their will. This is pathological policy. John Logajan wrote: <> Wrong, see IPCC pages http://www.ipcc.ch/ << Facts and facts alone are what we care about, not vote counting.[Not that anybody really has counted the votes>> Wrong again, see IPCC pages (recent newsletters) also see World Meteorological Organisation's pages at http://www.wmo.ch (climate change + AMIP) <> Harsh is not the word that comes to mind. They are not "my" beloved models, they are those of the top climate scientists in the world, evaluated by independent international organisations. I wrote <> This is accurate. In English this means that the fit is almost correct - perhaps you could let me know whether it means the same in American?. Show me a model that predicts that we *can't* alter the climate and I will show you a fistfull of hens teeth, tasefully draped with horse feathers (and covered in B.S.). Perhaps you didn't see this following bit in my original message? <> Even Singer should agree to the above quoted section. We must realise that he is merely casting doubt on the IPCC's conclusion that there has been a correctly demonstrated "discernable human influence on the climate". I even agree with him! However, this is irrelevant and only sidetracks us from the path. It does not alter the fact that we will inevitably change the climate sometime in the future, whether next week, year, decade or century. We have the ability to change our climate and will do so if we carry on as normal. We cannot be certain of the magnitude or consequences of such changes to our planetary life support systems, therefore we cannot risk "running the experiment" to find out whose predictions are right (if anyone is right). It is not paranoia to see the influence of extremely powerful, wealthy vested commercial interests in the timing of these anti climate change campaigns, coming up to Kyoto. This is not imaginary like many conspiracy theories. These interests have a name and offices. They are called the Global Climate Coalition and American motor manufacturers and oil companies are heavily represented. JL also wrote: <> You surely can't think this is a serious riposte? Water vapour is a greenhouse gas too. The reflectivity of any increased amounts of cloud (in certain areas of the globe) may just possibly be completely overwhelmed by the IR retention of the water vapour before it condenses into your US-cavalry-coming-over-the-hill reflective clouds - there is far more water vapour in the atmosphere than ever forms clouds. The clouds argument is representative of the "negative feedback mechanisms will save us" hypothesis. There are many feedback mechanisms to consider. Increased vegetation growth due to increased CO2 may lock up more atmospheric CO2 (negative) - increased vegetation will absorb more energy from the sun (positive). Increased clouds and their precipitation as snow and ice may cause colder Northern and Southern zones due to solar reflection. Altered polar zones would seriously affect jet streams and general climate circulation. Increased spread of deserts would be positive. Varaition in mean wind speeds would be? etc etc etc. Feedback mechanisms have their own limits. As we continue to load the climate with excessive human produced greenhouse gases you cannot tell me which will win out, the positive or negative. I repeat; are you feeling lucky, punk? The point is obvious and I have already said this before - the only way to be sure whether the predictions are correct is to carry on as usual. The only problem is that if they are correct it will be too late - the damage will have been done Taken from the IPCC pages http://www.ipcc.ch/ For your information - lots more to see << About the IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the available scientific, technical, and socio-economic information in the field of climate change. The IPCC is organised into three working groups: Working Group I concentrates on the climate system, Working Group II on impacts and response options, and Working Group III on economic and social dimensions. The IPCC released its Second Assessment Report in 1995 and continues to produce Technical Papers and develop methodologies (e.g. national greenhouse gas inventories) for use by Parties to the Climate Change Convention. The Third Assessment Report will be completed issued around the year 2000. The IPCC Secretariat can be contacted at: World Meteorogical Organization Building 41 Av. Giuseppe-Motta, Case postale No. 2300 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Fax: (+4122) 733 1270 Email: IPCC_Sec gateway.wmo.ch This web site is maintained jointly by the WMO and UNEP secretariats. For more information please contact webmaster ipcc.ch. >> Nick Palmer - Group Co-ordinator Jersey (UK) Friends of the Earth From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 16:40:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18307; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:37:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:37:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:37:33 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"YhYeg3.0.sT4.dYwPq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12707 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:52 PM 11/7/97, Michael Randall wrote: [snip] > >Yes, I've built a simple small Brown's Gas generator several years back >using 22 gauge stainless steel sheets. It was easy to find and fabricate to >the desired shape. Cell parameters were: ac (60hz) rectified cell voltage >1.5 to 2.10v; peak current 1 amp. per 4 sq.in. electrode area; equal areas >of electrode for cathode and anode. The electrolyte was NaOH. > > >Some of the BG effects: > > >1. Endothermic reaction that causes a "cooling" of the electrolytic cell and >electrolyte. This was due to little or no "re-bonding" into di-atomic >molecules that heating would occur due to exothermic reaction. [snip] Just curious about that cell voltage of "1.5 to 2.10 V." Does that mean the voltage oscillated across that range, or is that a tolerance in the specifications? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 16:40:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13524; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:34:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:34:23 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110182826.0072aacc mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:28:26 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Voltage...Re: Hydrogen-Horace In-Reply-To: References: <34667666.DE4566EB verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mF1rV3.0.BJ3.DWwPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12706 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:50 11/10/97 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > >Just an additional note on the use of LM317 regulators; > >The two resistances that form the voltage divider for the regulator should >add up to no more than 100 ohm. Mike, that's not what National says about using the LM317. They just say to make the upper resistor (the one connected between Vout and ADJ) always 240 ohms. The lower one (the one that goes from ADJ to ground) is typically 1000 or so, depending upon the desired output voltage. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 16:51:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18767; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:49:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:49:48 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:44:29 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Voltage...Re: Hydrogen-Horace In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971110182826.0072aacc mail.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"sYbB_2.0._a4.fkwPq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12708 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I use 210 to 270 ohms and 5 K variable. It works OK. If you follow Bob Pease, the grand Tsar, you can shunt the 5K to ground with maybe 0.01 and cut noise. I like to choke feed everything ... but,hey, I like it quite. If you want to watch what is going on rob ... uh look at ... the circuit from my patent I no longer own ... # 5,439,009 at womplex and scale to your needs. And remember FLOAT the circuit I show! I usually run this up for my own use with a quad op amp. I use one of the remaining two for synthetic ground... choke it.... And then I can use the last op amp for gain or filter or what have you. This patent is an example of how I like to be able to solve the puzzles ... simple. J On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Scott Little wrote: > At 08:50 11/10/97 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > > > >Just an additional note on the use of LM317 regulators; > > > >The two resistances that form the voltage divider for the regulator should > >add up to no more than 100 ohm. > > Mike, that's not what National says about using the LM317. They just say > to make the upper resistor (the one connected between Vout and ADJ) always > 240 ohms. The lower one (the one that goes from ADJ to ground) is typically > 1000 or so, depending upon the desired output voltage. > > Scott > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 23:00:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA13291; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:50:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:50:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:49:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711110649.WAA00055 italy.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"qW_Pl.0.bF3.d00Qq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12709 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 09:27 AM 11/10/97 -0600, John E. Steck wrote: >On Nov 8, 4:08am, Michael Randall wrote: > >> George Wiseman publishes a how-to-built-it BG generator book series (small >> to big size generator designs) for $10 ea. available from ITS. It also >> explains the BG theory as well as conventional electrolyzer operation. > >> If you're interested I could dig up some of my earlier BG posts or if you >> have any questions just let me know. 8^) > >With regard to the endothermics, I would find it interesting. According to George Wiseman's research findings with his BG units he gives a good argument as to why his units' "coolness" is an endothermic reaction along with where does the "significantly larger volume of gas" comes from. It is believed that these effects are due to the unique BG electrolysis method of generating mon-atomic H & O. The "coolness" of the cell is due to the mon-atomic atoms not recombining to di-atomic H2 & O2 which would release heat like conventional electrolysis. The larger volume of gas is due to the the mon-atomic moles would take up twice as much volume that di-atomic moles for the same weight of water electrolyzed. "When bonds reformed, it is an exothermic reaction, you get excess heat. When H and H form H2, there is an excess heat of 104.2 Kcal. And when O and O form O2, there is an excess heat of 118.3 Kcal. For the two water moles we split, these reforming energies add up to 326.7 Kcal. This is how normal electrolyzers get hot. Some heat is used during the process instead of electricity, to split more water but generally, you must "dump" this as waste heat. Note that we just formed two moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen." > My apologies >that it did not strike a chord the first time around! No apologies necessary. Most people also never heard of BG either. Brown's Gas (BG) is honored after the researcher Yull Brown. It is fairly recent work, since 1975, currently the Chinese are manufacturing his welder design (4,081,656) and selling them for $5,500. The original design was based on W.A. Rhodes 3,310,483. The unique "effects" of BG has been written up in PACE, ITS, Explore More and other journals as witnessed by experts, scientists and industry worldwide. Wiseman's Books explains them all in good detail. You have to see it to believe it. Even then some experts still do not believe what they just saw. It is not widely written in electrochemical books. It is new research findings that have not made it into the general college text books as yet. The torch flame has plasma like qualities like welding glass to brick, brass to aluminum, brick to brick, steel to brick etc... all in the open air without any vacuum. Also video's of these effects are available. Gary Hawkins built a unit and is viewable at his site (I don't have it at the moment). George Wiseman's e-mail address is wiseman eagle-research.com and he is currently building a welder unit. >Also, any chance you might have more specific information on that book series? > A keyword search didn't turn up anything. Yes, the books can be ordered from George directly or from the Int'l Tesla Society (ITS) bookstore (800)395-0137. Title's: Brown's Gas Book I, and Book II, $10 ea. George Wiseman also did BG Workshops at the ITS annual symposium for the past several years. I hoped this helped :-) Michael Randall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 10 23:58:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA27988; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:53:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:53:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:53:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711110753.XAA24973 norway.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"XXHmB2.0.Cr6.px0Qq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12710 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 03:27 PM 11/10/97 -0800, Tom Miller wrote: >In Georg Wiseman's BG Book 2, on pp. 42-43, he >discusses an experiment by Jimmy Reed. > >Reed used one phase of a common vehicle alternator, to >power a cell with 60 3.5" x 1" plates (presumably >stainless steel) 30 negative and 30 positive,(?) >said to draw 2.4 volts at 14.5 amps. Although "full >wave rectified," the current was estimated to be >pulsed at 800 Hz, due to the engine turning at 650 RPM. Yes, also in Henry Puharich's (4,394,230) electrolysis design, he found that pulsing of the current as a key element for efficient hydrolysis. Wiseman theory for Reed's Hyper-Gas involves "harmonics." "I've known for a long time that we MUST get the gas away from the plates as quickly as possible to prevent it from becoming 2H2/O2, due to the extra electron activity. I think that Jimmy lucked onto the exact conditions needed to achieve a sub-harmonic resonance in his electrolyzer that actually vibrated the plates themselves." This is also what Puharich did in his electrolyzer. By mechanical tapping of the cell or by reversing the output electrodes to break the "barrier effect." I noticed that at low voltage (1.5v) the gas bubbles formed on the electrode plates without leaving to the surface (At higher voltage you can see the bubbles leaving the plates rapidly). When I mechanically tapped the cell the bubble would then leave to go the the surface. An experiment to confirm this would be to vibrate the electrolysis cell with say a piezoelectric transducer with low electrolyzer cell voltage, to see if it could generate Hyper-Gas. >Wiseman states that the electrolyzer "COOLED DOWN" >during a three hour test, when gas pressure was allowed > to acumulate in the electrolyzer. Also that the cooling >effect was more apparent on the bottom of the electrolyzer, >where the electrolyte was to be found. Yes, this is an endothermic reaction. >So: > >Maybe pressure--less than 50psi. > >Maybe pulsed power. Definately. >Hope this helps. Did you build a BG unit? Any observations? :-) Michael Randall >Tom Miller From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 00:17:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA20656; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:08:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:08:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:07:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711110807.AAA28758 norway.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: BG Hydrogen Resent-Message-ID: <"4-iBw2.0.g25.5A1Qq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12711 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 03:37 PM 11/10/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 11:52 PM 11/7/97, Michael Randall wrote: >[snip] >> >>Yes, I've built a simple small Brown's Gas generator several years back >>using 22 gauge stainless steel sheets. It was easy to find and fabricate to >>the desired shape. Cell parameters were: ac (60hz) rectified cell voltage >>1.5 to 2.10v; peak current 1 amp. per 4 sq.in. electrode area; equal areas >>of electrode for cathode and anode. The electrolyte was NaOH. >> >> >>Some of the BG effects: >> >> >>1. Endothermic reaction that causes a "cooling" of the electrolytic cell and >>electrolyte. This was due to little or no "re-bonding" into di-atomic >>molecules that heating would occur due to exothermic reaction. >[snip] > > > >Just curious about that cell voltage of "1.5 to 2.10 V." Does that mean >the voltage oscillated across that range, or is that a tolerance in the >specifications? Tolerance in the spec's. The resultant ratio between current and voltage is dependent on many factors, such as gap distance between plates, dielectric properties of the water, conductivity properties of the water, and materials used. If your interested, take a look at George Wiseman's BG Book 1 and 2. He has a simple how-to-build unit with common hardware store parts. You will discover electrolysis effects that are quite unique :-) Regards, Michael Randall >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 07:51:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27683; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:46:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:46:23 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Graph of a Series Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:41:20 -0700 Message-ID: <01bceeb8$4211fec0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"ISMbJ1.0.Cm6.Ct7Qq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12712 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex A "graph" of a series, 1+2+3...+n = n(n+1)/2 For n = 5 (complete the lines from each above the vertical line to each line below) ............................................. | | | | | .............................................. | | | | ............................................... | | | ............................................... | | ............................................... | ............................................... Anyone want to try for n = 137? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 08:16:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11776; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:05:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:05:59 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:04:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971111110358_258827466 mrin86.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Emissivity & XSH Resent-Message-ID: <"L6SEy1.0.wt2.Y98Qq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12713 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov. 10, Vince Cockeram posted specific instructions for accessing relevant material on the BLP website, and Mike Carrell provided a description of the Calvet calorimetry and confirmed that the material can still be accessed. (I was going to ask on Vortex-L if anyone knew what Calvet calorimetry was, but Mike took care of that problem.) Vince, thanks for the directions and for the confirmation of what was there. Next time I'm at the public library, I'll have to ask them to download Adobe's Acrobat Reader (or buy it: the last time I tried to download it at the library, Adobe's site was persistently busy). Mike, thanks for the description and the good news that the material is still on the website. It's good to know that both Vince Cockeram and Mike Carrell have saved this important material. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 08:36:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07854; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:32:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:32:42 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971110141451.ZM6621 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:36:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen - Electrolysis of H2O Resent-Message-ID: <"S6RiG3.0.Xw1.eY8Qq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12714 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thank you, John, for putting up the information on water electrolysis. Do the figures have captions in the original book? The two figures on cell voltage vs current are puzzling and contradictory. Consider the first figure. It shows two curves of cell volts vs current density. One curve is plausible---the current density decreases to zero near 1.45 V. The second curve, however, shows current persisting at about 1000 A/m^2 well below the usual reversible voltage. What is this second curve? Consider the figure three, which shows "electrolyzer cell current" vs volts. This plot shows _negative_ current flowing for potentials less than about 1.9 V. In other words, this cell acts like a battery below 1.9 V. This is perfectly possible, of course, but what kind of cell is it? How can one interpret the data without knowing what kind of cell it applies to? Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 09:01:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20567; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:48:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:48:46 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Mills vs. Wharton scorecard Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:22:40 -0500 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: <19971111165102777.AAA121 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"nhQb3.0.G15.cn8Qq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12715 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: With respect to Larry Wharton's rebuttal to my scorecard. > Mike Carrell's scorecard is based on an alleged report from a university > that was being paid to endorse the BLP process. I have not seen any > evidence that this report actually exists and if it does that it actually > confirms the process as claimed. And paid endorsements are usually totally > worthless. A worthy project for Mike Carrell would be to attempt to obtain > a copy of the alleged report and if successful let us know what it actually > says. As others have pointed out by now, the reports are on the BLP website. Some people report difficulty accessing the area. I have downloaded and printed the whole contents of the site for my files. I have spot checked and the material is still available. You need the Adobe Acrobat 3.0 reader, which is a free download and can be triggered from the BLP website (I don't think the Acrobat reader works with Macs) The "University Report" is "Report on Calorimetric Investigations of Gas-Phase Catalyzed Hydrino Formation". The text but not the graphs are currently available. As others have pointed out, because BLP paid to have tests done does not make the paper a paid endorsement. A description of the Calvet calorimeter is available as Section 2 of Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen. This work was done at either BLP or Franklin & Marshall, so I suppose this alone invalidates it by Larry Wharton's criterion. > My arguments were directed to the general problem of gas phase cold > fusion and there have been many reports, papers and patents published on > the process and every one I have seen does the calorimetry as I described. > The original Italian work was published in Neuvo Cimento. It is there for > anyone to read. I read it. It would be useful reading for Mike. The > Panatelli patent was published in Infinite Energy. I read it. The > calorimetry is clearly described there. I would like to see Mike read it > and let us know how he would put it on his scorecard. I looked up the Piantellu patent in IE #4. Indeed, the heat is removed by a water jacket surrounding the reaction chamber, so there is a nominal similarity to the Calvet calorimeter. Thus I fail again to follow the argument about the effect of hydrogen in reducing the emissivity of surfaces as giving false indications of CF. The argument is relevant in itself, if claims for the device were based on measurements of the temperature of the reacting surface. This does not seem to be the case in the Piantelli patent. Whatever happens to the surfaces in the reacting chamber, the heat output is transferred to the cooling water. The energy gain is on the basis of electrical energy in to heat in the exit cooling water. As for Mills, as study of the website will show that the BLP reaction occurs in a cloud of vapor, not on any catalyzing surface or within any electrode. Energy coupling to the external world seems to be mostly by radiation as the internal gas is at low pressure. Personally, I don't see a clear path to a megawatt reactor dependent on these conditions. However, BLP is closely allied with Thermacore which makes a business of heat transfer. Farrell told me that the heat transfer people told BLP that if BLP produces the energy, they will get it to the outside world. > >Scott Little pointed out that the specific report on the BLP website shows > >that the measurements were made by immersing the whole apparatus in a > >Calvet calorimiter, which integrates the total energy output of the > >apparatus. Arguments about the emissivity of surfaces within the apparatus > >are irrelevant. > > > >Mills 1, Wharton 0. > > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 09:31:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23313; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:23:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:23:29 -0800 Message-Id: <346882F7.E5CC1604 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:08:23 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: More on math Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------681385A20392642B44FDCCC0" Resent-Message-ID: <"WsK_Z3.0.Bi5.FI9Qq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12716 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------681385A20392642B44FDCCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Frederick and all Vortex, Starting from one, sum of the cubes of numbers = squares of sum of the numbers. 1^3+ 2^3 +...+ n^3 = (1 + 2 +...+ n)^2 Did you know this relation? I proved it it holds for any n if the equation for n=2 is prooved true (1+2^3= (1+2)^2) I used the 1+2+3...+n = n(n+1)/2 pointed by Frederick J. Sparber Attached page has javascript for easy calculation. The page is located on web at www.geocities.com/rainforest/6660/cubes.html. (There is also some humour written on Turkish) Regards, hamdi ucar --------------681385A20392642B44FDCCC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="cubes.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="cubes.html" Little Known Math

A Little Known Mathematical Property

Starting from one,

sum of the cubes of numbers = squares of sum of the numbers.

13+ 23 +...+ n3 = (1 + 2 +...+ n)2

Try it:

n =

Note: Please move the window if the Result window is not visible.
--------------681385A20392642B44FDCCC0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 09:31:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA24261; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:27:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:27:33 -0800 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971111112701.ZM15688 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:27:01 -0600 In-Reply-To: Schaffer gav.gat.com "Re: Hydrogen - Electrolysis of H2O" (Nov 11, 10:33am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen - Electrolysis of H2O Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"aGt123.0.-w5.3M9Qq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12717 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 11, 10:33am, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > Do the figures have captions in the original book? The two figures on cell > voltage vs current are puzzling and contradictory. No, but the text makes reference to them as 'see figure ....' > This is perfectly possible, of course, but what kind of cell is it? How > can one interpret the data without knowing what kind of cell it applies to? An oversight doing 10 things at once. Sorry for the confusion. I will try and cross reference the figures with the relevant text to night. In the mean time, I will number the images on the page. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 10:23:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06353; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:19:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:19:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34688FF7.6BC1A3FD verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:03:51 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: #5,439,009 ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PCUrs2.0.2Z1.N6AQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12718 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: [snip] > circuit from my patent I no longer own ... # 5,439,009 at womplex and > scale to your needs. [snip] Is this really # 5,439,009? Gives a tobacco production patent! (I did not fetched images to check is there a electronic circuit here.) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 10:31:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA07204; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:24:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:24:23 -0800 Message-ID: <19971111182347.18582.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [206.150.170.108] From: "Peter Aldo" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Hello Greg???? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:23:46 PST Resent-Message-ID: <"UuF9Z1.0.Tm1.MBAQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12719 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg, I'm still waiting for your reply. I sent you a picture of my generator and test results showing its anti- Lenzian behavior. Are you still going to put it on your web site? Did you not get my last two messages? Peter Aldo >From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 8 14:02:14 1997 >Received: (from smartlst localhost) > by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA31182; > Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:58:58 -0800 >Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:58:58 -0800 >Message-ID: <3464E0A8.9FDB9A7D microtronics.com.au> >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 08:29:04 +1030 >From: Greg Watson >Organization: Greg Watson Consulting >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg >Subject: Re: SMOT leveling >References: <3463D9FC.5904591E microtronics.com.au> <34646BD6.3076 math.ucla.edu> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Resent-Message-ID: <"k7pFg.0.Zc7.V2EPq" mx1> >Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12604 >X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > >Barry Merriman wrote: >> >> Greg's moneyback guarantee is contingent on operating the SMOT >> on a "level surface", since it obviously would not be able >> to roll around if it is tilted too much, even if it is OU. >> >> As was noted by various attempted replicators, it can be quite >> difficult to get sufficiently level surfaces for delicate >> rolling tests. >> >> Greg: does the new plastic version of the SMOT float? If it >> did, it would be easy to machine it so that (at least >> with no ball present) it would float perfectly level in >> a dish of water. If the balls are light compared to the >> plastic block, they would not disrupt this level, and that >> would be a simple way to make an adjustment-free self-leveling >> smot....just take it out of the package, then add water :-). >> >> If water is too jiggly, some more viscous liquid, like oil, >> might work better. >> >> If no simple self leveling version (which seemingly must make use of >> a liquid) is possible, then in the ultimate commercial version >> you will probably need to put 3 screw-adjustable legs on the >> bottom and set of x and y axis leveling bubbles embededd in >> the block (as is done with analog precision balances), or perhaps >> a small embedded plumb bob, so that it can be accurately >> and conveninetly leveled manually. >> >> -- >> Barry Merriman > >HI Barry, > >Floating in liquid is a good idea, but its not that touchy. > >Just put the ball on the flat top surface and shim the edges with >80Gsm A4 paper bits until the ball stays still. 80Gsm paper bits are >0.1mm thick. > >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 10:56:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13408; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:52:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:52:44 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971111135339.006d29cc post.queensu.ca> X-Sender: simonb post.queensu.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:53:39 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Bart Simon Subject: Asti workshop Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qxtP82.0.LH3.xbAQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12722 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all, Its been ages, and I have been reduced to intermittent lurker status until now because of a change in my computer and employment situation (please note the new e-mail address). I am perhaps late in saying so, but I was so sorry and devastated to hear of Chris' passing. As an enthusiastic chronicler of the cold fusion story I found his input and insights on this list extremely valuable. If it is possible to say that there are p illars of this virtual community, Chris would definately qualify. I am grateful also to Gene for delivering a wonderful eulogy. Um, I have managed with some effort to convince the chair of my new department (we're talking sociologists here remember) that I should go to the Asti workshop and I would be happy to file a report to vortex upon my return. Looks like i'll finally get to see Italy (see, there are some assets to working on cold fusion :-) I am hoping that Peter can also go since he is more qualified to comment on the technical details than I, but I am also willing to try and find some answers to any questions that any of you might have. I can't promise anything but I can certainly try my best... I know who we really need in Asti is Chris... cheers, Bart ===================================================== Bart Simon simonb post.queensu.ca Dept. of Sociology http://post.queensu.ca/~simonb/ Queen's University Kingston, Ontario phone: 613-545-6000 x7152 K7L-3N6 fax: 613-545-2871 ===================================================== From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 11:49:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10449; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:46:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:46:11 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: More on math Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:42:46 -0700 Message-ID: <01bceed1$9b112960$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"0OW5M2.0.9Z2.nVAQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12720 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Hamdi Ucar To: vortex Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 10:26 AM Subject: More on math >Hi Frederick and all Vortex, > > >Starting from one, > > sum of the cubes of numbers = squares of sum of the numbers. > > 1^3+ 2^3 +...+ n^3 = (1 + 2 +...+ n)^2 > > >Did you know this relation? I proved it it holds for any n if the equation for n=2 is prooved true (1+2^3= (1+2)^2) I used the >1+2+3...+n = n(n+1)/2 pointed by Frederick J. Sparber > Nice going Hamdi. :-) 1^3+2^3+3^3+4^3.....N^3 = n^2(n+1)^2/4 So, n^2(n+1)^2/4 = [n(n+1)/2]^2 The point of the post was to show how many possible discreet energy steps are possible in the formation of a hydrino or electrino.With the possibility of energy release up to 35 Mev or so for the hydrino and 256 Kev for the electrino, Without the release of any "Gamma" radiation. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 11:51:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10739; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:48:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:48:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:42:29 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ERROR Correct # is 5,439,003 Re +++NOT: #5,439,009 ?+++ In-Reply-To: <34688FF7.6BC1A3FD verisoft.com.tr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"d9Xeb3.0.jd2.oXAQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12721 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My bad .... It is 5,439,003. Doh!!!! On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > John Schnurer wrote: > [snip] > > circuit from my patent I no longer own ... # 5,439,009 at womplex and > > scale to your needs. > [snip] > > Is this really # 5,439,009? Gives a tobacco production patent! > (I did not fetched images to check is there a electronic circuit here.) > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 12:18:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29794; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:09:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:09:09 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re; More on Math and Fractional Orbital States. Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:06:34 -0700 Message-ID: <01bceedd$4f96d780$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"KUIex1.0.SH7.ajBQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12723 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: See what you can do to this one, Hamdi. :-) 1^2+2^2+3^2.....+ n^2 = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6 n = 137 or >> 137 Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 13:11:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09689; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:06:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:06:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:03:41 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Change in change of address Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711111606_MC2-27D4-7A6F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"KCOLe1.0.3N2.iZCQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12724 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I still have five boxes of books to unpack, but I am safely ensconced in my new office. I ended up in the suite next door: #104, not 105. The address, again, is: Jed Rothwell Infinite Energy Magazine 1954 Airport Road, Suite 204 Chamblee, Georgia 30341 This is the DeKalb-Peachtree airport. The airplanes are parked just outside the building. My old office will be torn down in December. The other day I pulled the outside door shut and the handle came off in my hand. During a thunderstorm filthy water from the roof poured in on to my neighbor's computer. The landlord called in a second-hand heating and air conditioning dealer to estimate salvage value. The guy took one look at the equipment, laughed, and asked, "where did you get this stuff, the Mayflower?" - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 14:03:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA19353; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:55:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:55:49 -0800 Message-ID: <3468D470.E41A6E43 microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:26:00 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex , List Server Newman Subject: "On Dangerous Ground" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"whZuE2.0.Ek4.ZHDQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12725 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, Came home a few days ago and found a copy of the Steven Segal video "On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) on my door step. Someone had written "YOUR", in red ink, in front of the "On". Has caused me a few negative thoughts. Almost pulled my web site off-line. Who Sent it???????????????????? ========================== I am altering the exit profile on 5 SMOT Mk4 units at present. The start of the exit ramp stays at -10mm then drops to -13mm after the 25mm long exit ramp and the start of the first 90 deg right hand turn, drops to -14 at the finish of the second 90 deg right hand turn and the start of the back return straight. Other profiles are the same. Should have the reworks back by Friday. Discovered we only have to polish out the bottom half of the troughs. Makes the work quicker. I have also gone to 30mm (20mm above magnets) high flux return guides on the last 2 magnets. Was using 20mm high on the last magnet. The overall effect is to further reduce flux density under the arrays and the increased PE energy produced by the exit contour mods helps as well. I believe these mods will not impact the schedule and will generate REALLY solid "Rollarounds". -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 15:57:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09416; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:53:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:53:36 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:53:21 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: List Server Freenrg cc: List Server Vortex , List Server Newman Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <3468D470.E41A6E43 microtronics.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-ZU8U3.0.xI2.z_EQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12726 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Greg Watson wrote: >>"On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) on my door step. >>Someone had written "YOUR", in red ink, in front of the "On". >> >>Has caused me a few negative thoughts. Almost pulled my web site >>off-line. >> >>Who Sent it???????????????????? >> >>========================== Glad you didn't pull your site. "THEY" can be ON Dangerous Ground - 'Yours' if you think they may try it again... if it wasn't the POSTAL or UPS Tracable, But just dropped off, THIS would BE the LAST GROUP I would want to tangle with for collective ingenuity. Depending on your home/office layout, (and if pets are allowed out).. Everyone here Knows a Door-Knob or Porch can become very prone to deliever a high voltage shock (110,220,440 880 --> Telsa pulse + (opps didn't know you were coming or I didn't mean to bake your cake! :) Scientist at work! Neigbors can be notified to ring you if 'outsiders' appear. Family can alternate 'going out schedules' so someone is always home. Long range passive IR can be perimeter'd around house or down road to give plenty of announciation of 'incoming'... I would be afraid to speculate what other members of the l-ist might come up with :):):) Of course video recordering is very goo intelligence gather device to. ------- Really a SHAME though that such things would/might even have to be considered... (sigh).... I think I read in our US paper that AUssies have to have their guns registered AND Trigger LOCKed AND be open to a 24 hour review (IN HOME saftey check) if they want to OWN a firearm.? humm I never had to register (yet they say) humm.. What are we coming too? Firearm Note, in Texas, they just had their 12th annual Pumpkin Throwing Contest (*NO EXPLOSIVES ALLOWED*) - Winning over V-8 powered and liquid nitro rigs, throw a record 10 pound pumpkin over 3,782 (into a chicken coop OVER the horizon... let's see human 150-200lbs/3782' -- humm Chuck a F__ker Contest! :) ------- Yep, I'd be AFRAID to think what THIS L-ist would come up with to come to your rescue if you asked us -- Including software filter of members, (past and present) from the archieves or Bill's script OUT. (real name or Not, SERVERS are there!) address's can be back track for most anything seen on the internet. we would know Country (plus)! === Keep up the good work and hollar BEFORE you need us! Best to you & yours -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 16:20:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05012; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:17:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:17:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3468F550.3CD0 math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:16:16 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More on math References: <346882F7.E5CC1604 verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"idY241.0.EE1.0MFQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12727 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Hi Frederick and all Vortex, > > Starting from one, > > sum of the cubes of numbers = squares of sum of the numbers. > > 1^3+ 2^3 +...+ n^3 = (1 + 2 +...+ n)^2 > > Did you know this relation? This is well known for the past ~ 500 years or so, though it is seldom pointed out. There are simple closed formulas for the sum of integers raised to any power, and the above is obvious from the closed formulas. However, what I have never seen is any give any explanation for "why" the above formula is true, i.e. some sort of simple pictorial argument, which should exist. Its probably not just a coincidence. The above equation says that if I use tennis balls and make cubes of size 1x1x1, 2x2x2,...,nxnxn, it is possible to rearrange all those balls into an area of (1+2+....+n)x(1+2+...+n) balls, which is not immediately obvious. It also says its possible to arrange them into a 4-dim nxnxnxn cube, minus certain diagonals of the cube, also not obvious. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 16:27:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14980; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:23:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:23:40 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3468F703.7FF4 math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:23:31 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <3468D470.E41A6E43 microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"R0TG03.0.vf3.BSFQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12728 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > Hi All, > > Came home a few days ago and found a copy of the Steven Segal video > "On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) on my door step. > Someone had written "YOUR", in red ink, in front of the "On". > > Has caused me a few negative thoughts. I would be worried only because the person who put it there probably believes there is some conspiracy to cover up infinite energy, and is thus doubly nutty (conspiracy and free energy), and is therefore perhaps insane enough to cause you some trouble. The odds that any Big Business is threatened by your work are 0. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 16:44:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA08727; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:37:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:37:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:31:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: List Server Freenrg , List Server Vortex , List Server Newman Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"PTZck.0.E82.AfFQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12729 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Note on the intelligence Q: How was it put ....? your on dangerous ground OR you're on dangerous ground From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 16:54:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10428; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:42:14 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcef03$d20f7520$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"_v-0Y2.0.lY2.bmFQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12730 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 5:28 PM Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" >Greg Watson wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Came home a few days ago and found a copy of the Steven Segal video >> "On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) on my door step. >> Someone had written "YOUR", in red ink, in front of the "On". >> >> Has caused me a few negative thoughts. > >I would be worried only because the person who put it >there probably believes there is some conspiracy to >cover up infinite energy, and is thus doubly nutty >(conspiracy and free energy), and is therefore perhaps insane >enough to cause you some trouble. The odds that any >Big Business is threatened by your work are 0. That Much? :-) Regards, Frederick > > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 16:59:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12589; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:57:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:57:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711120055.QAA23341 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:54:06 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Yhx0B.0.T43.UxFQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12731 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Greg! > > > > Hi All, > > > > Came home a few days ago and found a copy of the Steven Segal video > > "On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) on my door step. > > Someone had written "YOUR", in red ink, in front of the "On". > > > > Has caused me a few negative thoughts. It seems likely to me that you have a true believer on your hands rather than a government agent. A gov type would come to your door and threaten you to your face (if they felt it was necessary). Why sneak around in a way where you might misinterpret? And a true believer would be much more likely to use the Steven Segal film as a reference point. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us! Don't take it too seriously. Anybody who is in the public eye for any reason eventually attracts this sort of nuttiness. I got it when I gave talks about UFOs years ago (and would I expect otherwise from that group?). 99% of the time it amounts to nothing. Of course, one should always take reasonable security measures and track the situation closely, but you know that. Another point-- in the VERY unlikely event that it WAS a government threat, the LAST thing you would want to do is reduce your public exposure. If anything, INCREASE it. People who have already disappeared are easy to "disappear"... Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 17:27:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16201; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:24:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:24:51 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Change in change of address Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:38:14 -0500 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: <19971112012545334.AAB121 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"Hob9h3.0.2z3.WLGQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12732 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, I ended up in the suite next door: #104, not 105. The address, > again, is: > > Jed Rothwell > Infinite Energy Magazine > 1954 Airport Road, Suite 204?????? Huh? > Chamblee, Georgia 30341 Mike From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 18:00:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09946; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:55:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:55:28 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Fw: More on math Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:52:08 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcef0d$959deea0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Um3k41.0.HR2.FoGQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12733 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Barry Merriman >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 5:22 PM >Subject: Re: More on math > > >>Hamdi Ucar wrote: >>> >>> Hi Frederick and all Vortex, >>> >>> Starting from one, >>> >>> sum of the cubes of numbers = squares of sum of the numbers. >>> >>> 1^3+ 2^3 +...+ n^3 = (1 + 2 +...+ n)^2 >>> >>> Did you know this relation? >> >>This is well known for the past ~ 500 years or so, though >>it is seldom pointed out. There are simple closed >>formulas for the sum of integers raised to any power, and >>the above is obvious from the closed formulas. >> >>However, what I have never seen is any give any explanation >>for "why" the above formula is true, i.e. some sort of >>simple pictorial argument, which should exist. Its probably not >>just a coincidence. The above equation says that if I use >>tennis balls and make cubes of size 1x1x1, 2x2x2,...,nxnxn, >>it is possible to rearrange all those balls into an area >>of (1+2+....+n)x(1+2+...+n) balls, which is not immediately >>obvious. It also says its possible to arrange them into a 4-dim >>nxnxnxn cube, minus certain diagonals of the cube, also not >>obvious. >> >x^2 + y^2 = z^2 > >But if n is greater than 2, x^n + y^n = z^n ? > >Would you buy Andrew Wiles' Solution? > >Regards, Frederick >> >> >> >>-- >>Barry Merriman >>Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >>Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >>email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry >> > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 11 21:17:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA10232; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:13:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:13:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:13:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711120513.XAA20332 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Mill's catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"jCsAg.0.jV2.BiJQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12734 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From the BLP web page we are told that the gas-phase catalyst is: "ionic hydrogen spillover catalytic material: 40% by weight potassium nitrate (KNO3) on graphitic carbon powder with 5% by weight 1%-Pd-on-graphitic carbon (K+/K+ electrocatalytic couple)" anybody recognize this as a standard catalyst formulation? what is a hydrogen spillover catalyst? is the last bit about the "electrocatalytic couple" Mill's own jargon...or standard catalyst speak? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 02:16:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA19089; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:11:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:11:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <346970CE.70128827 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:03:10 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo References: <199711082236.OAA23729 Au.oro.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------20ADED755C5ED626FA5261B" Resent-Message-ID: <"qzPv02.0.6g4.J3OQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12735 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------20ADED755C5ED626FA5261B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ross, I have really enjoyed your recent posts, the one to me and the other in response to the idea of quasars as the tail lights of space ships. Your theory is rich in mechanism, and I appreciate this contrast with the reductionism of derivation from design equations. Last night I watched the episode of Stephen Hawking's Universe dealing with black holes -- Oppenheimer "deriving" them and Einsten rejecting them as an absurd extension of his General Relativity. Aristotle's physics is also rich in mechanism, and perhaps it encouraged Roger Bacon to invent gun powder. Unfortunately for the Aristotelians, his physics was not helpful for aiming cannons and mortars. I would like to make some small contribution in the quest for infinite energy, and I need a new view of things to lead me to better design approaches. KE = mc^2 was adequate for calculating the yield over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I stumbled onto my source on the Internet; and his discussion, condensed below, of Cavendish's classic experiment, actually shocked me: "With regard to evidence that heat causes attraction, this was discovered by Henry Cavendish and presented in his 1798 paper "Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth", Philosophical Transactions, Vol. 88, 1798, p.266). When Cavendish heated the larger of the weights on his torsion balance the attraction between the weights increased. The Cavendish Experiment is a good place to begin because it appears to be the first experiment to demonstrate that fusion and emission is the mechanism of attraction." I'm trying to get my hands on a Cavendish balance to repeat this experiment because I still can scarcely believe it. You and my source seem to be attacking the same problem; and I find the contrast in your views very illuninating. I appreciate your willingness to comment on my source's ideas; and I'm going to impose on your patience by including a file of condensed quotations from my source for your further comment. Thanks again, Jack Smith --------------20ADED755C5ED626FA5261B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="z" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="z" Various quotations from Jack Smith's source: The red shift in the light of galaxies [is] due to their light travelling towards us and not the galaxies accelerating away. ... You can only understand this as being the case if you understand that light travels through the formation and re-formation of waves due to the its interaction with that emission called space, i.e. the mechanism of the quantisation of energy. [Compare with Ross Tessien: if you believe that the universe is an empty vacuum, then the photons have nothing to interact with along their journey.] The light from the Sun is considered as red shifted and that the shift in the light from the edges of the Sun is seen as an additional factor. If this is the case then the red shift in the light from the Sun is seen as "gravitational" and the shift in the light from the edges is seen as a Doppler Effect. The so called gravitational red shift in the light from the Sun is the same thing as the red shift in the light from galaxies, and is due to the way in which light travels and not a Doppler Effect. Most importantly, I am pointing out that you can not distinguish between the distance of a galaxy and its luminous intensity from its red shift. I most certainly agree with the conclusion that the red shift in the light of a body is indicative of its light rushing towards us and not the body rushing away from us. However, I see the mechanism as the interaction of the light of different bodies ... [Compare with Ross Tessien: Not that I don't think that light interacts with bodies, it does. But that interaction is really tiny due to the tiny variance in aether density as you come into a region with matter in it.] The construction of mass, nuclear fusion, involves an increase in the density of the electromagnetic emission which is called space. The solar system is subject to an increase in the density of space as a consequence of its attraction to a greater source of emission. This gives rise to an increase in the mass of the solar system which is accompanied by an increase in the electromagnetic emission of the solar system. The gravitational attraction of the Earth remains the same because the increase in the electromagnetic emission of the Earth (the basis of its attraction) is counter-balanced by the increase in the electromagnetic emission of the Sun, the other Planets, and space, i.e. Newton's third law of motion applies. It appears that the atmosphere of the Earth is continually being constructed from chemistry and ionised by the electromagnetic emission impacting upon the Earth and the electromagnetic emission emerging from the Earth. As the electromagnetic emission impacting upon the Earth and emerging from the Earth increases, the atmosphere of the Earth would be ionised at a rate which exceeds its construction. This increase in ionisation over construction would begin with compounds which are particularly susceptible to ionisation, such as ozone, and it would begin over the poles where the electromagnetic emission of the Earth is at its greatest. Of course, it means that the depletion of the atmosphere of a planet is a natural aspect of the evolution of the solar system. This depletion would be accompanied by an increase in the temperature of the planet, and planets such as Mars would show signs of once having a substantial atmosphere. Global Warming and ozone depletion are a product of the natural evolution of the solar system, and reducing so called greenhouse gases will not alleviate the problem. If you go to you will find an image of galaxy NGC4261, and the text at . This image shows that the core of the galaxy appears as less dense than the surronding mass. As you will recall, I have stated that stars can not collapse under their own mass because mass has not attractive capacity independent of emission. As you will also recall, I have stated that there are regions of space which fuse (draw-in) the surronding space and emit and exist beyond the visible spectrum. And, that these regions are embryonic elliptical galaxies. It appears from the above image that as elliptical galaxies evolve they retain this region as their core. The core of galaxy NGC4261 is clearly a blackhole. But, how do blackholes form? Physics admits that it does not understand the mechanism of gravity, only that it appears to be proportional to the mass (weight) of bodies an inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. My point is that it can be shown by experiment that the mechanism of attraction is that of fusion and emission and that a body of less weight can attract a body of greater weight if the body of less weight has greater emission. It is not the great weight of the Sun per se that accounts for its attraction of the planets, but by its great emission relative to that of the planets. As gravity is due to fusion and emission, to claim that a star can collapse under its own gravity is to claim that its emission (which is moving away from the star) causes that same emission to be fused (move towards) the star. Fusion and emission is the mechanism of gravity. This does not mean that a star can not condense into a solid body, a brown dwarf or neutron star. This I see as the result of the density of space which impacts upon a star and fuels it as fusion-emission process. The blackhole core of galaxy NGC4261 is the result of elliptical galaxies forming from space which can, in their early stages, explode as the bursts of gamma radiation detected from all directions in the cosmic sky. [Compare with Ross Tessien: So finally, if quasars are in essence, the cores of black holes that are composed of aether condensate that has breached confinement, then, those cores will boil away very much like the big bang. However, their boiling can confine the core and preclude a huge explosion, at least until it gets very small. Then, the last burst of that core ought to arrive, and we probably observe that event as gamma ray bursts. HMMM? There is a brand new observable consequence of quasar evolution. Remember the latest Hubble images that caught a GRB [gamma ray burst] fading away (I think we have bagged 2 or 3 now). Well, if there was a catalogued quasar in that position then we could prove the finite lifespan of a quasar.] Instead of seeing bodies only in terms of their internal process (as isolated systems), the internal process is seen as connected to the environment in which the body exists. For example, instead of seeing a star as a body which radiates purely as a consequence of its internal process we can see a star as an internal process which involves the star integrating the space within which it exists. Essentially, this sees a star as being fuelled by space. For a graphic representation we can adopt the model of point charge. This has arrows pointing outwards from a point for positive charge and arrows pointing inward for negative charge. If we combine these models we have a simple representation of the fusion and radiation of every type of body, including stars. PS. In relation to the acceleration of gravity. As larger bodies have larger fusion/emission capacity they are more subject to attraction than smaller bodies. In relation to bodies near the surface of the Earth being attracted to the Earth, this attraction is partially counter-balanced by the attraction of the rest of the solar system and space. For this reason the difference in the rate of the attraction to the earth of bodies of difference size is exceedingly small and has yet to be detected by physics. However, the acceleration of gravity is most certainly not a constant. If you see seismic waves as involving physical interation with that through which they travel, it is not difficult to see how the radiation eminating from the core of the Earth and in orientation with the axis of the Earth (to a greater extent than elsewhere) would facilitate the transmission of those waves. This could be a case for the construction of an experiment to demonstrate the principle. The conventional model of magnetism is based on the idea of lines of force emanating from the north pole and entering the south pole. I prefer the lines emanating and entering both poles with the north pole have a greater intensity of fusion and emission. This is to say that the attraction of opposite poles results from their difference in fusion/emission and the repulsion of like poles results from the equivalence of fusion/emission (they push away). I see the planets as having formed from a solar nebula by way of nuclear fusion which I see as involving integration (fusion) and containment by the density of space. Essentially, the radiation of the Sun is what binds the atomic structure of the planets. Of course, this stands in contradiction to the theory that the planets were "assembled" from heavy elements created in supernova explosions. Cavendish found that heating one of the weights increased the rate of attraction. Also you will see on page 255 that "the arm moved backward, in the same manner that it before moved forward". This, I believe, indicates repulsion that can occur after attraction. A phenomena that I also discovered, and explain in terms of attraction being due to fusion/radiation and repulsion being due to the equivalence of radiation. ... I am interested in obtaining any papers by Charles Coulomb, and his electrostatic experiments. So far I have not been able to locate anything. --------------20ADED755C5ED626FA5261B-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 03:37:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23674; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:33:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:33:06 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Mill's catalyst Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:29:58 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcef5e$4e9fefc0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Obbi92.0.qn5.nFPQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12736 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 10:17 PM Subject: Mill's catalyst >From the BLP web page we are told that the gas-phase catalyst is: > >"ionic hydrogen spillover catalytic material: 40% by weight potassium >nitrate (KNO3) on graphitic carbon powder with 5% by weight >1%-Pd-on-graphitic carbon (K+/K+ electrocatalytic couple)" Lets see. The formula for Ye Olde Gunpowder is by weight;75% KNO3, 15% Graphitic Carbon Powder and 10% Sulphur. :-) The "Spillover" is what you get Heat-Wise with the 1% Pd "catalyst promoter" and the Potassium Activator. > >anybody recognize this as a standard catalyst formulation? Check your United Catalyst Co. catalog. Ask George Buehler for his opinion. He will get you an honest answer after he gets over his hysterical fit of laughter. :-) Regards, Frederick > >what is a hydrogen spillover catalyst? > >is the last bit about the "electrocatalytic couple" Mill's own jargon...or >standard catalyst speak? > >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 > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 04:28:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA28347; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:24:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:24:54 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971112072211.006b9058 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:22:11 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Bose-Endstein condensates and vorticies In-Reply-To: <01bcef5e$4e9fefc0$LocalHost default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"jy4d61.0.qw6.L0QQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12737 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vorts: --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl-Peter Marzlin Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:41:19 GMT (95kb) Title: Quantized circular motion of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate in laser beams: coherent rotation and vortices Authors: Karl-Peter Marzlin and Weiping Zhang Comments: 11 Pages, 4 Figures, RevTex Subj-class: Statistical Mechanics \\ We propose a scheme based on four traveling wave laser beams to transfer angular momentum to a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate. For a harmonic trapping potential the scheme is equivalent to a rotation of the trapping potential and results in a circular motion of the condensate around the trap center. This motion corresponds to a coherent superposition of vortex states with different quanta of circulation. Furthermore we analyse the possibility to create a pure vortex state of a trapped condensate. We show that for the proposed scheme an anharmonic trapping potential is essential for this purpose. \\ ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9711084 , 95kb) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hope that helps Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 04:37:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA27893; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:33:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:33:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:33:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711121233.GAA24096 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Cavendish & heat Resent-Message-ID: <"INdah1.0.lp6.m8QQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12738 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:03 AM 11/12/97 -0500, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > "With regard to evidence that heat causes attraction, > this was discovered by Henry Cavendish and > presented in his 1798 paper "Experiments to > determine the Density of the Earth", Philosophical > Transactions, Vol. 88, 1798, p.266). When Cavendish > heated the larger of the weights on his torsion > balance the attraction between the weights increased. Shocking indeed! What does HC say about the magnitude of this increase? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 04:51:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29359; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:49:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:49:32 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Mill's catalyst Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:45:17 -0500 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: <19971112125159329.AAB227 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"C1PYG3.0.fA7.ONQQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12740 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott said: ---------- > From: Scott Little > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Mill's catalyst > Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 12:13 AM > > From the BLP web page we are told that the gas-phase catalyst is: > > "ionic hydrogen spillover catalytic material: 40% by weight potassium > nitrate (KNO3) on graphitic carbon powder with 5% by weight > 1%-Pd-on-graphitic carbon (K+/K+ electrocatalytic couple)" > > anybody recognize this as a standard catalyst formulation? I'm no expert, but is this relevant? > what is a hydrogen spillover catalyst? Farrell explained to me that "spillover" is standard jargon for a structure where a body of material is heated to produce vaporization, which spills over the boundaries of the original material. In other words, produces a cloud of vapor. I may not have this exactly right, but I believe this is the gist of it. The purpose at hand is to catalyze hydrogen to hydrinos, so we have a "hydrogen spillover catalyst". > is the last bit about the "electrocatalytic couple" Mill's own jargon...or > standard catalyst speak? I have no authority to quote, but working from the context as I understand it, it takes two singly-ionized K atoms to provide the exact resonant energy sink to induce the BLP reaction. Thus three bodies must be essentially in collision: H, K+,K+. I surmise that the "(K+/K+ electrocatalytic couple)" is a shorthand assumed to be intelligible to readers. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 04:52:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29347; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:49:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:49:30 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Arata and Zhang work, additional info Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:34:30 -0500 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: <19971112125159329.AAA227 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ps9P43.0.RA7.MNQQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12739 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: When I posted my critique of Rich Murray's work, I got an email from Russ George, who is currently working with Arata. I asked both he and Jed for background information on Arata and the Journal of the High Temperature Society. In my latest rebuttal of Rich Murray's comments, the info on Arata came from Russ and the HTS from Jed. I was negligent in not crediting the source in the text. Russ has sent me additional information, which I quote below: > Mike, > > Yes the Journal of the High Temperature Society is peer reviewed. Arata has a > bit of a special position in that society as well as a few others in Japan. Few > would challenge his work he is of such stature. It would be rather like > someone taking on Edward Teller or Glen Seaborg in conventional nuclear > physics in this country. Arata's papers have left considerable to be desired > but one has to understand that this is the work of two people working on their > own with meagre resources. While it is easy to criticize them for the obvious > missing bits one might be better off being amazed at what is there. This is the > perennial story of cold fusion. Everyone can imagine that one more bit of data > they'd like to see but there are very few of us actually putting in the work to > produce what data there is. Russ has stated my position very concisely. Miley, despite his honors, said: 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, issues raised about my own thin film transmutation studies.... What seems to be forgotten is that, at the same time, the critics must keep an open mind and also try to prove themselves wrong . Such humility is a model which Rich Murray would do well to emulate. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 05:00:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29991; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:58:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:58:26 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:54:48 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcef6a$28a97fa0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"5GSSM2.0.XK7.lVQQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12741 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott, Could you hold off posting such material until after 8:00 AM, Mountain Standard Time? I can't handle "Blacklight Powder" this early in the morning. :-) In the 4,000 year-old Black Powder formulation: 75% KNO3:15% Charcoal:10% Sulfur, the H2 gas should substitute nicely for the sulfur at 1/16th the weight. 2 KNO3 + C + 3 H2 ----> K2CO3 + N2 + 3 H2O plus Heat (and lots of it). The "1% Pd on Charcoal K+/K+ electrocatalytic couple" should get things going nicely even at 2 mm Hg pressure. :-) Personally, I subscribe to the"Hydrino" hypothesis, (by way of Light Lepton pair production and capture) but, how can one take this kind of experimentation and "catalyst speak" seriously? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 05:16:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA32509; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:11:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:11:03 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Cavendish & heat Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:08:29 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcef6c$121984e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"3Vdrh2.0.ix7.chQQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12742 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 5:40 AM Subject: Cavendish & heat >At 04:03 AM 11/12/97 -0500, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > >> "With regard to evidence that heat causes attraction, >> this was discovered by Henry Cavendish and >> presented in his 1798 paper "Experiments to >> determine the Density of the Earth", Philosophical >> Transactions, Vol. 88, 1798, p.266). When Cavendish >> heated the larger of the weights on his torsion >> balance the attraction between the weights increased. > >Shocking indeed! What does HC say about the magnitude of this increase? Interesting indeed. That could be the same time that Rumford published his "blunt borer-heat" experiment in the same periodical. Could be air convection currents involved though. Seems that pinning down the nature of heat was the "in thing" at that time. They were trying to break out of the "Caloric Theory", I guess. Regards, Frederick > >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 > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 05:34:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02255; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:31:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:31:21 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:31:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711121331.HAA28729 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "vortex" From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"84T-P.0.9Z.e-QQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12743 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:54 AM 11/12/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >I can't handle "Blacklight Powder" this early in the morning. Show a little backbone, Fred!.... >Personally, I subscribe to the"Hydrino" hypothesis, (by way of Light Lepton >pair production and capture) but, how can one take >this kind of experimentation and "catalyst speak" seriously? Interesting question from the Cornucopia of Bizarre Ideas..... Seriously, I will attempt to find the U.S. Catalyst catalog you sent me and see if they have anything similar to this catalyst. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 05:35:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02445; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:32:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:32:49 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:32:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971112083211_-2078686581 mrin79> To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Electrogravity - ELPEX V2.0 design and tests Resent-Message-ID: <"bMvNA3.0.qb.-_QQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12744 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I have updated my web site with the new design of the Patrick Cornille's electrostatic pendulum, this new enhanced device give us a 39mm deviation and strong oscillations. You will find all pictures and diagram at : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/elpex20.htm I hope that this will interest you, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+1 ) 11/12/97 - 13:24GMT Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 05:55:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06182; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:48:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 05:48:24 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcef71$33c7b440$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"VuCTC3.0.VW1.cERQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12745 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little To: vortex Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 6:34 AM Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst >At 05:54 AM 11/12/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>I can't handle "Blacklight Powder" this early in the morning. > >Show a little backbone, Fred!.... > >>Personally, I subscribe to the"Hydrino" hypothesis, (by way of Light Lepton >>pair production and capture) but, how can one take >>this kind of experimentation and "catalyst speak" seriously? > >Interesting question from the Cornucopia of Bizarre Ideas..... Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, What you say is what you are. :-) > >Seriously, I will attempt to find the U.S. Catalyst catalog you sent me and >see if they have anything similar to this catalyst. It is United Catalyst Inc. Louisville, Ky. They show some CuO and CrO3 "promoted" carbon (charcoal) catalysts. BTW. That stuff will absorb the H2O like gangbusters and pump the pressure down even at 280 C. Regards, Frederick > >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 > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 06:23:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08808; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:17:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:17:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971112141617.008d7c7c freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:16:17 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Mill's catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"0-8vd.0.Y92.9gRQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12746 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:13 PM 11/11/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >>From the BLP web page we are told that the gas-phase catalyst is: > >"ionic hydrogen spillover catalytic material: 40% by weight potassium >nitrate (KNO3) on graphitic carbon powder with 5% by weight >1%-Pd-on-graphitic carbon (K+/K+ electrocatalytic couple)" > >anybody recognize this as a standard catalyst formulation? > >what is a hydrogen spillover catalyst? > >is the last bit about the "electrocatalytic couple" Mill's own jargon...or >standard catalyst speak? > >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 > > The term K+/K+ is Mills's terminology which he gets from: K + K++ ---> K+ + K+ + 27.28 eV where the value 27.28 eV is close to the calculated value of 27.21 eV (by Mills and Kneizys, Fusion Technology, Vol 20, pp 65-81,1991) which Mills says is a necessary condition for hydrino formation to occur. Other such systems which meet his criterium are: Ti+++ + e- ----> Ti++ + 27.491 eV Rb++ + e- ----> Rb++ + 27.28 eV Li + Pd+++ ----> Li+ + Pd++ + 27.54 eV Mills and Kneizys argue that Na will not work as a catalyst because the reaction: Na + Na++ ----> Na+ + Na+ + 42.15 eV gives a value out fo range for hydrinos to form. These are all systems which were done while Mills was still doing electrolysis of H2O/K2CO3 with nickel cathodes. We now know that Bush and Eagleton succeeded in getting fusion of H+ and Na+. 40% loading on a carrier seems to me a very high loading. Also, for the reason that Fred Sparber mentions and because it starts to decompose above 400 deg C I would not use KNO3. Mills prabably uses KNO3 because of its relatively low melting point (330 deg C). My approach is to use a mixture of KCl, KBr and KI to get a lowered fusion temperature. I know that somewhere out there in the literature there is information on eutectic mixtures of potassium salts but so far I have not been able to locate it. The system that Mills describes is consistent with a catalytic fusion: H + K+ ---(Pd)--> Ca+ + energy. where Pd provides the hydrogen atom. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 06:48:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12032; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:42:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:42:35 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:41:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711121441.IAA13612 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: IE Asti workshop attendance? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"uMsUt1.0.ux2.Q1SQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12747 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: November 12, 1997 With important personages to cold fusion attending the Asti Workshop, is anybody from IE attending to cover it? It looks like a pre-ICCF-7 conference which is coming up soon. And does this presage a lesser attendance at the ICCF-7? I wonder and hope not. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 07:59:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA30222; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:54:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:54:20 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971112095400.ZM25398 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:53:59 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Hydrogen - Electrolysis of H2O Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"bjPTA2.0.1O7.h4TQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12748 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Explanations of posted images at : I will extend the post through today only. Figure [1] is a comparison plot between a four cell unit in series and a four cell unit in parallel. In series, the top curve. In parallel, the bottom. Figures [2] and [3] describe "conventional" electrolysis. Design parameters of this "conventional" electrolysis are not specifically given so I assume the author is generalizing for all reactions regardless of configuration. Figures [4] and [5] relate to construction details of a four cell unit in parallel. Figures [6] and [7] are layouts for six cell units in parallel. Again, sorry for the confusion. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 08:01:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA01243; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:59:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:59:33 -0800 Message-Id: <3469BD99.6972FD40 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:30:49 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: JNaudin509 aol.com, monteverde@worldnet.att.net, fstenger@interlaced.net, ekwall2 diac.com, rvanspaa@eisa.net.au, herman@antioch-college.edu, Dactylon1 aol.com, mikec@snip.net, dr.ing.J.Schulz@net4you.co.at, mmorales mail.hollywood.com, standeyo@iinet.net.au, Tebearden@aol.com, frounds mail.arc.nasa.gov, 106525.3533@compuserve.com, schneide ens.ascom.ch, christen@ctv.es, vortex Subject: Re: Electrogravity - ELPEX V2.0 design and tests References: <971112083214_305959691 mrin83.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7FlY73.0.vI.Z9TQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12749 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, Naudin is going to improve the effect ... This make only sense this time, if he sure the proposed theoretical model is correct and gonna build an engine using the effect. I criticize it, because the effect is already observable and probably in orders of magnitude larger than possible known electr ostatic and dynamic interactions. Yes, more solid effect takes more attention and facilitate investigation the phenomenon, but does not help really to confirm the already proposed theoretical explanation or other possible ones by ruling out incompatible h ypothesis. >From my point of view, without making comparative experiments to see the source of the effect, optimizing efforts is like walking in the dark. I previously proposed a minor modification on the setup to check is there any unbalancing vertical force applied to the balls. Possible not, but it should be checked I think. The V2.0 design imply the mass of the balls are not proportional to the trust or to displacement. Maybe the volume or the surface of the conductors are parameter, kind of the material may also have an importance. We can never be sure until a hollow balls or Aluminum materials are tested. I would note to the conservation of symmetry cared with original experiment but maybe discarded on V1.0 and V2.0 tests. To balance electrostatic forces interacting with laboratory walls, original experiment is using symmetrical potentials, as equal negati ve and positive voltages are applied to the balls. I did not see an explicit note on Naudin documentation that he obeyed this. On the V2.0 design, the symmetrical configuration is violated by using different size anode and cathodes. This asymmetry is maki ng the setup more vulnerable to external electrostatic unbalancing forces. (Note: My previous letters(on this subject) are only posted to vortex.I could resend them to this list again if requested) Regards, hamdi ucar JNaudin509 aol.com wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have updated my web site with the new design of the Patrick Cornille's > electrostatic pendulum, this new enhanced device give us a 39mm deviation and > strong oscillations. > > You will find all pictures and diagram at : > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/elpex20.htm > > I hope that this will interest you, > > Sincerely, > > Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+1 ) > 11/12/97 - 13:24GMT > Email : JNaudin509 aol.com > my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 09:53:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05009; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:50:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:50:04 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:49:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971112124927_-2097025450 mrin42.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Adobe's Acrobat Reader for Macs Resent-Message-ID: <"unyrA.0.9E1.BnUQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12751 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Adobe's Acrobat Reader 3.0.1 is for the Mac, which in spite of Apple's troubles is still king of the hill when it comes to graphics and desktop publishing. According to an Adobe customer service rep, you can either download the reader free from Adobe's website or buy the CD from them for $15. According to the rep, the help is online, so there's no manual. (The minimum system requirements are a 68020 processor and System 7 for the Mac, and that's more horsepower than my faithful but ancient Mac has.) A much larger and more expensive Adobe program ($295) will let you make PDF Web pages that are readable across platforms. The customer service number at Adobe for this stuff is 1-800-833-6687. After the prerecorded message starts, press 1, then press 8, then press 1 again. (No, Adobe and Apple aren't paying me for this, but maybe they ought to.) Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 09:53:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04962; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:49:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:49:58 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:49:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971112124921_1371571901 mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Gamma-Ray Halo Article? Resent-Message-ID: <"PuBtr3.0.QD1.4nUQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12750 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell, Would you please repost that article about the Galaxy's gamma-ray halo? (I seem to have missed something important again.) Thanks. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 11:17:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06961; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:10:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:10:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:09:45 -0800 Message-Id: <199711121909.LAA21567 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Corridor Light Speed Demo Resent-Message-ID: <"V5-vT2.0.fi1.ayVQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12752 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Hi Ross, > > I have really enjoyed your recent posts, the one to me > and the other in response to the idea of quasars as the > tail lights of space ships. Your theory is rich in > mechanism, and I appreciate this contrast with the reductionism > of derivation from design equations. Thanks for the interest. > "With regard to evidence that heat causes attraction, > this was discovered by Henry Cavendish and > presented in his 1798 paper "Experiments to > determine the Density of the Earth", Philosophical > Transactions, Vol. 88, 1798, p.266). When Cavendish > heated the larger of the weights on his torsion > balance the attraction between the weights increased. I doubt this is important. There are far too many things to account for here. The rod used would stretch altering the ratio of the lengths, the air around it would convect, etc etc. That heat should gravitate is well known, but to measure it is beneath normal modern laboratory capabilities according to everything I have ever read. I don't discount that they could all be wrong, but if Cavendish way back when said he did it, certainly others tried. The magnitude of the gravitational effect with the Cavendish balance is really tiny, and the differential in gravitation due to heat is a tiny fraction of that. So I would say he was simply fooled by the convection currents, which would indeed induce an apparent attraction. Air currents are the bane of the Cavendish balance, I built a really crude version to test out air issues, and they were substantial. As for the comparisons, I am short on time today, but they didn't seem to be dealing with the same fundamental structures as I am, and so while we may have been both talking about red shifts in this or that situation, or of explosions, I think the mechanisms I am working on and those the other person is working on are different. Got to run, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 12:30:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA06710; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:23:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:23:46 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:18:48 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: "On Dangerous Ground" Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711121522_MC2-27F7-E6C3 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"d1Vv92.0.me1.G1XQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12753 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:gwatson microtronics.com.au Greg Watson wrote: . . . "On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) on my door step. Someone had written "YOUR", in red ink, in front of the "On". Has caused me a few negative thoughts. Almost pulled my web site off-line. Governments and oil companies have to deal with major threats to our energy supply from people like Saddam Hussein. They do not have time to worry about people who invent magnetic motors. Hundreds of people claim they have invented magnetic motors, but so far, not a single one of them has ever demonstrated one, sold one, or shown anyone else how to make one. A magnetic motor would be an apparent violation of the conservation of energy. For these reasons, governments and industry pay no attention to magnetic motors, and they think the inventors are all crackpots. So do I, but I am not positive about *all* of the inventors. However, it is conceivable that someone in some part of the establishment is upset with Greg, and wishes to do him harm. Not likely, but possible. Greg could instantly terminate this threat. He could, if he chose, do something that would permanently remove any threat from the establishment. All he has to do is ship out a few kits to the people who paid for them. Those people, like Scott Little, Mallove and I, will test the kits. If we find they work as claimed, we will instantly drop everything and replicate the kits. Then we will give or sell new kits to other people. Within days or weeks a social chain reaction will occur. First hundreds, then thousands of people will see the SMOT in action. They will show it others, and the others in turn will replicate it. The genie will be out of the bottle and no power on earth will be able to put it back. There will be no point to threatening Greg when hundreds of thousands of researchers in corporate and academic laboratories have copies of his device and every newspaper in the world has described it. If Greg is not able to ship out the demo kits, or he does not wish to, then I think he should retract his claims and close down the web site. He is wasting our time. Who know, he might even get in trouble with the establishment. I do not think there is any excuse for such a long delay. Weeks ago he said the demo units came back from the fabricator and it looked good. Now, instead of shipping these kits, he is wasting his time on unrelated, unimportant activities, as Scott Little pointed out. This behavior is typical of a crackpot inventor. Greg is intelligent, open, nice, and scientific, but he is acting like a crackpot all the same, because he will not share his alleged secret and he keeps making up new reasons to delay. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 13:18:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22922; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:40:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:40:53 -0800 (PST) From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:39:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971112153934_277260397 mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re : Re: Electrogravity - ELPEX V2.0 design and tests Resent-Message-ID: <"kEDfV3.0.1c5.HHXQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12754 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 12/11/1997 19:03:01 , hamdix verisoft.com.tr wrote : << Hi All, Naudin is going to improve the effect ... This make only sense this time, if he sure the proposed theoretical model is correct and gonna build an engine using the effect. I criticize it, because the effect is already observable and probably in orders of magnitude larger than possible known electrostatic and dynamic interactions. Yes, more solid effect takes more attention and facilitate investigation the phenomenon, but does not help really to confirm the already proposed theoretical explanation or other possible ones by ruling out incompatible hypothesis...... >> Hi Hamdi, Thanks for your interesting comments about my new "Elpex" device experiment. I have already forwarded your comment by phone to Patrick Cornille. Today, Patrick Cornille wrote a "Q&A document" about his theory and I shall post in my web site as soon as he has finished it (next week, I hope)... This week-end Patrick Cornille and myself will conduct more experiments in my lab about this project, and as soon as I have some new tests reports, I shall post them in my web site. At this moment Patrick is not able to handle emails, and if you have some additional questions don't hesitate to ask me and I shall forward them to Patrick as soon as possible. Nice to speak with you soon, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin 11/12/97 - 20:35GMT From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 14:48:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12565; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:44:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:44:24 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:44:00 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: test, ignore X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <3.0.2.32.19971112154400.00695e38 imap2.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"88qtx1.0.D43.55ZQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12755 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Please ignore, I am testing a new mail client to see if it posts ok. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 18:30:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA30805; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:20:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:20:47 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346A63F7.C9 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:20:39 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711121522_MC2-27F7-E6C3 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ESJcJ2.0.EX7.zFcQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12756 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > someone left "On Dangerous Ground" (its about oil company greed) > on my door step. Actually, there is an important trend here. For my birthday, some friends gave me a copy of the Bruce Willis movie "Hudson Hawk" (its about a plan to detroy the world economy by transmuting lead into gold), presumably in connection with my research on Joe Champion's alchemical claims. The trend I see here is that working on fringe science results in being given free videos to watch. I think this is good. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 19:24:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA27694; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:18:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:18:57 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Alkali Metal Compounds and Photoemission Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:10:05 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcefe1$a41bd9e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"yD9-r1.0.bm6.S6dQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12757 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The threshold photoemission energy (and wavelength) for any of the alkali metals ranges from 2.14 ev (0.578 microns)for Cesium, 2.16 ev (0.574 microns)for Rubidium, 2.3 ev (0.539 microns) for Potassium, 2.75 ev (0.451 microns) for Sodium, and 2.9 ev (0.4275 microns)for Lithium. Yet, according to the literature on photoemissive devices "there is little in the way of explanation of why oxides or intermetallic compounds of these metals can emit photoelectrons when irradiated with photons with energies as low as 1.24 ev (1.0 microns)". Examples are S1 photodetectors, Cs2O,Ag; S3 Rb2O,Ag; and S20 (NaKCs)Sb. A couple of these, the S1 and S20 have an anomalously high yield at 1.55 ev(0.8 microns). Given the role that Potassium and it's oxide-carbonate compounds, supposedly plays in "Hydrino" formation, (Rubidium and Cesium?) one could speculate that these so-called photoelectrons in the photodetectors, Might be "Light Leptons" and these are what a responsible for the Hydrinos and Electrinos. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 20:56:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09001; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:48:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:48:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711130448.UAA19748 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:49:15 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ojb-a2.0.QC2.tQeQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12758 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > The trend I see here is that working on fringe science results > in being given free videos to watch. I think this is good. Yes, but they're both such BAD videos, Barry. What kind of trouble do I have to get into so people will give me good ones? Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 21:03:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27718; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:59:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:59:46 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711130459.WAA15670 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <199711130448.UAA19748 mail1.halcyon.com> from Fred Epps at "Nov 13, 97 06:49:15 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:59:35 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FP7e82.0.0n6.0beQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12759 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > The trend I see here is that working on fringe science results > > in being given free videos to watch. I think this is good. > > Yes, but they're both such BAD videos, Barry. What kind of trouble do I > have to get into so people will give me good ones? "The Saint" was pretty good (I just saw it a week or two ago when it came around on pay-per-view cable.) Maybe to earn that one, you have to walk around acting pious. :-) -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 12 21:06:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA12198; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:01:48 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: SMOT status? X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <3.0.2.32.19971112220148.00695c34 imap2.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"1jgLT2.0.W-2.odeQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12760 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I've been away from this group for a while. Last week I saw a flurry of posts about smot, pmod,rmog etc., (I may have some of them wrong). I thought I observed in one of Greg's posts mention of a self-running generator (RMOG?). That would be monumental news, but since nobody is commenting about it I suspect I have it wrong. And I'm afraid I don't know enough about the magnetic theories to know what all these tests Greg is posting about mean. It has been quite a while since I have asked, so, Greg, my question is: Do you have any versions of your magnetic toys/rotarys/generators working today in a continuously self-running mode? If so, how long has it been running? If not, what is the longest running device you have to date? Does any SMOT outlast the Energizer Bunny? I sure would like to see a YES response to the first question. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 05:19:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05365; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:10:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:10:25 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Alkali Metal Compounds and Photoemission Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:07:15 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf035$1061a960$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"qn-1n3.0.kJ1._mlQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12761 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Going over the numbers for the electron yield for photoelectrons from alkali metal oxides on various metals(M2O-Ag, M2O.Pd etc.)where M is potassium, rubidium or cesium, at wavelengths of 0.8 microns or more (1.55 ev or less) the yields run about 3E-3 electrons/photon or less. If this is, or is partially from Light Lepton pair production (lepton rest mass 0.75 ev or less) it will be a chore to keep the hydrogen needed for hydrino production from reducing the M2O compounds and forming H2O,hence possibly destroying their ability to form Light Lepton pairs from the photons. Perhaps this is the advantage with palladium and nickel absorbing the hydrogen before the oxides are formed on the surface. With the carbonates such as K2CO3, reaction with hydrogen:H2 + K2CO3 ----> K2O + CH2O2 (formic acid)could occur followed by reaction of the formic acid with the alkali to make the formate H-COOK + H2O, and so on. With these "artifacts" it will be a battle to keep things in shape enough to come out ahead. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 05:49:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04531; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:43:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:43:49 -0800 Message-ID: <346B7211.73DB itl.net> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:33:05 -0800 From: nick7 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711121522_MC2-27F7-E6C3 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fxUvl.0.e61.JGmQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12762 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > They do not have time to worry about people who invent magnetic motors. >Hundreds of people claim they have invented magnetic motors, but so far, >not a single one of them has ever demonstrated one, sold one, or shown >anyone else how to make one. Didn't Chris test the Takahashi scooter? Wasn't his verdict sort of positive? Didn't they have a video (OK, I know) of it powering a couple of car headlight bulbs? Nick Palmer - Jersey FoE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 05:54:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06434; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:53:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:53:52 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:49:09 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Hal Puthoff in Scientific American Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711130852_MC2-2809-CD11 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6_AOA.0.Qa1.kPmQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12763 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This month's issue of Sci. Am. has a four page article about zero point energy, featuring Hal Puthoff. It quotes Hal and it even has his photo, taken from a strange angle. It briefly mentions the Potapov experiment, not by name. I do not care for the cynical tone of the article, but it includes some interesting information. It is: P. Yam, "Exploring Zero-Point Energy," Scientific American, December 1997, p. 82 - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 06:04:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14398; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:01:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:01:45 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:58:47 -0500 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: <19971113140421069.AAA269 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"qd93v.0.tW3.7XmQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12764 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nick Palmer wrote: > Didn't Chris test the Takahashi scooter? Wasn't his verdict sort of > positive? Didn't they have a video (OK, I know) of it powering a couple > of car headlight bulbs? Indeed he did. But a scooter with a Takahashi motor was imported into the US and ran 35 miles before it failed, nominally because of a failed electronic component. Nothing more has been heard of this for about a year. I have not seen the video of the self-running motor driving a car generator loaded with headlamps, but reliable people have. Such a video is interesting, but not reliable proof as there are many ways to fake it. Takahashi is a person of reputation in Japan, and has produced permanent magnets of extraordinary strength and capacitors of extraordinary capacity. Nothing has been heard of these or applications thereof for a year or two. This is not evidence of fraud, simply that the devices have not entered into the Vortex discussion. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 07:03:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16122; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:47:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:47:37 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:47:25 -0600 (CST) From: Zack Widup Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <199711130448.UAA19748 mail1.halcyon.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"mxU761.0.ox3.8CnQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12765 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Fred Epps wrote: > > > > The trend I see here is that working on fringe science results > > in being given free videos to watch. I think this is good. > > Yes, but they're both such BAD videos, Barry. What kind of trouble do I > have to get into so people will give me good ones? > > Fred > > Perhaps if you generate enough noise, sparks or RF, the neighbors will give you "The Man WHo Would Be King" or "The Last Emperor" in hopes you will fall in love with the scenery and move to Kafiristan or China. Seriously, I hope anyone accomplishing such a threat is feeble-minded or stupid enough to be incapable of doing any real harm. Zack From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 10:34:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21856; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:26:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:26:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 97 13:33:57 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"Y4BE33.0.PL5.PPqQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12766 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: >For my birthday, >some friends gave me a copy of the Bruce Willis movie >"Hudson Hawk" (its about a plan to detroy the world economy >by transmuting lead into gold), presumably in connection with >my research on Joe Champion's alchemical claims. > >The trend I see here is that working on fringe science results >in being given free videos to watch. I think this is good. Actually, I think from Barry's perspective the value to working on "fringe" science may be far more than being given free videos. Joe Champion has been keeping me informed on a regular basis of Barry's experiments and travels -- Barry is clearly spending thousands of dollars on this quest (after his positive experience with the Texas science fair gal). Joe tells me that Barry has finally gotten the gold-making-from-lead (by thermal process) fully reproducible. Joe told me this week that difficulties with Barry's electric furnace and cupels were finally worked out. Joe says that gold is produced repeatably by Barry's now perfected Joe-Champion gold-from-lead approach. I certainly hope that Barry will eventually publish his results. The pages of Infinite Energy are certainly open to him, but I'm sure Vortexians would like to hear about the results first -- even if the exact (and very simple) process not be disclosed. As for us here in our lab in New Hampshire, we have up and running a great 6-foot lab hood, 1000 deg C furnace, cupels, etc. I am working with an engineer, Jim Uban, to confirm or reject some of Joe's processes. (If I were not putting Issue #15/16 to bed shortly, I would be working on the gold stuff round the clock). We have gotten the cupellation method down well now. Soon will come a series of direct tests of the Champion-Merriman process with comparison controls. I expect that if Barry really has gotten what Joe says he has --milligram levels of gold in active tests and zippo in control tests), then we will see it too. I was very happy to learn from Barry last July that he had put so much effort into checking out these claims of Joe. It seems that he may now have overcome some of the bugs in the system and is well on his way to becoming a member of the low-energy nuclear transmutation club. Bravo! I sincerely hope that Barry's connections in academia and hot fusion will not prevent him from telling us all about his apparently extraordinary results. Best Wishes, 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 12:14:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14635; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:08:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:08:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711132007.PAA12845 relay1.smtp.psi.net> From: "George Holz" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:08:16 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zPaxD1.0.aa3.curQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12767 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: Takahashi is a person of reputation in Japan, and has produced permanent Nothing has been heard of these or applications thereof for a year or two. into the Vortex discussion. Further information on the Takahashi scooter and magnets: The second scooter was tested in the U.S. by Magnetic Power Inc. and did not appear to provide unusual performance. Questions about component problems including the strength of magnets used to construct the motor for this scooter remain and may never be answered. MPI was handling all U.S. licensing negotiations for the manufacture of Takahashi magnets when Takahashi, who was in ill health, returned to Japan. MPI has been unable to reestablish contact with Takahashi for the last 6+ months leaving many questions unresolved. A very small effort to reproduce the magnets based on Takahashi's patents has been unsuccessful to date. Does anyone have information regarding what has happened to the scooter that was shown in the U.K.? George Holz george varisys.com Varitronics Systems From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 12:32:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17723; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:27:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:27:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711132026.PAA21314 relay1.smtp.psi.net> From: "George Holz" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Re: " On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:28:23 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6pHMj1.0.kK4.TAsQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12768 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In my previous message a cut and paste operation garbled this quote from Mike Carrell. Takahashi is a person of reputation in Japan, and has produced permanent magnets of extraordinary strength and capacitors of extraordinary capacity. Nothing has been heard of these or applications thereof for a year or two. This is not evidence of fraud, simply that the devices have not entered into the Vortex discussion. Sorry for the confusing garbled quote. George Holz george varisys.com Varitronics Systems From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 13:38:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28067; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:33:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:33:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:28:48 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Takahashi scooter Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711131632_MC2-2817-18CE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"i0y4v.0.Rs6.s8tQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12769 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Nick Palmer asks: Didn't Chris test the Takahashi scooter? Wasn't his verdict sort of positive? Yes, sort of positive. He considered it evidence of over-unity performance, but not proof. Didn't they have a video (OK, I know) of it powering a couple of car headlight bulbs? Chris said the video must be either fraud or proof of anomalous energy. He said there was no middle ground. It would be dead simple to make a fraudulent video, so the video alone proves nothing. To prove it, an independent engineer would have to test the device and the car headlight arrangement in his own laboratory over some period of time, with the inventor absent. Well absent: preferably hundreds of miles away. A week or two would be long enough to eliminate any possibility of a hidden battery or other hidden chemical energy. I would not accept anything less as proof. I do not think Chris would have, either. Takahashi was gravely ill when I last heard about him. He may be dead by now. If so, he has carried his secrets to grave. That seems to be the ambition of most anomalous energy scientists and inventors. Many are men in their 70's in frail health, like Arata. It is unlikely they ever be replicated. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 14:01:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02790; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:54:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:54:36 -0800 Message-ID: <346B9C34.163A keelynet.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:32:52 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Takahashi Scooter & Video References: <199711132007.PAA12845 relay1.smtp.psi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vi-p63.0.Th.QStQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12770 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts! A video was shown at one of the ISNEs of a Takahashi electric motor (with his magnets inside and in the proper arrangement) which was started by a 12VDC battery. I can't recall the sequence but I believe the two auto headlights were connected to the battery and were rather dim. Once the motor was running as powered by the 12VDC, the headlights burned very brightly. The video was of very poor quality and the entire thing could have been faked but the claim was that the electric motor with the Takahashi magnets inside was putting out more power than it was drawing from the battery. Takahashi was the only person in the video and he did all the connections....it was interesting but would have been way cool if it had taken place LIVE at the conference, even if someone OTHER THAN Takahashi did the demonstration.....strange how that never seems to happen where the machine can be examined and tested on site....in time...... -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 14:10:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05357; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:06:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:06:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199711132205.RAA27498 mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:24:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: (Fwd) DOD SBIR Advanced Propulsion Topic Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"U8Vwm3.0.VJ1.FdtQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12771 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:42:25 -0500 To: Marc.G.Millis lerc.nasa.gov From: "Marc G. Millis" Subject: DOD SBIR Advanced Propulsion Topic F.Y.I. The following is an announcement for the DOD SBIR >topic in advanced propulsion: > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > >AF98-045 TITLE: Advanced Rocket Propulsion Technologies > >CATEGORY: BASIC RESEARCH; Aerospace Propulsion and Power > >OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative components, manufacturing and processing >techniques, and integration technologies aimed at doubling existing rocket >propulsion capabilities by the year 2010. > >DESCRIPTION: There is a critical need for novel, innovative approaches to >develop technologies which can double existing rocket propulsion capabilities >by the year 2010, and for bold, new, non-conventional aerospace >propulsion-related technologies which will revolutionize aerospace propulsion >in the next century. These revolutionary concepts, based on sound scientific >and engineering principles, are essential in order to increase performance >and mission capability while either maintaining existing or decreasing >life-cycle costs. The proposed solutions shall emphasize dual use >technologies that clearly offer civilian/commercial as well as military >applications. Proposals emphasizing spin-on technology transfer from the >civilian/commercial sector to military applications will receive additional >consideration. Our technological goals include: 1) Improve specific impulse >and mass fraction for boost and orbit transfer, spacecraft, and tactical >missile propulsion. 2) Reduce the stage failure rate and hardware and >support costs for boost and orbit transfer propulsion. 3) Improve the >thrust to weight ratio for liquid rocket engines. 4) Improve the total >impulse to wet mass ratio for electrostatic and electromagnetic satellite >propulsion systems. 5) Improve density impulse of monopropellants for >satellite propulsion systems. 6) Improve the delivered energy of tactical >missile propulsion systems. In the conduct of rocket propulsion research we >strive to reduce environmental hazards from propellant ingredients and >processing, propulsion exhaust, and rocket motors while either maintaining or >surpassing current propulsion efficiency. Improvements in the operability, >reliability, maintainability, and affordability of space launch applications, >for example, might include development of novel systems which can be launched >with short lead times for a relatively low life-cycle costs. An example of >such a concept may include the design and development of a rocket-based >combined cycle (RBCC) engine. Such systems would need to demonstrate high >reliability and maintainability levels. Subsets of advanced rocket >technologies would have lengthy shredouts of potential research subjects but >are not stated here in detail. These technologies might include the need for >innovative combustion and plume diagnostics (i.e. application of >electro-optical devices and sensors), performance predictions, modeling of >exhaust plume radiation and combustion characterization, propellant and >component service life prediction technologies, and environmental >contamination. Additionally, bold, new advanced propulsion and related >technological concepts and products for space activities are solicited for >development. These topics include revolutionary concepts in very advanced >fuels and oxidizers, metastable high energy nuclear states, storage of >antimatter in chemical matrices, nanotechnology products and techniques >applied to rocket propulsion, enigmatic energy devices, and field propulsion >thrusters. Research in these advanced rocket propulsion topics are included >and structured to provide a maximum of innovative flexibility while yielding >promising commercial applications/dual-use technology applications to >prospective investigators. Proposals also submitted for any other USAF >Phillips Laboratory FY98 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)topic shall >not be considered for this topic. >PHASE I: Further develop the concept and perform analyses required to >establish the feasibility of the proposed approach. >PHASE II: Complete the Phase I design and develop a demonstrator or >prototype. Document the R&D and develop a technology transition and/or >insertion plan for future systems and commercial ventures. >PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Advanced rocket propulsion technologies >will transition to new, higher performing and/or lower cost U.S. Military and >commercial rocket engines and motors or advanced propulsion systems. This >will enable the U.S. aerospace industry to increase global market share for >space launch opportunities by reducing the life-cycle cost and increasing the >efficiency of inserting payloads in orbit. Advanced rocket propulsion >technologies also serve the commercial sector by enhancing our ability to >remanufacture components to maintain and monitor the health of the U.S. >ballistic missile fleet. > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * > >SBIR proposals are due January 14, 1998. Copies of the full solicitation can >be obtained on the web at: > > http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/ > >or a hard copy can be obtained by writing to: > >DOD SBIR Support Services >2850 Metro Drive, Suite 600 >Minneapolis, MN 55425-1566 >Phone: 1-800-382-4634 > Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================= Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates > Scientific Software & Instrumentation < > Quality Control Engineering < ============================================= From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 14:24:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07575; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:17:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:17:41 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346B7C72.4035 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:17:22 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gnX2D3.0.3s1.1otQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12772 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: E.F. Mallove wrote: > > Soon will come a series of direct tests of the > Champion-Merriman process with comparison controls. If anyone wants to know what alchemical research is really like, I suggest they rent the movie "Hudson Hawk". Its so much like real life, it makes me wonder where they got the script :-) Best qoute from the movie: "Alchemy is the business term of the 90's, my man---[my wife] read about it in an airline magazine..." ---Darwin Mayflower, aka Joe Champion, "Husdon Hawk" :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 14:37:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12032; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:32:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:32:12 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346B7F6D.70E9 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:30:05 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GfVII2.0.Mx2.c_tQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12773 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: E.F. Mallove wrote: > > Joe Champion has been keeping me informed on a regular basis > of Barry's experiments and travels -- Barry is clearly > spending thousands of dollars on this quest... > > Joe says that gold is produced repeatably by > Barry's now perfected Joe-Champion gold-from-lead approach. Well, Joe is an extreme optimist. I go by the experimental bottom line. It is still a big leap to go from what we have now to something that is (a) independently repeatable, and (b) clearly not a contamination effect. It is true that I have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours investigating Joe's processes, including hundreds of hours working directly with Joe. From this, one should deduce two things: (1) I find the experiments interesting, and (2) the experiments are generally not reproducible. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 14:47:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA13570; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:36:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:36:11 -0800 Message-ID: <346B7267.3EE crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:41:43 +0200 From: Jean-Paul Biberian Reply-To: biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrogen References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xk-Hy3.0.oJ3.P3uQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12774 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Let me check my understanding of what this means electrically speaking, as > I think that was the focus of John Schnurer's original question. > > If R is the resistance of the cell, then > > V = I*R > I = V/R > > Let's assume we run the cell at 1.47 V. > > We input Wi watts: > > Wi = I*V = V^2/R = I^2*R > Wi = 2.1609/R watts > > In a perfect cell Wg electrical power goes to gas evolution: > > Wg = 1.23*I > Wg = 1.23*(1.47/R) = 1.8081/R watts > > Some of the energy Wa for gas evolution comes from the ambient heat: > > Wa = 0.24*I > Wa = 0.24*(1.47/R) = 0.3528/R watts > > However, conservation of energy implies that exactly Wi - Wg = 0.3528/R > watts is left over to heat the cell, so no cooling will be observed. > Additional voltage applied simply results in more heat generated. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner Yes, that is correct -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 15:22:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23514; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:16:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:16:36 -0800 Message-Id: <199711132317.SAA15061 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 97 18:24:25 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"uIjEk2.0.Kl5.JfuQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12775 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: >Well, Joe is an extreme optimist. I go by the experimental >bottom line. It is still a big leap to go from what we have now to >something that is (a) independently repeatable, and (b) clearly >not a contamination effect. I thought the fact that Barry himself repeated the experiment many times which others have also already done constituted "independently repeatable" work. Further, if the untreated lead control experiment consistently does not yield gold, and the treated lead does, is Barry optimistic about finding a mundane "contaminant" explanation? > >It is true that I have spent thousands of dollars and thousands >of hours investigating Joe's processes, including hundreds >of hours working directly with Joe. From this, one should >deduce two things: (1) I find the experiments interesting, and (2) >the experiments are generally not reproducible. It seems to me from Joe's description of Barry's wild enthusiasm that Barry finds these experiments a lot more than just "interesting" -- else why the thousands of dollars expenditure and travel from someone who routinely discounts cold fusion, excess heat, and transmutation of radiactive materials? "Generally not reproducible"? That is not what I gathered from Joe's description of Barry's work. Maybe Joe IS just an "extreme optimist"! We'll see. Best wishes, 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 > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 15:50:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29860; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:46:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:46:10 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346B9136.21B7 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:45:58 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LwHVs.0.RI7.05vQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12776 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: E.F. Mallove wrote: > > I was very happy to learn from Barry last July that he had put so > much effort into checking out these claims of Joe. > It seems that he may now have overcome some of the bugs in the > system and is well on his way to becoming a member of the > low-energy nuclear transmutation club. Well, I would love to join that club, but my membership will be determined solely on the basis of repeatable, independently repilicable experiments, not my emotional desires. To investigate alchemy is an emotional decision on my part, by what sets me apart from the "believers" is that my scientific conclusions will be based solely on independently repeatable experiments, not on my emotional impressions or preconceptions. No repeatable experiment, no valid alchemy, as far as I am concerned. > I sincerely hope that Barry's connections in academia and hot > fusion will not prevent him from telling us all about > his apparently extraordinary results. > When there is something scientific to tell, it will be told. There is little value to me disseminating my conjectures about what is or is not going on. My co-workers here at UCLA gave me the Hudson Hawk video, so they are at best bemused by my alchemical research. If I ever start believing alchemy works, maybe they will change their minds...or line up to invest :-) But, it is worthwhile to interject a little refresher course on the scientific method: when investigating a phenomena with no known foundation, such as alchemy, one's only reliable path through the darkness is the scientific method, of which one cornerstone is independently repeatable experiment. Thus, even if I were to witness---or perform myself!---an experiment in which in went a crucible of lead, and out came a crucible loaded with gold, if it were impossible to repeat this experiment, then it is not possible to derive any scientific conclusions from it. Isolated, one-of-kind, experimental results are proof of nothing, scientifically. Unfortunately, human tends to shape their beliefs by such outliers, and therein lies the road to ruin, which I choose not to follow. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 16:08:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24799; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:57:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:57:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346B93C8.734B math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:56:56 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711132317.SAA15061 mercury.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"D0q6x2.0.I36.oFvQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12777 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: E.F. Mallove wrote: > > It seems to me from Joe's description of Barry's wild enthusiasm that > Barry finds these experiments a lot more than just "interesting" The following is a true statement: EVERY single "alchemy" experiment that I have performed on my own, using my own equipment and ingredients, in my own lab back here in LA, has given completely null results. This numbers somewhere around 40 experiments (plus all the associated blanks and controls and contamination tests, which amount to hundreds of antecedent experiments). Joe often forgets the above, but I cannot. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 16:32:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA00424; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:28:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:28:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971113192501.006c6608 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:25:01 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <346B9136.21B7 math.ucla.edu> References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"8JrKF2.0.O6.hivQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12778 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:45 PM 11/13/97 -0800, Barry wrote: >> > >When there is something scientific to tell, it will be told. >There is little value to me disseminating my conjectures about >what is or is not going on. On the contrary, science (systematized knowledge) does not require success. We are very interested in your investigations and your conjecture about what might be "going on". Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 16:36:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07804; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:31:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:31:09 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971113192820.006baf3c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:28:20 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <346B9136.21B7 math.ucla.edu> References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qLPtZ3.0.qv1.ClvQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12779 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:45 PM 11/13/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >But, it is worthwhile to interject a little refresher course >on the scientific method: when investigating a phenomena with >no known foundation, such as alchemy, one's only reliable path through >the darkness is the scientific method, of which one cornerstone >is independently repeatable experiment. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, and test of that hypothesis, with a second experiment and more observation, and so forth. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 16:44:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10212; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:43:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:43:01 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCF05B.EC51B840.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:45:24 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 48 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"iPwSB3.0.QV2.JwvQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12780 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry said: EVERY single "alchemy" experiment that I have performed on my own, using my own equipment and ingredients, in my own lab back here in LA, has given completely null results. This numbers somewhere around 40 experiments (plus all the associated blanks and controls and contamination tests, which amount to hundreds of antecedent experiments). Joe often forgets the above, but I cannot. With respect Barry, Why am I being put into the middle of this. I haven't said anything on this thread in some time. I am more cognizant than anyone of the failures of the LA tests. Hence the long hours of our work to determine (troubleshoot) the reasons. My optimism is from eight years of research. And for the record, my statements to Gene were straightforward, that we found what appeared to be the reason why the experiments did not work in LA. Furthermore, I stated that you replicated the experiments after we (I) determined the problems using your own equipment and chemicals. Gene added a wee bit of sensationalism to my statements and made a post. I also explained to Gene that you would have to return to LA and replicate. Be it alchemy or transmutation, you are the only person from the scientific community that realizes the energies and observed results of an extremely large reactor. Be it contamination, or transmutation, for the select few (inclusive of yourself) who are privy to my large reactor, I accept only one thing - the ounce of precious metals that it produces. Joe Champion -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 17:06:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA06805; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:01:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:01:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:55:35 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , Greg Watson cc: John Schnurer Subject: Intelligence Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"feyXf1.0.Cg1.mBwQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12782 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Greg, I am still eager to know did the people who left the tape write: Your on Dangerous Ground OR You're on Dangerous Ground ????? "Ingnorance can be treated but stupid can go clean to the bone." "The intellectual compression of an over ripe tomato." "It seems as though the lights are on but the occupants must be down the road looking for a place to park." J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 17:06:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14730; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:02:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:02:03 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346BA302.3F38 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:01:54 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> <3.0.1.32.19971113192820.006baf3c@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WjbVb.0._b3.9CwQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12783 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > At 03:45 PM 11/13/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: > > >But, it is worthwhile to interject a little refresher course > >on the scientific method: when investigating a phenomena with > >no known foundation, such as alchemy, one's only > >reliable path ...is independently repeatable experiment. > > The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, and test of that > hypothesis, with a second experiment and more observation, and so forth. > I agree, but the scientific method cannot even get started with out some form of repeatable experiment. If experiments never repeat, it is impossible to test a hypothesis, which presumes a background of repeatable observations to test against. Of course, one can relax repeatability to mean statistical repeatability, but one cannot relax it all the way to what is seen in alchemy, where one person gets great results than no one else can repeat. We demand in science that results be repeatable independent of the particular experimenter, and this is absolutely missing. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 17:13:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA06510; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:00:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:00:02 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <346B7C72.4035 math.ucla.edu> References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:55:57 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Resent-Message-ID: <"-oVaL1.0.eb1.GAwQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12781 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, pointy-hat apprentice, wrote: > If anyone wants to know what alchemical research > is really like, I suggest they rent the movie > "Hudson Hawk". Its so much like real life, it > makes me wonder where they got the script :-) Or rent "In and Out" to see what happens when an academic gets outed! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 17:31:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA19745; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:25:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:25:37 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346BA884.6D43 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:25:24 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <01BCF05B.EC51B840.JoeC transmutation.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"suzdf.0.Mq4.FYwQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12784 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: > > With respect Barry, > > Why am I being put into the middle of this. > I haven't said anything on this thread in some time. > > > Gene added a wee bit of sensationalism to my statements > and made a post. note to Joe, and the viewing public: I'm not trying to put you in the middle. However, you spoke to Gene---which is certainly your perogative---and Gene decided to post public notice here, which is his perogative, asuming you did not ask him not to. As you will notice, I never discuss the details of our ongoing research project in public, since it would be a disservice to all of us to prejudge the outcome. However, when someone makes a post such as Gene's, I feel a minimal responsibility to break my silence and point out that I am not merrily spinning straw into gold like a latter day Rumpelstilkskin. The truth of the matter is that these experiments are incredibly non-repeatable, in spite of the enormous effort Joe and I have put towards this goal. As such, I myself cannot render any scientific judgement about what is or is not occuring. I encourage Gene to learn this first hand, as I'm sure he will shortly :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 17:45:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21992; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:40:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:40:57 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971113203720.006d6164 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:37:20 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <346BA884.6D43 math.ucla.edu> References: <01BCF05B.EC51B840.JoeC transmutation.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"oKw_y3.0.YN5.emwQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12785 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:25 PM 11/13/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: > >The truth of the matter is that these experiments are incredibly >non-repeatable, in spite of the enormous effort Joe and I have >put towards this goal. As such, I myself cannot render any >scientific judgement about what is or is not occuring. I encourage >Gene to learn this first hand, as I'm sure he will shortly :-) Seismology, oncology, meterology remain sciences but not repeatable in some ways. Yet, are they not as scientific as, say, hot fusion? Therefore, with great interest in your efforts, is it possible that you might be a little more specific in your description? [We understand that there can be anecdotal (or clinical) significance before the appearance of statistical significance, and that there can be a negative result as well.] Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 17:56:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA23435; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:51:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:51:12 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346BAE89.4E92 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:51:05 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <3.0.1.32.19971113194757.006be128 world.std.com> <3.0.1.32.19971113201411.006d3538@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NPZNd3.0.1k5.FwwQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12786 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > >> Thought the amounts were milligrams? How big is his reactor? > >> Have you seen ounces come out? > >> > > > > > You did not answer the question, but then you sadly oft do not. > The reason I don't answer questions of the form "did you see X" is because too many people, suffering from defective thinking processes, equate the statement "yes I have seen X" with "I believe in Y", where Y is some highly speculative explanation for X, such as transmutation. For the record, I have seen 1 lb of gold poured from a room sized reactor where the input was about 1 lb of lead. Of course, I saw this in the opening scenes of the movie "Hudson Hawk", and its my conjecture that it was just a movie prop, but you never really know---Bruce Willis may be in possesion of the philosophers stone (which would explain how he gets some of his more terrible movies funded). Since to date I can repeat neither the opening scenes of "Hudson Hawk" nor any other clear demonstration of alchemy that I have seen, I have no logical basis for assigning a higher level of verification to either. ----- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 18:42:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00080; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:35:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:35:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:34:38 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711132134_MC2-2817-5D0F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA00029 Resent-Message-ID: <"ihKqG3.0.71.xZxQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12787 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, >>The reason I don't answer questions of the form "did you see X" is because too many people, suffering from defective thinking processes, equate the statement "yes I have seen X" with "I believe in Y", where Y is some highly speculative explanation for X, such as transmutation.<< My, my. When one declares something as speculation, and someone else then runs with it into shaky ground, what conclusions do YOU draw? Do you blame the person that speculated? I don't. But perhaps my thinking processes are flawed. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 19:29:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA11890; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:26:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:26:16 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346BC3A0.5520 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:21:04 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <199711132134_MC2-2817-5D0F compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-Rxz23.0.Zv2.NJyQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12788 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Debbie wrote: > > Barry, > > >>The reason I don't answer questions of the form > "did you see X" is because too many people, suffering > from defective thinking processes, equate the statement > "yes I have seen X" with "I believe in Y", where Y is some > highly speculative explanation for X, such as transmutation.<< > > Do you blame the person that speculated? > > I don't. But perhaps my thinking processes are flawed. You are fine, then. But unlike many people, I do not believe what I see. I believe what is independently repeatable. In order to maintain some coherency in what other people attribute to me, I prefer to discuss the things I trust---repeatable experiments---not the things I see, over which I have no control. I feel that many people do not have the same standards, and so discussing my comments second hand they may not allow me the perogative of *not* believing what I see. To prevent this, I am simply not going to discuss in public what I have or have not seen. I have already described the status of my fully independent experiments. (Also, for the purists out there---no, of course I would not believe my own experiments if they only worked for me and not for others. But I will cross that bridge when I come to it.) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 19:55:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA17066; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:50:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:50:59 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346BCA9C.4CF6 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:50:52 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <01BCF05B.EC51B840.JoeC transmutation.com> <3.0.1.32.19971113203720.006d6164@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9xIXb1.0.ZA4.YgyQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12789 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Seismology, oncology, meterology remain sciences but > not repeatable in some ways. Yet, are they not ...scientific... When practiced by a scientist, yes. But note the fields you mention are heavily plagued by superstition, folk mythology and unfounded procedures precisely because of the difficulties in controlling and studying the phenomena. That is probably why within our society there are rules about who is allowed to issue weather forecasts, dispense medical advice, etc. Its safe to assume their is plenty of anecdotal evidence for alchemy, given that it has been investigated for the past ~ 10,000 years with vary degrees of vigor. It is also safe to assume that in practice it does not work well at all, given the outcome of the aforementioned 10,000 years. My own experience is consistent with that of the past 10,000 years. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 20:03:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05656; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:58:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:58:30 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <346BCC39.966 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:57:45 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" References: <01BCF05B.EC51B840.JoeC transmutation.com> <3.0.1.32.19971113203720.006d6164@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ig2x23.0.GO1.ZnyQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12790 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Seismology, oncology, meterology remain sciences but > not repeatable in some ways. Yet, are they not as > scientific as, say, hot fusion? we could also debate to what extent medicine is a science vs. an "art". Obviosuly we intend it to be a science, but science was developed in large part to study the inert world, and when applied to biological phenomena, the more "bio" things get, the less "logical" they often become :-). In the short term science just grapples with it as best it can, by trying to go by statisitically repeatable experiments. But note in medicine their is incredible background noise due to the placebo effect, which puts it on the margins of scientific tolerability. On the other hand, this was a big driving force in the development of probablity and statistics, precisely to help make sense of the large random fluctuations encountered, so science adapts itself to the phenomena being studied. So I'm confident that a fully scientific approach will prevail in the long run.... -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 20:26:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25544; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:19:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:19:43 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCF07A.32C68A80.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Reality Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:22:07 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9CrAR2.0.1F6.T5zQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12791 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It appears that some in this group want Barry to stand up and make a stance either for, or against transmutation. From my perspective, this will happen at some point in the future. My position regarding Barry is simple - he is one of the few researchers who spends 100's of hours trying to understand the anomalies that I have observed. I fully support Barry's lack of commitment at this time. Sure, it would be grand if he would stand up on the mountain and say that my research is reality. However, I will accept second best. That is, a dedicated scientist who spends 12 =>18 hours a day, several days a month working alone and beside me in an attempt to determine the source of and the controlling factors surrounding numerous unexplained observations. From my position I am satisfied, for after all of the time expended by Barry, he is still present, working and observing. Without a doubt my level of confidence is higher than Barry's. If not I would not be constructing and operating systems that produce 100's of grams of precious metal per hour. Barry has observed the apparatuses during their operational cycle. To say the least they are impressive. However, this has nothing to do with the validation cycle. He (science) requires a repeatable experiment to study. The corporation requires volumes of precious metals. I am doing the best at my job, as he is his. Joe Champion http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 20:52:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29984; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:45:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:45:58 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:45:01 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711132345_MC2-2820-517C compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id UAA29956 Resent-Message-ID: <"4NCqb1.0.LK7.5UzQq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12792 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, >>You are fine, then. But unlike many people, I do not believe what I see.<< Would you like to re-read that? You don't believe what you SEE? Perhaps you don't trust your perception, but this is a tad blatant. >> I believe what is independently repeatable. << So you don't believe in supernovas, or hurricanes. But you miss my point. The trouble with speculating is that you just might be WRONG. You can't prove you're right. I know, that's why I went into math, too. You can either prove something is true, prove it's false, or write a dissertation, in mathematics. It's great for your sense of security! The trouble is, when a phenomenon is first discovered, it's seldom repeatable. Not believing in something is no better than believing in anything. I prefer a third box - the one that's labelled, Not Enough Data To Decide Yet. It took me a long time to build that box, because I wanted the world to be nice and neat, and repeatable. A good example is red sprites. Have you ever seen them? I'll explain 'em if not, but they're one of the most spectacular atmospheric phenomena ever recorded. For years, pilots reported sightings of this strange red phenomenon in the upper atmosphere, but they were laughed at. Then, in 1992 or 1993, one was recorded on video from the shuttle orbiter. It was even more spectacular than the reports let on. A researcher here at Marshall Space Flight Center, Otha Vaughan, started studying sprites before they were accepted as real. He was snickered at, until someone caught it on film. But he was willing to take a chance. >>To prevent this, I am simply not going to discuss in public what I have or have not seen. I have already described the status of my fully independent experiments.<< Why? Someone just might make fun of you? Does it matter that much? Anyone that is credible can site a source. I believe you're afraid to speculate. You might be wrong. Gads. >>(Also, for the purists out there---no, of course I would not believe my own experiments if they only worked for me and not for others. But I will cross that bridge when I come to it.)<< Wait just a minute. If YOU could do something - say, transmutation - reliably and repeatably, but no one else could, then you wouldn't believe your own results?? I think that's silly. Instead, you should look at what you're doing, and try to figure out why others can't get the same result. It just may be that you're NOT doing what you think...there may be some parameter or apparatus that's not what you think it is, so your descriptions aren't accurate. (Doesn't this sound a bit familiar?) But to not trust the evidence because others can't verify it...well, that's risking something totally different. It's risking being so locked into how we think the world should be that we can't see something new. And THAT is the problem with the scientific method. What happens when you do an experiment, and 10% of the results aren't what you expect? Do you adjust the experiment, repeat it, and perhaps get the results you expected? Does that necessarily invalidate that original data? Or do we just throw it away as a statistical error? Beware of being so wedded to the process that you can't see the real results. Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 20:56:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA15298; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:49:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:49:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:48:07 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711132348_MC2-2820-519E compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id UAA15275 Resent-Message-ID: <"y-68V2.0.xk3.bXzQq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12793 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, I really don't mean to pick on you, but puhleeze! >> That is probably why within our society there are rules about who is allowed to issue weather forecasts, dispense medical advice, etc.<< When my grandfather was alive, I trusted him FAR more about the weather than any atmospheric scientist alive. Why? He had something they didn't - experience with the weather for 60 years in his own little piece of the planet. The rules are more about legal issues than about who should and shouldn't do something based on predictability. Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 21:42:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA24450; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:38:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:38:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:37:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711140537.VAA00291 sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Takahashi scooter Resent-Message-ID: <"gYtWB2.0.wz5.OF-Qq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12794 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: <....> >Takahashi was gravely ill when I last heard about him. He may be dead by now. >If so, he has carried his secrets to grave. That seems to be the ambition of >most anomalous energy scientists and inventors. Many are men in their 70's in >frail health, like Arata. It is unlikely they ever be replicated. Sorry to hear of Takahashi's illness. The last conversation I had with Takahashi's UK representative Mr. Sawai back in Dec. 1995, he said that they were already building a manufacturing plant to make the supermagnets. The plant output was booked for at least 5 years. The initial market applications were for putting the magnetic material in strips for the back of credit cards. I asked when they would put the supermagnets for ou motors and Mr. Sawai said it would not occur for at least several years. It seemed there was outside little interest for funding such a venture. Regards, Michael From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 13 22:25:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA10959; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:21:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:21:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:21:40 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <346BCA9C.4CF6 math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kci-72.0.9h2.tt-Qq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12795 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: PING* 2 * This thread I think started with Greg's trouble (Video) at home, sorry to barge in here, But, Ping1 Day1, Ping2 Day2 .. (now day three(3) in Australia) Hopefully your busy working on shipments.. Greg, is all OK?????????? You've been silent since the threat! ok - back to the proper scientific procedures of today.. "On Dangerous Ground" .. This ground/thread was AbSoRbEd .. Best to your & yours -=se=- p.s. anyone closer then Denver to call/ring him up?? (.au .nz?) assuming he's ok, maybe a collect call (there) TO ourselves FROM him, to be refused BY HIM to save the LD charges?? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 00:35:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA16267; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:29:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:29:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:30:32 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: (Fwd) DOD SBIR Advanced Propulsion Topic Resent-Message-ID: <"HPfkP1.0.5-3._l0Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12796 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:24 PM 11/13/97, Robert G. Flower wrote: >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:42:25 -0500 >To: Marc.G.Millis lerc.nasa.gov >From: "Marc G. Millis" >Subject: DOD SBIR Advanced Propulsion Topic > >F.Y.I. > >The following is an announcement for the DOD SBIR >>topic in advanced propulsion: >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [snip] >> These topics include revolutionary concepts in very advanced >>fuels and oxidizers, metastable high energy nuclear states, storage of >>antimatter in chemical matrices, nanotechnology products and techniques >>applied to rocket propulsion, enigmatic energy devices, and field propulsion ************************ [snip] Zounds! Enigmatic energy devices? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 04:53:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA20306; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:49:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:49:49 -0800 Message-Id: <199711141250.HAA27063 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 07:57:39 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"ep8wC1.0.Cz4.iZ4Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12797 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry wrote: >The reason I don't answer questions of the form >"did you see X" is because too many people, suffering >from defective thinking processes, equate the statement >"yes I have seen X" with "I believe in Y", where Y is some >highly speculative explanation for X, such as transmutation. Please, Barry, we only need the *data*! Please don't lecture us on "defective thinking processes - or we will start lecturing YOU -- again! I accept the need for extreme caution in these investigations of gold-making. We must have absolute proof of these processes (if they are real at all), but on the road to understanding we need the data. Let's just have the data so we can discuss it here, OK? We'll release ours as soon as we have some to talk about. We are just beginners -- you have a much longer period of study. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 05:06:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21290; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:01:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:01:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199711141302.IAA28034 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 08:09:37 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"vs46-.0.UC5.qk4Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12798 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > At 03:45 PM 11/13/97 -0800, Barry wrote: Barry: >> >>When there is something scientific to tell, it will be told. >>There is little value to me disseminating my conjectures about >>what is or is not going on. > > Mitch: > On the contrary, science (systematized knowledge) does not >require success. We are very interested in your investigations >and your conjecture about what might be "going on". > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > BRAVO, Mitch! 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 06:39:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14914; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:39 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: "Bart Simon" , Subject: Alchemy: The Industrialist, the Scientist, and the Journalist Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:31:38 -0500 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: <19971114143728674.AAD128 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"T2W_i.0.ve3.s66Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12800 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I hope Bart Simon is watching the thread "On Dangerous Ground" for the discussion of Joe Champion's alchemical recipes. I can't think of any recent discussions which so neatly encapsulates the dilemmas in this field, or highlights positions of the players. All are honorable men. Here is Joe Champion, for years viewed with suspicion by some members of the vortex community, happily producing chunks of gold from a recipe that involves lead, but is not necessarily lead>gold. ----------- The folklore is that alchemical lead>gold was used as a ploy by charlatans to entice noblemen with dreams of riches. Others see the recipes as metaphors for other developing sciences. The irony is that gold is a useful industrial metal and only its scarcity and corrosion resistance made it a monetary standard as representing a fairly constant amount of human labor to mine and refine it. It isn't clear whether Joe Champion's gold is more cost-effective than mined gold. Considering the tons of gold sitting in vaults, his efforts only symbolically rock the boat. I got a good laugh over a story I heard a while back that some metals dealers would not accept Joe Champion's platinum because it had the wrong isotopic ratios, and thus was not mined. Imagine!!! Scientifically miraculous counterfeit platinum!!!! (Joe, is the story true?) ------------- Here is Barry Merriman, quintessential scientist and critic, so fascinated with Champion's process that he has spent substantial effort in study and attempts to duplicate it. And true to his professional standards, not drawing any conclusions, doubting his own results, until he can do a fully independent replication, and preferably tell still another how to do it. And here is Gene Mallove, responsible journalist and dedicated advocate of the new energy processes. He is willing to inform his audience of promising findings and reports if inspection of the subject shows reasonable credibility and appropriate caveats are applied. He too is attempting to duplicate the Champion recipe. And in the center of the arena is the archtypical delusional pseudo-science, making gold from lead. (Which isn't quite what the recipe involves, there are other non-gold ingredients). If this can be replicated in the Scientist sense, then as Gene says, it's all over. All arguments against the reality of LENR and LENT crumble and the scientific community can begin picking through the rubble of 20th century science to find what can be salvaged. To give credit to the Scientist, all will not be total rubble. Each case stands alone, to be tested and replicated, until some new theory can weave coherence from the data points. Nor is it true that all anomalous experiments glow with new truths and I-told-you-so's. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 06:40:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14812; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:07 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Rich Murray Critique of A&Z, Round 2, text Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:11:02 -0500 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: <19971114143728674.AAA128 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"Qtmmg.0.Ld3.O66Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12799 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is the text portion. Illustrations are sent as separate messages. ----------------------- I'm happy that Rich is hanging in here, and that he finds my critique of his critique > a reasonable, calm, firm, well-stated proposal that my First Arata Errata > critique, Oct. 25, of Arata and Zhang is so flawed that I should retract it. > I will answer this in some detail, with much repetition. I am very > pleased with the level of this debate. I will comment on his responses. To avoid repetition, I will often uses key phrases as pointers to his post, so others can find the relevant passages. I am also attaching .tif files of key graphs from the A&Z report in .zip compression. If anyone has problems with .zip files I will send the uncompressed files on request. A&ZFig5.tif -- Diagram of calorimeter, showing cooling water path and position of thermocouples A&ZFig6b.tif -- Calorimeter calibration with Pt cathode A&ZFig8a.tif -- Excess heat output over 4750 hour run A&ZFig8b.tif -- Excess heat output over 850 hour run A&ZFig8c.tif -- Heat power output as function of electrical power input > Some have used the phrase "peer-reviewed publication" to indicate the > legitimacy of A&Z and many other cold fusion studies. I see much > evidence that the system is not working to correct the evident > deficiencies in many studies. The selected referees must generally be > of the same persuasion, ney? This shows a misunderstanding of nature of a journal paper or peer review. A peer-reviewed journal paper is one which has been approved by an anonymous panel of judges competent in the topic of the paper. They are selected by the editor of the journal, not the authors, and are often severely critical, so much so that the process is sometimes called "sneer review". The judges look for gross errors, inconsistencies, violation of physical laws, poor expression, and anything else they choose to quibble about. Sometimes the dialogue between a reviewer and author can go on for a year before the paper is published. Rich's critiques are a form of unsolicited "peer review". His statement "the system is not working to correct the evident deficiencies in many studies" says much about Rich's position. Rich's questions would get high marks from a bright high school or undergraduate student first encountering these experiments, and wanting to be satisfied that everything was in order. His position *should be*, that of a student seeking instruction and reassurance, and capable of learning from what he sees and hears. He assumes the position of a peer reviewer, but he is no sense a Peer. The "evident deficiencies" he finds are in his own understanding of experimental physics and chemistry, not in the papers he reviews. Rich's qualifications include study of physics and history at MIT, extensive reading in Scientific American and the Skeptical Inquirer, but no working experience in physics or engineering. He is not a peer of Prof. George Miley, whose research contributions have made him a Fellow of the American Physical Society, American Nuclear Society, and the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (the world's largest professional society). His detailed critiques of Miley's transmutation report was based on Rich's misunderstanding of how the experiments were performed. Rich did retract his conclusion that there was no evidence of transmutation, and did distribute this retraction to the 41 names on his private distribution list. He is not a peer of Distinguished Professor John Bockris, who sent him a gently worded admonition and clarification of issues which Rich brings up again and again. He is not a peer of Arata & Zhang. Arata is a professor emeritus of physics at Osaka U. He's recently been awarded the Emperor's prize in Japan (late July) and is the first physicist ever receive this. It is Japan's highest honor for citizens lifelong contribution to society. He's also won all manner of other international prizes and awards. There is a 40 page list of his achievements that the University gives out to the press corp.(information thanks to Russ George, now working with Arata) He expects a journal paper such as A&Z to be a self-contained, fully detailed, exposition of the complete experimental history, given at tutorial level which an undergraduate with no experimental experience could understand. Such journal papers do not exist. Peers reviewing for major journals have an understanding of how work is done, and look for evidence that it was done, and then move on to the results supporting the main proposition of the paper. > Also, how experienced are Arata & Zhang in electrochemistry? This is rather irrelevant, the data speak for themselves, and satisfied the reviewers. If the work is well done, it is its own credential. People festooned with credentials can make mistakes. : With respect to the NHE journal: > [Is this a major journal? The poor quality of translation suggests not. This is literary criticism, not relevant. I had no trouble reading the text. It is peer reviewed. >I didn't find it in the stacks at Los Alamos National Laboratory library. Irrelevant. The society is co-sponsoring a big plasma fusion meeting along with NIFS and about 10 other major Japanese scientific organizations. (information from Jed Rothwell) Rich goes on to quote his questions about recombination, even after Scott pointed out that recombination deficiencies would reduce the apparent excess heat. Therefore such deficiencies, if they exist, would reinforce the measured indication of substantial excess energy release and strengthen A&Z's argument. Incidentally, in his discussion of recombination, Rich talks about hydrogen, forgetting that in this experiment the electrolyte is principally deuterium oxide, chemically the same as hydrogen. > Four pages describe the apparatus and calorimeter, and are the focus of > this critique. > [This catalyst could be a source of impurities in the electrolyte that > would change the electrolysis erratically over the months of operation.] Without specific knowledge, I (and probably the peers), would expect that use of a recombination catalyst is a standard procedure in certain types of electrolytic experiments. The problem of contamination would be an old one and standard solutions known or provided from chemical supply houses. The reviewing Peers would also know this, so absence of discussion of this point is not a deficiency in the paper. This is one point among many where Rich's lack of experience shows. > No attempt is made to collect and measure output H2 and O2 to verify the > degree of recombination. It's D2, not H2. Again, it isn't an issue, as Bockris and other have pointed out to Rich. > The electrolyte is .1M LiOH in D2O, volume and flow rate not given. Rich repeats this line, even though I pointed out, and he acknowledged, that the electrolyte does not flow. > [Only a 10-20% reduction in flow rate could easily generate the 10-20% > apparent excess power. The community has to be provided with the > specific flow rate data for the whole history of these runs, if an > anomaly is to be established. What Rich apparently does not realize is the existence of a large selection of standard, computerized, computer driven laboratory instrumentation and data logging systems which will make continuous measurements for the 4750 hours of the test run. Temperature measurements of the inlet and outlet water temperatures and the flow rate will be continuously measured and power continuously calculated and plotted. Rich's postulated 10% change in flow rate might be reflected in changes in the outlet temperature, but it would be detected by the flow meter and reflected in the running calculations. I'm not sure what "community" Rich refers to. Certainly Vortex is not the jury here, we are just interested observers. He goes on with miscellaneous questions. >This setup was run for years. A gross misreading of the text. A&Z worked with this series of experiments for four years. Normally, one would expect trial runs, teardowns, rebuilds, etc. The specific report concerns two runs, one of 4750 hours, the other about 850 hours. > Don't we need explicit checks...Of > course, I don't know! I'm a layman. I'm raising simple questions that > must be settled before any claim can be made about excess heat at a > level that mandates a nuclear explanation.] That's what peer reviewers are for. Rich, and to a lesser extent I, are laymen in this field. But one has to assume a basic competence in experimental science. What matters is the heat removed by the circulating water, which is directly measured. Speculations about other things are pointless. Rich goes on with speculations about the shape and purity of the anode and cathode. I'm not sure what Rich or any reviewer would do with this information. The cathode is a sealed Pd capsule containing Pd-black. In the calibration runs a Pt cathode, presumably similar in external form or surface area, was substituted. The issue is what happens with the Pd cathode of whatever composition it may have. The issue is: 1) is the energy release with the Pd cathode greater than could be accounted for by chemical processes? 2) is 4He and 3He detected in the cathodes in rough proportion to the excess energy released? The experimental evidence points to Yes for both questions. The question of what happens inside the cathode, and what causes the variations seen in the experimental data, is the subject for other papers, not the one at hand. A&Z provide a theoretical explanation of the processes inside, which may or may not be correct. These are not the issue. After a long series of questions about possible changes in the Pd black in the cathode capsule, he says: >This question could disconfirm the claim that 14 Watts excess power was generated in > an amount of Pd-B the size of a large pill. Which is not true. What Rich did not do was to look at the photomicrographs on page 40 of the report, which show clearly that the hard edges on the separate, undeuterated particles have become softened into roundish blobs with some evidence of attachment. This is consistent with general knowledge that high levels of deuteration causes Pd to expand. The attachment is consistent with high energy levels, high pressure, and partial, local melting. There is no evidence of the blob that Rich conjectures without real study of the report in his hands. The explicit claim is that when the Pd capsule containing Pd black is substituted for a Pt cathode, over a period of hundreds of hours in one case and thousands of hours in another, more energy is delivered to the cooling water than with a Pt cathode of equivalent area. The Pd powder, when analyzed in a QMS, was found to contain significant amounts of 4He and 3He. The one change between the two cases is the presence of the special cathode. The processes induced the cathode are a matter for further study and do not require explanation in this paper. > [Extraction of the Pd-B for analysis could introduce impurities, including He, so we > must have the details.] Once again Rich's lack of experience and careful reading of the paper shows. It is explicitly stated that He is very insoluble in metals, so any exposure to atmospheric He, which is almost nonexistent, will not occur, and if it did not occur, would not penetrate the samples. Impurities, if any, are explicitly sorted out by the QMS. What is significant is the appearance of 4He and 3He when the samples are heated in the QMS system. >(pressure inside the cathode cell)This suggest the possibility of leaks, which could generate some of >the data spikes. I already dealt with this in my previous critique. Rich goes on to quote summary information on the energy release (several hundred MJ/cm3 over several thousand hours, etc.).. > and other samples were also at a similar level." > [Why aren't we given the specific data for the other six runs? What does "a similar level" mean?] Similar level means just that. The purpose of the paper is a discussion of two runs with a good set of data. Other runs are irrelevant. One black sheep is proof that not all are white, just make sure that the black isn't shoe polish or paint. Rich goes on to quote my more detailed description of the figures, which readers can see in the attached TIFs. In a discussion of the calibration run chart, Fig. 6: Quoting A&Z:>"Our usual experimental range is around 120-150 watts and "cell-power" is > clearly negative with about minus one watt [for a Pt control cathode] as > shown in this diagram." So, this control run is given a value on the > graph of "~0.7" W, or .8 to .7% of the usual input > electrical power. [I was pointing out the listing of overly precise > numbers like "~0.7".] "Clearly negative"! Once again Rich is overlooking and dismissing an important point. Fig. 6b shows about 60 discernible calibration data points within the "authors experimental range" (of input power), falling within a measured range of power removed by the cooling coils of -2 to +1 watt. The title over the graphs says "Least Squares Method". I'm not a statistician, but even a simple average of 60 data points within a 3 watt spread would justify assigning a value of "~0.7W" to the rate of heat loss of the test apparatus. Rich's characterizing this as "overly precise" is without foundation. In fact, it is rather important to establish the average heat loss of the calorimeter setup as this is important in calculating the long-term energy yield of the experiments. Rich goes on to disparage the calorimitry, citing "meaningless noise". The excess power measures about 8W over an extended time, which is about 5% of the input power. The crucial question is whether this can be reliably measured, and whether fluctuations with time are noise or evidence of a significant physical process at work. Fig 8a, 8b and 8c of the TIFs show this. Figs 8a and 8b show extremely dense data points, evidence of close monitoring of the process. Once could surmise that on a larger scale the graph would show data points connected by lines, suggesting that the process was measured continuously, and averaged into reported data at frequent intervals. > 9% of input power, while showing a completely different time history. > [These percentages are low, if the energy source is nuclear, and thus > suggest to my suspicious mind that ordinary physical and chemical > artifacts are involved. It's a debatable issue...] Rich's suspicious mind focuses on the wrong datum. The important datum is the hundreds of megajoules of excess energy per cc of active material (the Pd black). This is far in excess of any conceivable chemical process. The question is the reliability of this measurement of energy yield. > The random nature of the heat data is indicated in Fig. 6 by the Cell > Power for the Pt to Pt control cell, expressed as W out vs. W in. [It is > not clear what this data is from-- many control runs? Were control runs > done before, during, or after the months and years of experimental > runs? Don't electrolysis setups drift?] The data points in Fig 6 are tightly clustered, with some random fluctuations about a nominal value, calculated as minus ~0.7W, as mentioned above. Competent experimental procedure would make this calibration before the experiments in question. The question here is not drift in the electrolysis, but in the calorimeter heat measurements. Calibrations of other experiments at other times are irrelevant. Rich demands explanations of every data point and variation, as clues to possible invalidating artifacts. What he misses is that every experiment contains noise, uncontrolled factors which affect instrument readings, which is why statistical methods have evolved to separate signals from noise. In some cases, an educated eyeball is enough, plus simple averaging. > If minor artifacts generate up to ~1.5 W apparent excess power for zero > input power, then it is plausible to surmise that larger unknown > artifacts are generating 10-20% apparent excess power in the > experimental runs, which over time, are bound to diverge greatly from > the far shorter control runs. Rich refers to the points at the zero power input ordinate in Fig 6a. What he ignores is that the scattering is no greater in the "author's experimental range" of input power. The range of variation for the "author's experimental range" is no greater, making Rich's surmise just that, speculation without foundation, and contrary to evidence presented. Mention is made of eight other experiments from 1992, with similar results, and Rich wants the full dossier. Quite probably, the earlier runs involved only heat production, not the assay for nuclear ash, and are therefor irrelevant to the present paper. > What, for instance, > is the exact duration of the spike from 20 to 60 kJ/hr spike at 2600 > hours in Fig. 8a for the 3 gm Pd-Black cathode? This information would > help us consider possible artifacts.] Just how would this help Rich? Fig. 8 is full of features which cry for explanation and are pointers to unknown physical processes. This is, after all, and experiment. What is important, and Rich ignores, is that the energy in the spike is positive but does not contribute significantly to the overall energy production. > Fig. 8, Note 2: "Generating pattern of each sample displays significant > difference with chronological change. however, each total amount of > excess energy included the eight samples used from 1992 to now was > almost same." [typos in the original] [Why aren't we given the > detailed data? "almost same"? And, "significant difference with > chronological change" may mean the energy output curves over time were > quite different for each sample. This data could help identify possible > artifacts.] Again, a search for "artifacts". What Rich means, and hopes for, is evidence of some failure or aberration in the measurement system which will invalidate the accumulating evidence of energy yield. Now, please refer to Fig 6b and Fig 8a. The ordinate of 6a is in W and 8b in KJ/hr(1 KJ/hr=3.6 W). Fig 6b shows a scatter of +1, -2 W, or +0.3, -0.6 KJ/hr, with a least squares average of -0.2 KJ/hr. Fig.8 shows data trends with superimposed "noise" which fills an envelope about 15 KJ/hr wide. This "noise" is greater than shown in the calibration runs, which might be expected of an active process instead of quiet electrolysis. The data clearly shows that what is going on is not an artifact of the apparatus, etc. Fig. 6b shows that the calorimeter itself has a heat loss, so the evidence for energy yield is even stronger. The spikes in the output at various points are interesting and warrant further investigation, but they do not detract from the main point, energy yield. Of special interest is the apparently exponential rise from 2500 to 3700 hours, and the sudden drop in activity at 3700 hours. The trend is too long -- 50 days -- for an experimental artifact. This is evidence of a real physical process at work. Now please refer to Fig. 8b. The run is shorter, and the noise envelope is about 5 KJ/hr wide. The amount of Pd black in the cathode capsule is greater, 5 gr. instead of 3 gr. Fig. 8c is another presentation of data, plotting output power against input power. A clear proportionality of output power versus input power is seen, clearly in excess of the 1:1 ratio. Again, clear evidence of a physical process at work. With respect to my comment that the length of the calibration runs is not particularly relevant, Rich says: > ["not particularly relevant"? But in long runs of months, the chemistry > of the electrolyte and of the cooling water will shift complexly, and > thermocouples and pumps may become variable, and leaks may develop, and > so on, so length of the control run has to be as long as the > experimental runs, or it means little, in terms of exposing artifacts. > There needs to be many control runs.] Again, Rich's lack of experience shows. The electrolyte consists of pure deuterium oxide, heavy water, plus some LiOH to make it electrically conductive. The Pt anode and Pd cathode are not chemically very active. The cell is closed. It is pure, baseless conjecture that the "chemistry of the electrolyte and cooling water will shift complexly". Cooling water run through a laboratory pump will not have a shift in chemistry. Thermocouples consist of dissimilar wires welded together, which I stated before, but Rich does not understand that this implies long-term stability. He does not understand that the flow would be monitored continuously, so variations, should they occur, are automatically entered in the heat measurement. The reason for a control run is to establish the variability of the calorimeter itself, not an endurance test on the apparatus. If routine inspection of the apparatus (as would occur in a good laboratory) shows no obvious problems, then there is no need for long calibration runs. The evidence in the paper shows a calibration which places any artifacts from the experimental setup far below the signals from the active experimental cell. The calibration artifacts are less than 5% of the process signal. All that Rich can offer is handwaving conjecture and speculation which does not hold up under inspection. He stated: >These percentages in a mediocre, completely outmoded calorimetry, are >meaningless noise, readily achieved if the recombiner catalyst is only partially effective. and: >The poor quality of the excess energy claims destroys the main thrust of > Arata and Zhang's work, that their complex and subtle measurements of > He-4 and He-3 show the levels that should exist for the claimed energy > production. These statements have been distributed to his private mailing list of 41 individuals, not to mention forums, which can then be cited by members of these forums as conclusions from a careful, detailed analysis. As we have seen, the analysis was not careful, missed essential details, and is false in its implications. I still believe that Rich should formally retract it to his distribution list. The remainder of this post from Rich consists of quotes from his and other comments and needs no further commentary. In conclusion, Rich asked if people wanted him to post here. I commend him for digging into the data with more care than most of us have time for. It is wholly proper to ask questions for his own education and perhaps interest of others. I, and others in Vortex, would be happy to aid understanding. But this is not what he is doing, and perhaps he does not realize the effects he creates. He only partially understands the technical papers he reads, jumps to conclusions, and then broadcasts these conclusions in a pejorative style. This is harmful, not helpful, to the people sweating out the hard work in the field. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 06:47:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA00814; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:43:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:43:16 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971114084302.ZM18145 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:43:02 -0600 In-Reply-To: Joe Champion "Reality" (Nov 13, 10:20pm) References: <01BCF07A.32C68A80.JoeC transmutation.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reality Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"uHZRJ.0.eC.3E6Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12801 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 13, 10:20pm, Joe Champion wrote: > If not I would not be constructing and operating systems > that produce 100's of grams of precious metal per hour. Perhaps it is the engineer in me showing again, but sounds repeatable to me if, although you don't fully understand why, you are able to continuously produce the desired outcome. You imply that there is now an industrial scale operational process churning out product, but this is not apparently supported by Barry. Are you at liberty to discuss actual input/output volumes or ratios to lend credence to your position? How much product have you produced so far? What is the current Cost vs. Revenue for the process? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 06:59:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03070; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:55:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:55:51 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971114084544.007310a8 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:45:44 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"TwYsf1.0.ul.rP6Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12803 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 13:33 11/13/97 -0000, E.F. Mallove wrote: >Joe tells me that Barry has finally gotten the >gold-making-from-lead (by thermal process) fully reproducible. and then Barry wrote: >EVERY single "alchemy" experiment that I have performed on my >own, using my own equipment and ingredients, in my own lab >back here in LA, has given completely null results. What's all the discussion about, Joe & Barry's statements are not contradictory... Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 07:00:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01984; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:49:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:49:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:49:05 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Leave Barry alone. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"X8IZh1.0.qU.5K6Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12802 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: HI Everyone, Like everyone else I'm intrigued by what Barry has or has not observed. However from the large amount in invective directed at various CF types and papers, it should should be obvious that before someone writes up their results, they should have ample opportunity to review their work and write up a good report of what they've done. I'm very impressed that Barry has invested so much of his time and money in this project. I would not have gone near it. In any case, I'm sure he will let us know what he finds when he himself is satisfied with his experiments. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 07:47:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA23658; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:35:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:35:51 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971114093446.ZM18442 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:34:46 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: OFF TOPIC - An entertaining story to help lighten the conversation this morning! 8^) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"b5cNH.0.Vn5.J_6Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12804 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A story passed along to me : A physics professor had decided to give a pop quiz to his students after a lecture on thermodynamics. It had only one question: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? One student wrote the following: -- "First, we postulate that if souls exist, they must have some mass. So, first we have to determine at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over. Given postulated criteria by Therese Banyan during my Freshman year concerning having sexual relations with her and cold days in hell, and taking into account the fact that I still have not yet succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then it is easy to deduce hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate of souls entering, and subsequently is exothermic." -- This student got the only A. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 09:25:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12934; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:20:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:20:11 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:18:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114121857_1903860667 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"MzRY61.0.-93.8X8Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12805 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a post of November 12 about Mills' proposed catalytic couples, Ed Strojny wrote: "Mills and Kneizys argue that Na will not work as a catalyst because the reaction: Na + Na++ ----> Na+ + Na+ + 42.15 eV gives a value out fo range for hydrinos to form. These are all systems which were done while Mills was still doing electrolysis of H2O/K2CO3 with nickel cathodes. We now know that Bush and Eagleton succeeded in getting fusion of H+ and Na+." We don't know any such thing. The sodium bit came from two cells that Robert Bush & Robert Eagleton ran about six years ago. It wasn't confirmed, even within the CF community. The above red herring to the contrary notwithstanding, Bush & Eagleton did important work with the Ni/H2O excess heat effect, and Bush continues to do important work with it (see the report on "The Cold Fusion Cell that Made Huizenga 'Blink'" in INFINITE ENERGY, No. 12, January/February 1997). Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 09:27:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00695; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:19:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:19:39 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:19:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114121902_1879345595 mrin44.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"cXUtp.0.kA.fW8Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12806 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a post of November 12, 1997, Fred Sparber made fun of Mills' catalyst because its formula looked somewhat like the formula for gunpowder. Fred made a better point when he noted that H2 can substitute nicely for the sulfur in the gunpowder formula (sulfur that isn't in Mills' catalyst). Fred, a couple of questions. Would gunpowder explode all by itself, in a vacuum, if you put a spark to it? Would Mills' catalyst? If Mills' catalyst wouldn't combust all by itself in a cell, even with the addition of heat from a filament, then aren't we back to the earlier discussion, the upshot of which was that Mills (and the university investigator) were claiming much more heat production than could be accounted for by any of the standard chemical reactions that the addition of hydrogen could have set going? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 09:57:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17421; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:50:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:50:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971114113534.0072bf3c mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:35:34 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst In-Reply-To: <971114121902_1879345595 mrin44.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"dc7vD2.0.7G4.Zz8Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12807 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just FYI: Fred S. asked George Buehler of U.S. Catalysts about Mill's catalyst formulation. > At 13:03 11/12/97 -0800, George Buehler wrote: > >>It would be very difficult to have my manufacturing people make a >>KNO3/graphite/Pd catalysts. I shoot myself in the foot quite often, but >>can't afford to blow up the place. I then asked George: > Thanks, George, for the info. Does the term "hydrogen spillover catalyst" > mean anything to you? and George responded: It definately doesn't mean anything to me. The technical people when asked gave me a rather strange look. We do not use that terminology. Perhaps they mean a hydrogen donor catalysts. Any hydrogenation catalyst could be put into a hydrogen donor category while a dehydrogenation catalyst could be put into a hydrogen acceptor grouping. FYI we make over 150 types of catalysts here in Louisville. We are not ivory tower people but have been in the business since 1940 (not me just the company -I'm still 39 and holding). Some of the things being reported these days are quite strange and we would say questionable. If you have any more questions let me know. I may not be able to give you the ivory tower answer but will try to give you the commercial practical answer. G. Buehler From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 10:33:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13324; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:26:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:26:22 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:20:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"DsVbF2.0._F3.CV9Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12808 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I looked at the so called "experiments and validation" section of the BPR home page. I saw nothing to change my original impression the first time I read this that the experiment was just measuring the temperature difference between the heated filament and the reactor surface and from that deducing the heat transfer. This was the so called Calvert calorimeter and the results are subject to the large emissivity variation errors I discussed. There was also a so called "water bath calorimeter" used. This technique would be valid and the results showed no excess heat. Quoting from the study text: "Studies conducted with the water bath calorimeter do not indicate the evolution of any excess heat. As shown in Figure 7 the increase in temperature almost exactly parallels the increase predicted on the basis of the amount of energy added to the system and the known heat capacity of water." Note the "do not" wording in the quote. It is amazing that a reader of this report could have combined together in his mind one part from the two experiments to produce an imagined single experiment that supported his views. The concatenation would be as follows: Calvert Calorimetry (invalid) --> excess heat Water Bath Calorimetry (valid) --> no excess heat combined together to yield Water Bath Calorimetry (valid) --> excess heat I think that perhaps this is a standard technique that cf supporters have been using. An experimenter does cf calorimetry with two or more techniques, some valid and some invalid and he finds excess heat as well as no excess heat. Since the experimenter has used a valid technique and he finds excess heat then it is concluded that he has confirmed cf. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 11:18:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA01658; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:11:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:11:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <346CC74E.3CDD keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:49:02 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Continuous Hamel Spinner] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"XD_iP3.0.oP.V9ARq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12809 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (smartlst mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by centurion.flash.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05755 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:01:05 -0600 (CST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18282; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:51:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:51:22 -0800 Message-ID: <346CC2B6.5C6A keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:29:26 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Continuous Hamel Spinner References: <3.0.1.32.19971114105753.006ef754 palacenet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"speBB2.0.OT4.es9Rq" mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2107 X-Loop: freenrg-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com X-UIDL: c22411f8b3a8a5aafd627ef4ea46e89f Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Hi Folks! I had the pleasure of speaking with John Bedini last night and he said a neighbor had made some fascinating observations about the Hamel Spinner. For those who don't know, check out; http://www.keelynet.com/hamindex.htm for a fairly complete history of it. Hamel says in his video that he was trying to figure out how to use magnets in an off-balance condition so that it would spin on its own. As I understood Hamel, he never claimed that the spinner would spin by itself but the experiment led him to the discovery of how to create a wobble that would reset itself to keep it running in another configuration. That is the cones suspended on cones. John Bedini had found that a ball bearing with the ring magnet above it would spin on a very smooth surface and the ball could be made to spin at a good clip, but only with an occasional 'reset' by moving the hand that held the ring magnet. John's friend cut a slight concave in a smooth surface so that the ball rolls slightly up the side when impressed by the magnetic field of the suspended ring magnet. When the ball begins to lose spin velocity, it rolls back down into the concavity thereby resetting the operation and causing the ball to spin back up on the slope. I just heard of this novel approach last night from John and he clearly says that in this configuration it is not very practical, but damn, it would make a great toy!!! A little tabletop model that runs by itself. John said his friend suggests that you sand and smooth the concave in very slight stages as there are several critical angles involved, including the height (based on intensity) of the ring magnet. I thought this was something novel and new that some of you guys would be interested in trying. It is surely worth trying even though if you get it to work, it won't do anything of value, except entertain....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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 11:35:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03991; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:27:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:27:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:22:21 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: F. Bacon on alchemists Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711141425_MC2-2835-58AD compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"RqxCq1.0.D-.kOARq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12811 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Here's an interesting quote: But if any one should condescend to consider such sciences as are deemed rather curious than sound, and take a full view of the operations of the alchymists or magi, he will perhaps hesitate whether he ought rather to laugh or to weep. For the alchymist cherishes eternal hope, and when his labours succeed not, accuses his own mistakes, deeming, in his self-accusation, that he has not properly understood the words of art, or of his authors; upon which he listens to tradition and vague whispers, or imagines there is some slight unsteadiness in the minute details of his practice, and then has recourse to an endless repetition of experiments: and, in the meantime, when in his casual experiments he falls upon something in appearance new, or of some degree of utility, he consoles himself with such an earnest, and ostentatiously publishes them, keeping up his hope of the final result. Nor can it be denied that the alchymists have made several discoveries, and presented mankind with useful inventions. But we may well apply to them the fable of the old man, who bequeathed to his sons some gold buried in his garden, pretending not to know the exact spot, whereupon they worked diligently in digging the vineyard, and though they found no gold, the vintage was rendered more abundant by their labour. - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum ("A New Instrument"), 1620 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 11:40:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA26689; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:26:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:26:41 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:22:48 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off Topic] Bacon on the idea of progres Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711141425_MC2-2835-58AE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"9koQz.0.xW6.mNARq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12810 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex As long I am quoting Bacon on alchemists, here is something else he said about progress. We tend to think that progress is a modern concept, but I think it goes back to the Renaissance. Again, the reverence for antiquity and the authority of men who have been esteemed great in philosophy, and general unanimity, have retarded men from advancing in science, and almost enchanted them. As to unanimity, we have spoken of it above. The opinion which men cherish of antiquity is altogether idle, and scarcely accords with the term. For the old age and increasing years of the world should in reality be considered as antiquity, and this is rather the character of our own times than of the less advanced age of the world in those of the ancients. For the latter, with respect to ourselves, are ancient and elder, with respect to the world, modern and younger. And as we expect a greater knowledge of human affairs and more mature judgment from an old man, than from a youth, on account of his experience, and the variety and number of things he has seen, heard, and meditated upon; so we have reason to expect much greater things of our own age, (if it knew but its strength and would essay and exert it,) than from antiquity, since the world has grown older, and its stock has been increased and accumulated with an infinite number of experiments and observations. We must also take into our consideration that many objects in nature fit to throw light upon philosophy have been exposed to our view and discovered by means of long voyages and travels, in which our times have abounded. It would indeed be dishonourable to mankind, if the regions of the material globe, the earth, the sea, and stars should be so prodigiously developed and illustrated in our age, and yet the boundaries of the intellectual globe should be confined to the narrow discoveries of the ancients. - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum ("A New Instrument"), 1620 And here is quote from Jefferson which shows that the idea of progress and rapid change was well established by the early 19th century: It cannot be but that each generation succeeding to the knowledge acquired by all those who preceded it, adding to it their own acquisitions and discoveries, and handing the mass down for successive and constant accumulation, must advance the knowledge and well-being of mankind, not *infinitely*, as some have said, but *indefinitely*, and to a term which no one can fix and foresee. Indeed, we need look back half a century, to times which many now living remember well, and see the wonderful advances in the sciences and arts which have been made within that period. Some of these have rendered the elements themselves subservient to the purposes of man, have harnessed them to the yoke of his labours, and effected the great blessings of moderating his own, of accomplishing what was beyond his feeble force, and extending the comforts of life to a much enlarged circle, to those who had before known its necessaries only. That these are not the vain dreams of sanguine hope, we have before our eyes real and living examples. - Thomas Jefferson, Report of the Rockfish Gap Commissioners, Commissioners for the University of Virginia, 1818 Quoted in J. B. Conant, Modern Science and Modern Man, (Columbia University Press, 1952), p. 15 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 11:58:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06512; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:47:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:47:56 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:44:02 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf135$a89614e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"zUi9c3.0.eb1.ghARq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12812 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Tstolper aol.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst >In a post of November 12, 1997, Fred Sparber made fun of Mills' catalyst >because its formula looked somewhat like the formula for gunpowder. > >Fred made a better point when he noted that H2 can substitute nicely for the >sulfur in the gunpowder formula (sulfur that isn't in Mills' catalyst). > >Fred, a couple of questions. > >Would gunpowder explode all by itself, in a vacuum, if you put a spark to it? According to the results that NASA gets with rockets in the vacuum of space, I would say,You bet your Sweet Bippy. :-) > >Would Mills' catalyst? Yes, The hydrogen will react with the KNO3 and the hot KNO3 will react with the "graphitic carbon" also forming CO which will react with any water to form CO2 plus hydrogen which will burn more KNO3. In addition to that any oxygen floating around will oxidize the tungsten filament.Plus the freed potassium (K)will react with the CO2 and form K2CO3 which is what is used in the H2O-K2CO3- Ni-Pd experiments in the first place. :-) Rule-of-Thumb for oxidation in vacuum: If there is enough oxygen to cause a tungsten filament to burn out there is enough to support combustion of gases if the mix is correct. > >If Mills' catalyst wouldn't combust all by itself in a cell, even with the >addition of heat from a filament, then aren't we back to the earlier >discussion, the upshot of which was that Mills (and the university >investigator) were claiming much more heat production than could be accounted >for by any of the standard chemical reactions that the addition of hydrogen >could have set going? But, the point is the Mills "catalyst" is esentially gunpowder with hydrogen substituting for sulfur, and the hot filament (aside from being oxidized too) is "burning" the carbon and hydrogen. It's a wonder that it doesn't-didn't explode! Based on the phenomena of Sonoluminescence, the P&F effects, and the Griggs-Yusmar effects, I think that a "Hydrino-Electrino formation-reaction is possible, but I question the use of this gunpowder-type "catalyst". :-) Regards, Frederick > >Tom Stolper > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 12:45:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05508; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:35:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:35:51 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971114153304.006c7ee0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:33:04 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971114084544.007310a8 mail.eden.com> References: <199711131827.NAA21074 mercury.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"UMFtx2.0.uL1.cOBRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12814 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:45 AM 11/14/97 -0600, you wrote: >At 13:33 11/13/97 -0000, E.F. Mallove wrote: > >>Joe tells me that Barry has finally gotten the >>gold-making-from-lead (by thermal process) fully reproducible. > >and then Barry wrote: > >>EVERY single "alchemy" experiment that I have performed on my >>own, using my own equipment and ingredients, in my own lab >>back here in LA, has given completely null results. > >What's all the discussion about, Joe & Barry's statements are not >contradictory... > >Scott > > Apparently not to someone who has trouble looking closer at his own data. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 12:46:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11798; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:30:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:30:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971114152725.006bd800 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:27:25 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"eN-0B1.0.Gu2.zJBRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12813 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:20 PM 11/14/97 -0500, Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: > I looked at the so called "experiments and validation" section of the BPR >home page. I saw nothing to change my original impression the first time I >read this that the experiment was just measuring the temperature difference >between the heated filament and the reactor surface and from that deducing >the heat transfer. This was the so called Calvert calorimeter and the >results are subject to the large emissivity variation errors I discussed. >There was also a so called "water bath calorimeter" used. This technique >would be valid and the results showed no excess heat. (zip .... endless putdowns of other authors) >I think that perhaps this is a standard technique that cf supporters have >been using. An experimenter does cf calorimetry with two or more >techniques, some valid and some invalid and he finds excess heat as well as >no excess heat. Since the experimenter has used a valid technique and he >finds excess heat then it is concluded that he has confirmed cf. > > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > > > Since Lawrence E. Wharton and NASA/GSFC are so superior to scores of other experimenters, how about some references to peer-reviewed publications where Lawrence E. Wharton was the senior author? Perhaps we can pick them up at the library and review them here, and learn more. Thanks in advance. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 13:03:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15616; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:56:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:56:37 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Tri-Alkali-Hydrogen Hydrino-Electrino Experiment Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:53:13 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf13f$5318d020$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"V1sSG1.0.rp3.zhBRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12815 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Conventional wisdom physics allows for the possibility of production of particle pairs with a mass possibly thousands of times lighter than electrons-positrons (less than a few ev). Capture of a negative particle this light by a proton or deuteron to form a "hydrino" with the release of EUV energy that could run as high as 612 Mev is allowed in theory, thus making "Dark Matter" or "WIMPs". The capture of a positive particle this light by an electron to form an "electrino" with the release of EUV energy that could run as high as 256 Kev is also allowed in theory, also making "Dark Matter" or "WIMPs". It may also be possible that if these pairs are bound, they might constitute the neutrino. Photo-electron and Photo-ion production under certain circumstances might be creating some of these "Light-Lepton" pairs. Photemission experiments using Na-K-Cs on an Antimony substrate show peaks of photoelectrons with photons of about 0.8 microns to 1.1 microns (1.55 ev to 1.13 ev). A simple test "cell" made with a metal can coated on the inside with antimony, with a tungsten filament to provide heat and photons, filled with H2 or D2 at a few millimeters Hg pressure, and a small reservoir or pool of the Na-K-Cs, might show hydrino-deutrino-electrino formation, regardless of whether or not o-u is observed. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 13:45:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17272; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:38:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:38:55 -0800 Message-Id: <199711142138.QAA28764 relay1.smtp.psi.net> From: "George Holz" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:40:54 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OFosV.0.mD4.jJCRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12816 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > I looked at the so called "experiments and validation" section of the BPR >home page. I saw nothing to change my original impression the first time I >read this that the experiment was just measuring the temperature difference >between the heated filament and the reactor surface and from that deducing >the heat transfer. This was the so called Calvert calorimeter and the >results are subject to the large emissivity variation errors I discussed. >There was also a so called "water bath calorimeter" used. This technique >would be valid and the results showed no excess heat. Can anyone here elaborate on the actual mechanism of Calvet (not Calvert) calorimetry. I have the impression that Larry's comments may not apply but few details on the technique are given on the BLP site. In any case, the reasonable explanation was given that the cold wall temperatures in the water bath calorimeter system caused the K or KNO3 to quickly condense on the walls preventing operation. Also in the section Experiments and Validation / Detail on Technology etc. - PART 3 / Example 10 an isothermal calorimeter was used maintaining external reaction vessel wall temperatures at 280C and avoiding the problem with the water bath calorimeter technique. The vessel was maintained at a constant temperature by a cartridge heater. The required heater power was reduced as required to compensate for increased energy coming from the cell. Excess power of 49 watts was observed , 41 watts to the filament maintained 280C vs 90 watts required by the cartridge heater to attain this temperature with the filament off. George Holz george varisys.com Varitronics Systems From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 15:30:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03444; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:20:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:20:32 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "Larry Wharton" , "vortex" Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:17:56 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf153$8aa3c720$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"7gcWo2.0.ir._oDRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12817 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Larry Wharton To: vortex Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 2:54 PM Subject: Re: BLP hydrogen as CDM You Wrote: > >My energy formula is correct (if we overlook the fact that we are imagining >that Hydrino physics is real) and for n=137 it does give 255 Kev >(137*137*13.6=255258) in agreement with your figure. At 256 Kev you are >still in the X-ray region and we are talking about gamma rays here. For >n=1000 we would have a gamma ray of 13.6 Mev which is deffinetly a gamma. >The press release did not mention the energy so the actual energy has not >been given. Your statement that there would be many transitions between >n=1 and n=137 (too low) or n=1000 (more like it but it dosen't matter) is >just support for my argument. I agree, to a point. I come up with a possible collapse to "Dark Matter" or WIMPs with a release of up to 35 Mev. if the 137^3 value isn't just numerology. :-) However, The energy release could be in steps or quanta that divide this into a EUV or soft x-ray spectrum. > The gamma rays are observed and if this >occures there should be many more transitions of lower energy. So there >should be an X-ray halo at the same position as the gamma ray halo with a >much higher intensity and this has not been seen. Perhaps this is the "Dark Matter" Halo observed recently around our Galaxy, from recombination of hydrinos and/or electrinos to form protons and neutrons? :-) Regards, Frederick > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 17:03:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21124; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:59:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:59:20 -0800 Message-ID: <346CF39B.B2A54A69 ozemail.com.au> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:58:11 +1100 From: Robin van Spaandonk Reply-To: rvanspaa eisa.net.au X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Iqx_L1.0.u95.cFFRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12818 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:21:40 -0700 (MST), Steve Ekwall wrote: [snip] >p.s. anyone closer then Denver to call/ring him up?? (.au .nz?) > assuming he's ok, maybe a collect call (there) TO ourselves FROM him, > to be refused BY HIM to save the LD charges?? Have spoken to Greg on the phone. He is upgrading his computer, and expects to be back online Tuesday. -- 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 18:40:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27437; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:26:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:26:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971115022432.008e8038 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:24:32 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"WzVvM3.0.Yi6.yWGRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12819 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:18 PM 11/14/97 -0500, Tom Stolper wrote: >In a post of November 12 about Mills' proposed catalytic couples, Ed Strojny >wrote: > >"Mills and Kneizys argue that Na will not work as a catalyst because the >reaction: >Na + Na++ ----> Na+ + Na+ + 42.15 eV >gives a value out fo range for hydrinos to form. These are all systems >which were done while Mills was still doing electrolysis of H2O/K2CO3 with >nickel cathodes. We now know that Bush and Eagleton succeeded in getting >fusion of H+ and Na+." > >We don't know any such thing. The sodium bit came from two cells that Robert >Bush & Robert Eagleton ran about six years ago. It wasn't confirmed, even >within the CF community. > >The above red herring to the contrary notwithstanding, Bush & Eagleton did >important work with the Ni/H2O excess heat effect, and Bush continues to do >important work with it (see the report on "The Cold Fusion Cell that Made >Huizenga 'Blink'" in INFINITE ENERGY, No. 12, January/February 1997). > >Tom Stolper > Also, in the article "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis" George H. Miley, Infinite Energy, Vol. 2 No. 10, 1996, p.30: "Further , unpublished results (J. Patterson, 1996b), indicate that operation with a Na-based electrolyte (vs. Li) results in similar heating rates." Bush, in his article, said that Na+ gave excellent results (IE, vol. 2, No.12, p.32). Though no formal report was published by Patterson, I look on these references as confirming the phenomenon. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 19:59:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15662; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:52:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:52:54 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: humor (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"w3IMu3.0.dq3.MoHRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12820 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: failed message from dacha below... .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:00:36 -0800 (PST) From: dacha To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: humor During the heat of the space race in the 1960's, the NASA decided it needed a ballpoint pen to write in zero-gravity. After considerable research and development, the Astronaut Pen was developed at a cost of $1 million. The pen worked --- it also enjoyed some modest success as a novelty item back on Earth. The Soviet Union, faced with the same problem, used a pencil. ... just thinking... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 20:08:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17659; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:06:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:06:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:06:43 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES prize for closest/correct answer Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Wy_jp3.0.rJ4.P_HRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12821 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bounced message from mica is below. Vortex apparently doesn't like it if the word "subscription" is in the subject line! .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Two year subscription to COLD FUSION TIMES for closest/correct answer Cold fusion is real, and appears to be consistent with conventional physics. We have just reviewed the world literature which continues at a significant rate. An abstract was sent to ICCF-7 regarding the metanalysis. ========================================= When one examines the entire world-wide literature concerning cold fusion (loading hydrogen isotopes into metals by electrolysis, gas, or discharge), what is the annual publication rate? (units = papers/year) or which country is leading the scientific race based on the greatest number of publications about this field? ========================================= We will send two years of COLD FUSION TIMES ('97 with back issues, and '98) to whomever of vortex gets CLOSEST to the average number of publications per year (either on vortex, or better yet sent to me by email to me (mica world.std.com) to keep the S/N way down). Also, whomever correctly quesses the country FIRST with the highest publication rate, and can get that time-stamp by email will get a one year subscription to the COLD FUSION TIMES. More information is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 14 22:29:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA08961; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:25:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:25:27 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:24:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971115012444_1536545653 mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"EBW2V.0.sB2.L1KRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12822 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-14 14:38:11 EST, you write: From: wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) >> I looked at the so called "experiments and validation" section of the >>BPR home page. I saw nothing to change my original impression the first >>time I read this that the experiment was just measuring the temperature >>difference between the heated filament and the reactor surface and from >>that deducing the heat transfer. Larry, Where in the Calvert writeup from BLP, do you see where it states they are measuring filiment temperature? Yes, the power to the filiment is taken into account as power in to the cell but I fail to find anything in the entire BLP site that says what you say above. I include here the first part of the Calvert writeup pasted directly from the BLP site. +++++++++++++++++++++QUOTE FROM BLP+++++++++++++ "The instrument used to measure the heat of reaction comprises a cylindrical heat flux calorimeter (International Thermal Instrument Co., Model CA-100-1). The cylindrical calorimeter walls contain a thermopile structure composed of two sets of thermoelectric junctions. One set of junctions is in thermal contact with the internal calorimeter wall, and the second set of thermal junctions is in thermal contact with the external calorimeter wall at which is held constant by a forced convection oven. When heat is generated in the calorimeter cell, the calorimeter radially transfers a constant fraction of this heat into the surrounding heat sink. As heat flows a temperature gradient is established between the two sets of thermopile junctions. This temperature gradient generates a voltage which is compared to the linear voltage versus power calibration curve to give the power of reaction. The calorimeter is calibrated with a precision resistor and a fixed current source at power levels representative of the power of reaction of the catalyst runs. The calibration constant of the Calvet calorimeter is not sensitive to the flow of hydrogen over the range of conditions of the tests. To avoid corrosion, a cylindrical reactor, machined from 304 stainless steel to fit inside the calorimeter, is used to contain the reaction. To maintain an isothermal reaction system and improve baseline stability, the calorimeter is placed inside a commercial forced convection oven that can be operated from room temperature to 616k . Also, the calorimeter and reactor are enclosed within a cubic insulated box, constructed of Durok (United States Gypsum Co.) and fiberglass, to further dampen thermal oscillations in the oven. A more complete description of the instrument and methods are given by Phillips [8]." >see the references section. vince< >> This was the so called Calvert calorimeter and the >> results are subject to the large emissivity variation errors I discussed. >> There was also a so called "water bath calorimeter" used. This >>technique would be valid and the results showed no excess heat. Larry, you forgot to include their (BLP) reason as to why the water bath calorimeter is not usable for the gas phase experiments so I will. The catlyst condensed on the calorimeter walls, thus stopping the reaction >> Quoting from the study text: >> "Studies conducted with the water bath calorimeter do not indicate >> the evolution of any excess heat. As shown in Figure 7 the increase in >> temperature almost exactly parallels the increase predicted on the basis >>of the amount of energy added to the system and the known heat >>capacity of water." >> Note the "do not" wording in the quote. It is amazing that a reader of >> this report could have combined together in his mind one part from the >>two experiments to produce an imagined single experiment that >>supported his views. The concatenation would be as follows: I read the report Larry. I had no problem understanding it. Two seperate experiments The reason why one showed excess and why the other did not. I never "combined" the two. Why did you? >> Calvert Calorimetry (invalid) --> excess heat Why invalid Larry? >> Water Bath Calorimetry (valid) --> no excess heat >> combined together to yield Combined by who Larry? not me! >> Water Bath Calorimetry (valid) --> excess heat According to the writeup the water bath *did not* show excess heat. Why do you state here that it did? So we see the comparing of water bath and Calvert calorimeter not valid. The cell *requires* high temperature to operate. It cannot do that in a tub of water. The catilyst has to be maintained as a vapor or there is nothing for the H atoms to react with. If the cell is cooled below the vaporization temperature of the KNO3, (it condenses on the calorimeter wall) it's not going to work and thats what Mills found and wrote up and posted on the BLP web pages. A more careful reading is indicated Larry >> Lawrence E. Wharton<< >> NASA/GSFC code 913 >> Greenbelt MD 20771 >> (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from relay30.mail.aol.com (relay30.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.30]) by air12.mail.aol.com (v36.0) with SMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:38:10 -0500 Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by relay30.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA03884; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:30:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13324; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:26:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:26:22 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:20:35 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"DsVbF2.0._F3.CV9Rq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12808 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 15 08:44:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11815; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:38:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:38:27 -0800 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:33:04 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Gravity Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"q1Zc13.0.Fu2.00TRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12823 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., The formal patent for "Improved Method and Apparatus for Gravitational Modification" has been filed. Many countries internationally selected. Door open for any parties wishing to apply the work. Contact through Gravity Society at www.gravity.org This site has been recently updated. There is also a great FAQ, and hats off to Giovanni Modanese for doing this. John Schnurer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 15 09:25:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18548; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:21:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:21:19 -0800 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:16:05 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Gravity (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VP5LL.0.eX4.DeTRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12824 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., The formal patent for "Improved Method and Apparatus for Gravitational Modification" has been filed. Many countries internationally selected. Door open for any parties wishing to apply the work. Contact through Gravity Society at www.gravity.org This site has been recently updated. There is also a great FAQ, and hats off to Giovanni Modanese for doing this. John Schnurer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 15 10:17:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19336; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:08:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:08:37 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:07:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971115130724_-1776766897 mrin86.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Arata & Zhang 1997 Resent-Message-ID: <"dC3cU2.0.0k4.ZKURq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12825 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks to Mike Carrell for a detailed explanation and defense of the excess heat results of Arata & Zhang, as they set them out in a special issue of the HIGH TEMPERATURE SOCIETY JOURNAL (or is the proper title JOURNAL OF THE HIGH TEMPERATURE SOCIETY?). I think that Mike has the better of the debate on this question. I agree with Mike that Arata & Zhang have suceeded in producing lots of excess heat, but I still haven't seen that special issue. Does anyone know of a library in the US or Canada that carries the journal? I'm starting to wonder whether any library in North America does. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 15 11:21:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04138; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:09:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:09:48 -0800 Message-Id: <346DEEA9.D586D1D4 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:49:13 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re:Gravity Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"r3vMM1.0.Z01.xDVRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12826 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, For me, the most radical deviation from Podkletnov method to Schnuner's is the operating temperature. Podkletnov needed to cool the SC well below it's transient temperature (below 70K) to obtain the gravitational anomaly. On the contrary, the anomaly is occurring on the just transient temperature on the current Schnurer experiment. Also on his previous experiments 90K was enough to get the effect. An alternative way to switch between SC and non-SC states is applying strong magnetic fields. As I recall applying more than 0.5 T destroy the superconductance. So applying and removing such a magnetic field (even manually) may also cause such a transitio ns allowing the gravitational effect occur. If this work, will be far more practical way to obtain the effect, rather than to supply proper thermal conditions. Although the method that I propose look like the previous experiments of Schnurer. But instead of applying AC/RF fields with low intensity to care to not destroy the superconductance, a strong DC field can be applied by a Electromagnet or moving Nd magnet . Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 15 15:13:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01091; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:51:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:51:56 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Arata & Zhang 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:49:21 -0500 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: <19971115225508588.AAA174 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"iVALv3.0.kG.8UYRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12827 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I got my copy of the Journal from Gene Mallove. I'm not sure by what route. He may have the original, as I have seen a color overhead transparency of the cover in Gene's possession. Jed may be the link, as he has many ties to Japan. My attempts to make the illustrations available via vortex have failed, as the files are too big, even with zip compression. I scanned them at 300 dpi to preserve detail. If anyone really wants to see these figures, I will send them directly, in .tif .zip format on request. Russ George has informed me that Arata invented and operated his first double structure cathode in 1956, which would give him about 40 years experience in electrochemistry, thus answering another of Rich's questions. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 15 15:16:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA04364; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:11:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:11:48 -0800 Message-ID: <346E48EF.6ADD keelynet.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:14:23 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Arthur Clark Invention? References: <19971115225508588.AAA174 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EwMDK3.0.041.pmYRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12828 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! I was recently sent an email saying a local newspaper (I don't know were 'local' was) had an article about Arthur C. Clark showing him holding a metal tube with a flat block on the end.....the article intimated Clark was working on his own free energy device...... Does anyone know anything about this? I'll see if I can get a photocopy or a file of that article to pass on.....thanks... -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 00:44:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA31059; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 00:38:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 00:38:08 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 01:34:14 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: rvanspaa eisa.net.au cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "On Dangerous Ground" In-Reply-To: <346CF39B.B2A54A69 ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_QL3.0.Db7.l3hRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12829 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >>[snip] >>>p.s. anyone closer then Denver to call/ring him up?? (.au .nz?) >>> assuming he's ok, maybe a collect call (there) TO ourselves FROM >>him, >>Have spoken to Greg on the phone. He is upgrading his computer, and >>expects to be back online Tuesday. >>Regards, >>Robin van Spaandonk Thanks Robin, for your call (sigh) ..appears all is well! :) -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 06:58:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17128; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 06:51:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 06:51:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:51:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711161451.IAA00857 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Arthur Clarke Invention? Resent-Message-ID: <"CYbDR3.0.WB4.7YmRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12830 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:14 PM 11/15/97 -0800, Jerry wrote: >Gnorts! > >I was recently sent an email saying a local newspaper (I don't know were >'local' was) had an article about Arthur C. Clark showing him holding a >metal tube with a flat block on the end..... Probably the Yusmar-1 Potapov device....2-3 feet long and the block (swirl chamber) is maybe 5" x 5" by 2" thick I know that Clarke was very interested in it when there was still hope that it worked. BTW, that device is more-or-less responsible for the name of this discussion group. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 07:02:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17992; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:00:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:00:28 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:59:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116095915_-1072122107 mrin45.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"32jdg1.0.-O4.9gmRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12832 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a private email, a reader of Vortex-L asked for clarification of my post of November 14 about sodium being a red herring. The question was, what's the red herring? I prefer not to go private in the middle of a thread when there's nothing confidential involved, because that fragments the discussion, so here's an expanded and hopefully clearer version of my post of November 14: In a post of November 12 about Mills' proposed catalytic couples, Ed Strojny wrote: "Mills and Kneizys argue that Na will not work as a catalyst because the reaction: Na + Na++ ----> Na+ + Na+ + 42.15 eV gives a value out fo range for hydrinos to form. These are all systems which were done while Mills was still doing electrolysis of H2O/K2CO3 with nickel cathodes. We now know that Bush and Eagleton succeeded in getting fusion of H+ and Na+." We don't know any such thing. The sodium bit came from two cells that Robert Bush & Robert Eagleton ran about six years ago. It wasn't confirmed, even within the CF community. It's a red herring to suggest that one can make a working excess heat cell with a nickel cathode running in a light water electrolyte of sodium carbonate. The above red herring to the contrary notwithstanding, Bush & Eagleton did important work with the Ni/H2O excess heat effect, and Bush continues to do important work with it (see the report on "The Cold Fusion Cell that Made Huizenga 'Blink'" in INFINITE ENERGY, No. 12, January/February 1997). In a post written on November 14, Ed Strojny wrote: "Also, in the article "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis" George H. Miley, Infinite Energy, Vol. 2 No. 10, 1996, p.30: "Further , unpublished results (J. Patterson, 1996b), indicate that operation with a Na-based electrolyte (vs. Li) results in similar heating rates." Bush, in his article, said that Na+ gave excellent results (IE, vol. 2, No.12, p.32). Though no formal report was published by Patterson, I look on these references as confirming the phenomenon." We disagree about that, to put it mildly. References don't confirm a phenomenon: experiments do. When I see a string of words like "unpublished...indicate...similar...," all in a single sentence, I run for cover. I would translate a sentence like the one that Ed quoted from Miley as follows: we wish that good sodium results had been obtained, but they weren't. (And by the way, the sentence that Ed quoted is in INFINITE ENERGY No. 9, not No. 10.) What Bush said in his INFINITE ENERGY interview was that he had showed it, past tense, and he cited that same old 1992 FUSION TECHNOLOGY article (which was received in July 1991 and accepted for publication in December 1991). Repeated citation of an old red herring doesn't confirm it as anything but a red herring. I'd rather not end on a negative note, though. Robert Bush is one of the few people in the world doing good and important work with the Ni/H2O system. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 07:02:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18030; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:00:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:00:38 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:59:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116095922_-389920505 mrin52.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"DtkB1.0.cP4.JgmRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12833 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a post written on November 14, Fred Sparber implied that Mills' catalyst would explode all by itself, in a vacuum, if a spark were put to it. Fred wrote: "Yes, The hydrogen will react with the KNO3 and the hot KNO3 will react with the "graphitic carbon" also forming CO which will react with any water to form CO2 plus hydrogen which will burn more KNO3. In addition to that any oxygen floating around will oxidize the tungsten filament. Plus the freed potassium (K)will react with the CO2 and form K2CO3 which is what is used in the H2O-K2CO3- Ni-Pd experiments in the first place. :-)" In other words, No, Mills' catalyst wouldn't explode all by itself. You'd have to add hydrogen, which isn't in the catalyst itself, just to get the catalyst to react. To get it to explode, you'd have to add a lot of hydrogen. Fred also wrote, "Rule-of-Thumb for oxidation in vacuum: If there is enough oxygen to cause a tungsten filament to burn out there is enough to support combustion of gases if the mix is correct." That's interesting, but is there anything on the BLP website that indicates that a tungsten filament burned out? Fred also wrote, "But, the point is the Mills "catalyst" is esentially gunpowder with hydrogen substituting for sulfur, and the hot filament (aside from being oxidized too) is "burning" the carbon and hydrogen. It's a wonder that it doesn't-didn't explode!" It didn't explode because the people at BLP, and the university researcher, took care to "contain the reaction." See the description of the calorimetric setup pasted by Vince Cockeram directly from the BLP website in his post of November 15. (Thanks again for the information, Vince.) And Mills' catalyst isn't "esentially gunpowder with hydrogen substituting for sulfur," because there isn't any hydrogen in the catalyst itself, as there is sulfur in gunpowder itself. Fred concluded, "I question the use of this gunpowder-type "catalyst". :-)" At last, a point on which Fred and I can agree. Fred did make a good case that BLP would be better off using a catalyst that involved fewer secondary chemical reactions when hydrogen is introduced. Fred also showed that those secondary reactions complicated the calorimetry, and I hadn't thought about those complications until Fred pointed them out. But the bottom line still appears to be that the university researcher and BLP produced a lot more heat from their Mills-type gas-phase cells than could be accounted for by standard chemistry. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 07:05:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA31915; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 06:59:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 06:59:42 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:59:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116095907_1812668887 mrin42.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"wps942.0.ao7.TfmRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12831 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks to Vince Cockeram (and also to George Holz) for more valuable details from the BLP website about the calorimetry of the gas-phase cells, and for clearing up Larry Wharton's misunderstandings. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 07:05:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA32015; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:00:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:00:07 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:59:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711161459.JAA28295 mrin58.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"cufS6.0.3q7.sfmRq" mx1> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12834 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: be some disagreement about where hard x-rays end and gamma rays begin. The instruments aboard the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory satellite have a range that runs from 30 keV to 30 GeV: see Gehrels, et al., "The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, December 1993, at p. 68 col. 2. A question for Martin Sevior or Michael Schaffer (or any other physicist who might be reading Vortex-L): what happens when the proton of hydrogen captures the electron? I've heard that this capture occurs from time to time, since there's a finite, non-zero probability for the event. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 07:39:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA21262; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:36:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 07:36:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <346F7EB9.7D99 itl.net> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:16:09 -0800 From: nick7 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Arthur Clark Invention? References: <19971115225508588.AAA174 default> <346E48EF.6ADD@keelynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rB7aQ.0.7C5.BCnRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12835 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jerry Decker wrote: >an article about Arthur C. Clark showing him holding a > metal tube with a flat block on the end.....the article intimated Clark > was working on his own free energy device...... It's the Potapov cavitation tube. He got one a year or so ago..... Nick Palmer - Jersey FoE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 08:26:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10576; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:20:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:20:46 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:20:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116112001_1693369133 mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ELPEX project - Q&A on the web Resent-Message-ID: <"TqsAm1.0.9b2.TrnRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12836 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have updated my web site with a Q&A document that Patrick Cornille has given to me this afternoon. I think that this document will give you many answers about the Electrostatic Pendulum experiment ( Spontaneous force in the matter ). You will find this document at : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/elpexqa.htm I hope that this will interest you, Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+1 ) 11/16/97 - 16:00 Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 11:14:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02341; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:11:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:11:19 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Sodium-Potassium Alloy (Nak) Vapor Pressures Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:03:46 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf2c2$5dd13460$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"RtnpS.0.Va.MLqRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12837 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Using a low melting NaK alloy or NaK with added Cesium in a hydrogen atmosphere where the vapors can "condense" on a cooler Antimony surface my be of interest for searching for hydrino-electrino formation. Vapor pressures mm Hg at temperatures deg C.at various weight percent Potassium. 427 527 627 727 827 56%K 3.5 23.0 101.0 329 864 78%K 5.1 32.0 137.0 432.0 1101.0 Na 1.0 8.0 40.0 150.0 454.0 K 10.0 52.0 200.0 590.0 1420.0 Cs ~35.0 ~90.0 ~400.0 ~650 ~1600.0 The Ionic Hydrides that would try to form will not be stable at these temperatures. Seems like a good way of getting around the problem of Oxygen-Hydrogen combustion. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 12:01:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09627; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:55:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:55:50 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:56:46 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Hollow Body Gravitation Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3-N1s2.0.FM2.4_qRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12838 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Lunar Gravitation My earlier article entitled "Luna" examined the early NASA and Soviet programs to land unmanned spacecraft on the moon . All of the early attempts were characterized by failures of one sort or another , most of these being of the nature of what appeared to be position/velocity discrepancies between theory and practice. It is interesting that of the "Ranger" series of spacecraft that finally did successfully hit the moon and send back pictures on the way down , the pictures appear to be successive frames taken of the same area that it ultimately crashed into. Since the interval between each of these successive frames was known , the change in apparent size of the feature being photographed would enable NASA scientists to determine the rate of increase in the spacecraft's velocity as time passed. If the theory of gravitation as described by Isaac Newton applied specifically to landing a spacecraft on the moon in an exact way , the information provided by these successive photos timed at precision intervals would be derivable from theory , and it would have therefore been unnecessary to have gone to the expense of doing these missions in this way. Other , different types of missions could have been undertaken in order to derive data that could not otherwise be determined from theory. However , the previous experience of both the United States and Soviet Union proved that even hitting the moon by means of predicting from extant theory the proper trajectory , was indeed problematic. This article will attempt to detail the discrepancies that simplistic derivations from Newton's theory of gravitation might produce when applied to landing spacecraft on a body that may very possibly be hollow. I would like to thank John Winterflood for his continuing interest in this subject and his review of and corrections to my understanding of hollow body gravitation . This is not to say that he agrees with my conclusions necessarily , in fact quite the opposite ,possibly , for reasons which I would invite his further comment on in this forum. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Problem presented by the Hollow Body Newton's First Law of Gravitation surmises that a massive body's gravitational attractive force varies inversely with the square of the distance to the geometric center of the gravitating body. If taken literally for all cases however, this principle would not hold up in practice , for example , when the net force on an object within the spherical radius of the gravitating body has to be derived (ie the object is placed at the bottom of a shaft drilled into the surface). This is because that if an object is placed at the bottom of a theoretical hole drilled into the surface , some of the gravitating body's mass lies in the direction to the outer surface rather than in the direction to the center. In such a case the _net_ force in the direction to the center WOULD NOT be the inverse of the square of the distance to the point at the geometric center , as Newton stated (above), but would go from 1g at the surface and to zero at the center according to perhaps g=R where R is the the distance of the object to the center as a percentage of the gravitating body's radius. This effect would have consequences for cases where the gravitating body is hollow. If the size of the central void in the hollowed out sphere is unknown , then it becomes very problematic to determine the spatial distribution of gravitational energy relative to an arbitrary unknown thickness of the "shell" . The reasons for this are as follows : For a homogenous mass of rock , we can reasonably determine that the point of maximum velocity for an object dropped down a hole drilled into the spherical mass would coincide with the point at the geometric center. However , for a hollow body this point of maximum velocity would be shifted (spatially) to the INSIDE SURFACE of the "shell". Although this may seem counterintuitive to some , I have been assured that this is so by John W. - who took great pains to correct my understanding of this particular point. A spatial void of undetermined size in the center of a gravitating body such as the moon would result then in a spatial redistribution of gravitational energy with respect to the location of the surface that would vary in extent according to the (unknown) size of the void. This does not mean that the force of gravity on the postulated hollow moon would be any different as experienced by an object resting on it's surface. It simply means that an astronaut who calculates that his maximum velocity would be reached (disregarding the presence of rocks and other material located at the surface) at the geometric center , rather than at a point closer to the surface will underestimate his expected velocity at the surface , and therefore would probably fail to apply sufficient braking thrust to land safely. This is very probably the explanation for why NASA needed the Ranger series of spacecrafts to determine where the surface was with respect to the graph of a falling object's increasing velocity as it approached the point of maximum velocity , which probably does NOT lie 1050 miles away from the surface AT THE GEOMETRIC CENTER, but rather is much closer to the surface. --------------------------------------------------------------------- With the above I conclude my argument that the moon is perhaps hollow, which when combined with other evidence described on various websites detailing lunar anomalies , gives compelling reason to seriously ask the question WHY is NASA ignoring the moon at this time and instead promoting the exploration of Mars and other planetary objects at much greater distances? The Space Shuttle has given the American people an opportunity to continue Lunar exploration efforts by means of ferrying-docking lunar exploration equipment into near earth orbit . No one that I know of has ever proposed this since the time the Appollo project was abandoned in the early seventies for reasons that have never been adequately explained . Is the moon perhaps inhabited by "aliens" who have "kicked us off" the the moon as suggested by Fred Epps in his response to my previous posts on this subject? If so , this would perhaps be an earth - shaking revelation that NASA may be unwilling to disclose for fear of panicking the general population of the planet (in response to the near presence of such postulated aliens). But to continue with such a charade that suggests that evidence for life on other celestial bodies is inconclusive , or at best , paltry is to prolong our course down a path of self delusion that also will have deleterious consequences to our future as a species. Initial panic ,if any , will eventually subside and give way to a reasonable assesment of the problem posed by such aliens , and once we are faced with the details of such a problem , we can work towards the means to it's solution as a UNITED WORLD POPULATION , which is a dream that has been cherished by meen of good will down through the centuries , but unfortunately, never achieved. I would urge my colleagues on this forum to adopt this subject as topical and relevant to the advancement of science in general , and to review our outlook as to our relationship to the government or status quo issues having to do with o/u research as well. We need to have our government working for us , and not against us. What are we going to do about this? Should we resign ourselves to the idea that institutional bias will always be the implacable resistance to progress and knowledge that it appears to be to many of the reseachers who post here? God I hope not.. Jim Ostrowski From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 14:36:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09959; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:31:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:31:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711162230.OAA01577 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:28:54 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NY5ua1.0.WR2.kGtRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12839 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jim! Thanks for another very interesting approach to the "Hollow Moon" issue. Your analysis is original and should get published somewhere. You might try UFO Magazine which has had articles of a similar level of technicality and has a good reputation for journalistic integrity. > Is the moon perhaps inhabited by "aliens" who have "kicked us off" the > the moon as suggested by Fred Epps in his response to my previous posts > on this subject? The ETs are definitely there, IMO. Whether they kicked us off is a matter of speculation. Maybe NASA was afraid the ETs would show up on camera during one of the moon voyages. There have been reports (rumor alert!) that the military already has a hypersonic orbital plane operating out of Area 51. Perhaps the military is already conducting secret expeditions to the moon, or has been all along. Would we know it if they were? I'm not sure... > > If so , this would perhaps be an earth - shaking revelation that NASA > may be unwilling to disclose for fear of panicking the general > population of the planet (in response to the near presence of such > postulated aliens). Certainly the idea of the moon being a hollow body controlled by ETs would be very disturbing to most people, but it would be a mistake to think that NASA are the ones who have a lock on the whole thing. NSA/NRO and the Space Command along with the other aerospace military organizations are the ones who are calling the shots. > > But to continue with such a charade that suggests that evidence for > life on other celestial bodies is inconclusive , or at best , paltry is > to prolong our course down a path of self delusion that also will have > deleterious consequences to our future as a species. Initial panic ,if > any , will eventually subside and give way to a reasonable assesment of > the problem posed by such aliens , The governments are well aware that they can make no admissions about ETs without opening a Pandora's box that will upset almost every scientific and religious orthodoxy on this planet. Suppose that they have been involved with the ETs for quite a while now, and have been covering it up with defamation, propaganda, and threats. Suppose there are ETs who are hostile. Suppose they know that ETs genetically created the human race. Suppose there are a multitude of ET races here, as well as other beings who don't fit into such a "comfortable" category as ETs. Suppose the ETs are abducting thousands of people for reasons of their own. All of these statements are true as far as I am concerned, and these are only some of the truths that are currently fit for public consumption. If you accept the possible truth of even ONE of these statements, it is easy to see why the governments will NEVER make a public admission of the existence of ETs, or do anything that might bring it about. THey will stonewall it to the bitter end! The panic is on the part of those who have full knowledge of the situation, not on the part of the public! and once we are faced with the > details of such a problem , we can work towards the means to it's > solution as a UNITED WORLD POPULATION , which is a dream that has been > cherished by meen of good will down through the centuries , but > unfortunately, never achieved. Ironically, much of the cooperation we have seen over the last 20 years, for instance betwen the Soviet Union and the US in the late 80's, has come about because of a shared recognition of the possibility of a war with ETs (whether that is really a possibility or not). The statements of both Reagan and Gorbachev reflect this. Reagan said on four separate occasions "suppose there was a threat from up there.. from outer space.. wouldn't our countries band together quickly to stop the common enemy?" or very similar words. Gorbachev agreed. This was in the time period of the Reykjavik conference. Jim, your studies on the Moon are excellent. I hope you continue with your research and publish somewhere. I wil buy the book! Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 14:58:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12473; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:54:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:54:02 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Hydrinos and the Saha Equation Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:50:58 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf2e2$1ac54d80$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"C9WLg1.0.m23.5ctRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12840 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The classical Saha Equation predicts the number of ions in a gas at a given temperature: Log10(ni^2/no)= -5040*Vi/T + 1.5 Log10T + 15.4 Where ni is the number of alkali ions and n is the number of neutral atoms or molecules. AT 1,000 Deg Kelvin Vi -5040*Vi/T Log10(ni^2/no) Cs 3.9 -19.66 0.24 K 4.34 -21.87 -1.97 Na 5.14 -25.91 -6.00 Going by this, if there was a reaction between an alkali ion (M) and H2: M+ + H2 ----> MH + H+ this would rid the neutral hydrogen atom (H)of the screening effect of its electron, thus facilitating hydrino formation by whatever it takes. This would tend to make a mix of NaK, Cs and H2 a good choice to put in a test cell and heat it to 1,000 K or better, wouldn't it? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 16:28:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11602; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:24:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:24:26 -0800 Message-ID: <346F8EB4.1763 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:24:20 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"HCj6J3.0.8r2.vwuRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12841 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > Lunar Gravitation (Snip many ideas that seem correct, and a few that seem wrong!) > What are we going to do about this? Jim, the first thing we should do is try to get our clasical gravity theory right. The situation as I see it with my limited background: 1. I think it is true that in the INTERIOR of a massive body the gravitational forces can be very complex IF the mass distribution is weird - indeed, the near-field can be very complicated OUTSIDE of the body also. Far away from the body this effect will fade away and the body looks like a distant point-mass again. 2. Both the earth and the moon certainly have "masscons" that complicate the orbital mechanics of bodies in low orbits. 3. However, taking the simple case of spherical, HOMOGENEOUS bodies, both solid and hollow, if you are anywhere OUTSIDE of the surface, orbital mechanics works just as though all their mass were concentrated at their center. This holds for all orbits that don't intersect the surface and the astronauts like to avoid the other kind. (Not saying that masscons won't complicate the situation!) 4. The density of Earth is 5.5 g/cm^3 and that of the Moon is 3.3 g/cm^3 - I believe this difference is explained by any number of conventional theories but maybe a hollow Moon could be proposed. However, I submit that a hollow-shell planetary-sized body would suffer from large compressive stresses in the shell directed parallel to tangent lines to the shell. To calculate this stress I guess you could cut the hollow body with a plane passing through the center and calculate the location of the center of gravity of each half. Then use Newton's law to compute the attractive force between the two halves. Then, divide this force by the cross-sectional area of the cut to get the average stress. If the stress is too high for the body's "stuff" then, the shell will be unstable and will collapse. I have a sneeky feeling that my simple model may not provide an accurate stress level, but perhaps it would be close. Any comments? 5. For modest sized planets and moons, the electrostatic equations for attractive force between charges should be a good analog for gravitational force. Just as there is no electric field on the inside of a van de graff terminal sphere, there is a zero-gravity condition on the inside of a spherical shell planet or moon. (Yes, the thickness of the charge layer and of the mass layer are important within the volume of that layer.) I don't know, Jim, the idea of a hollow Moon is a neat concept but I can't see why we need to think that it must be so. What we need is some good seismic data on the Moon. I wonder if the Apollo missions placed such instruments on the Moon and if any data has been forthcomming - say from meteor impacts and such? I know, me from NASA and I don't know - add it to my "I don't know list"! I don't see why we need to worry if a race placed a hollow-Moon ship near us. If they're there now, they don't seem to be a problem. If they are gone - what a GREAT colony site for US! Maybe they left some great OU energy gadgets behind! We may need to send a good journalist to the Moon to check it out - Oh Jed /\/\/\/\... Another point - we are pobably in much greater danger from the impact of a near-earth-object (NEO) than from an ET race. With an ET problem, they may want us around, at least for pets. NEOs have no such interest in us or anything else on Earth. We know they have hit Earth in the past - the only thing protecting us is the long AVERAGE time-between- impacts. Are we feeling lucky today, suckers? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 17:50:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24484; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:44:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:44:27 -0800 Message-ID: <346F938D.7303 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:45:01 -0600 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, storms ix.netcom.com, design73@aol.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, ceti msn.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris@acs.tamu.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr Subject: Britz: some CF evaluations Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"qqdo71.0.P-5.w5wRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12842 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!recycled.news.erols.com!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Authorities Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:36:25 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199711051551.KAA25422 pilot05.cl.msu.edu> <346B19C4.1609@noudont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <346B19C4.1609 noudont.com> On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Particle Man wrote: > Richard A Blue wrote: > > > > In response to Dieter Britz, I would not have said, initially, > > that pronouncements on cold fusion by Fleischmann or Bockris > > should be treated on par with those of Jed Rothwell, for example. > > The Professors do have the benefit of years of experience in > > a scoemtific endeavor that is not to be totally discounted. > > > > My point was that their knowledge and experience with nuclear > > reaction phenomena was sufficiently limited that any evaluation > > of their assertions about mechanisms and characteristics of > > cold fusion have no special merit. [...] > Mr. Blue, > About a week ago, I posted a question, asking you to please post your > credentials. I believe that we deserve an answer. We just want to know > why you think you should critique the work of nationally and world > recognized experts. Thank you, and this time I hope that we get a reply > posted to sci.physics.fusion. You must be new to this group, that you don't know Dr. Blue's credentials. He is certainly qualified to pronounce on what he has pronounced on, being a retired physicist. Lest I have given the impression to some that I uncritically defend Fleischmann & Bockris, let me add some remarks. It is true, as I have said (and Dick Blue half agrees) that one takes more notice of an apparently outrageous claim by a well know scientist than by Joe Blow. After that, however, the claim is fair game for all experts. Fleischmann made some elementary errors in the area of detection of nuclear emissions, where he has little or no experience, and Dick Blue has. F also made some mistakes in the electrochemistry, where I know a thing or two. People who know something about calorimetry have their doubts about that end of F&P's work. The most serious problem is the lack of reproducibility. This can have legitimate reasons; it has happened in other areas, where subtle effects such as impurities were hard to pin down. But it has now been 8 years and one would expect people to have some glimmers of a handle on the problem. The same, or worse, goes for Bockris, who specialised in tritium, then went over to transmutation. For a while, it was only when Joe Champion was doing it, that it worked. I am sure that Randi could do the same. And there has been critical doubt thrown on that work by Noninski in the J. Sci. Expl., who found conventional explanations for some of Lin & Bockris's observations. This is how it works. There are, nevertheless, some quality positives, as I call them. While F&P and Bockris et al have been criticised, noone to my knowledge has found anything wrong with the tritium findings of Will et al, probably because this was very carefully done, with proper controls and good techniques. And while the papers of Arata & Zhang are maybe full of internal contradiction and certainly written in a very messy style and a lot of detail is missing, I have not seen competent criticism of their very interesting mass spec results, where they found 4He and, more recently, 3He as well. This is the reverse Joe Blow effect: I had never heard of the pair before but their work has forced me to take notice. There are others. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 17:59:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA05753; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:54:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:54:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <346F9E3A.5510864B verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:30:34 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re:Hollow Body Gravitation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6PzlO1.0.pP1._EwRq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12843 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From Jim Ostrowski's letter: >> The Problem presented by the Hollow Body Newton's First Law of Gravitation surmises that a massive body's gravitational attractive force varies inversely with the square of the distance to the geometric center of the gravitating body. If taken literally for all cases however, this principle would not hold up in practice , for example ...<< The above law hold when tidal effects are omitted. I just figure out it's incorrectness at college on physics class just the Newton law is being postulated. A simple one dimensional model is enough to show it. No need to 3D objects. I know it is a very ba sic issue and everybody knows but I want to sketch it again in expense of the bandwidth. When a rule is vertically held, lower part is more attracted by the Earth than its upper part. So if one try to rotate the rule around its geometrical center, gravity will oppose the movement. Only a bit lower point will balance the gravitational forces a pplied to the rule. As summary, center of gravity of a body is close to the attracting body. Other name of this effect is tide or tidal effect. Now, if a body is hollow, the separation between center of upper and lower parts will increase. This will cause more tide. Even density variation on a one dimensional object affect how is gravitating, any specific 3D shapes could not offer an invariant solution to density changes. More clearly there should no geometric form to keep tidal effects invariant to spatial density changes. Obviously these spatial density changes should be restricted to not modify object center of mass/gravity. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 18:02:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25768; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:58:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:58:18 -0800 Message-ID: <346F96D8.BE6 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:59:04 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, droege@fnal.gov, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, design73 aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net Subject: Blue: Cold Fusion Lies #10, "Heat After Death" Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"AQ5pO1.0.SI6.uIwRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12844 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news-atl-21.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-dc-26.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.ecrc .net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!daver!zorch!fusion From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Subject: Cold Fusion Lies #10 Reply-To: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Sender: scott zorch.sf-bay.org Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Message-ID: <199711141740.MAA136425 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:46:28 GMT Lies #10 addresses the question of a "self-sustaining" cold fusion reaction. I thought this notion had long ago been laid to rest after Pons mumbled something about "heat after death" from a CF reaction before he faded from the scene. However, like many of the truly stupid assertions about cold fusion reactions, this one seems to be subliminally present in the minds of CF advocates ready to reemerge like the herpes virus. Of course those who would utter such phrases as "self-sustaining" as if it were something achievable with a CF reaction fail to note that certain key requirements are missing from the CF environment as they know it. "Heat after death" is far from being a sign that some new plateau for CF success has been reached. Rather it clearly indicates that the supposed output is totally disconnected from any reaction process. So how do we know that a self-sustaining output signal is nothing more than some unrecognized artifact? Perhaps it will help to refresh those little gray cells with a simple analog example. Consider the candle as a source of heat and light. Once a match has kindled the flame the candle sustains burning at a resonably steady rate provided, of course, that it is a well designed and properly constructed candle. Those of you who have never attempted to make a candle may want to stop here to conduct an experiment for yourself. It is something you can do in your own kitchen -- provided that mom does not get upset to find her best saucepan filled with melting wax. A candle works provided there is the proper feedback from output to input. The flame must melt and vaporize wax at just the right rate to sustain the burning. Now can we move on to consider CF as a candidate for a selfsustaining reaction? To understand the design we need to identify the output, the input, and the feedback that connects them. Oops, I think we are in trouble already. What is the output? What is the input? What can possibly provide any feedback? The sad fact is that after nearly 9 years of research the CF advocates cannot identify anything about the cold fusion process that will satisfy the requirements for a self- sustaining reaction. Take the quesiton of output, for example. Is "excess heat" the only candidate for the role of 'output'? Radiation has rather universally been rejected. Not only has it not been found, it has even been branded as being undesirable so it does not appear to be available for feedback. I suggest that none of the other claimed outputs show much promise in this regard, but don't let me close off the debate. Your suggestions are always welcome. So now we have "excess heat" as the only output available to feed back to influence the input. From my vast experience with candles I am sort of led in the direction of saying that the heat has to do something like melt more wax, but what does heat have to do with the input for a CF reaction? Has anyone demonstrated that heat from an external source can speed up or slow down the CF reaction process? If so it must be one of the best kept secrets of the CF racket. My evaluation of the CF data I have seen mostly points to there being little or no dependence on any control parameter you care to mention. Surely if a little heat would do some good we would know that by now. So it seems to me that there is little prospect that excess heat can lead to a sustained CF reaction. Again I have a simple way to explain any observation of an apparently sustained output that can generally be applied. If the output is an artifact that is in no way connected to any assumed process it will, indeed, display the behavior that may be described as being "self-sustained." Pons's "heat after death" resulted when the temperature sensor simply decoupled from the system -- all the electrolyte having boiled away. So if your guaranteed kit from Acme CF, Inc. comes from the box with a reading fixed on the dial send it back. That is not a self-sustained output. It's an artifact. Isn't it amazing that there are really people out there claiming to do CF research that haven't figured this one out yet? Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 19:21:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04364; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:18:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:18:09 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:15:27 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf307$0d826020$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"KQfo-3.0.541.mTxRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12845 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex For your contemplation. A thermionic converter containing Cesium and Hydrogen, Might create enough Hydrinos-Electrinos internally to sustain power output after initial heat-up to create the cesium-hydrogen discharge. The reaction Cs+ + H2 ----> CsH + H+ and subsequent Hydrino formation and EUV photon release could keep the low work function electron emitter (Cesium-Tungsten)producing enough electrons to sustain the converter. The emission spectra of a Cs-H2 discharge looks to be the optimum choice for the suggested reactions necessary for Hydrino formation from either "fractional orbit" electron states, or Light Lepton pair production. In the latter case there Might be Electrinos formed by uptake of positive Light Leptons by the electrons with the release of 256 Kev. Uptake of negative Light Leptons by the protons-deuterons could release as much as 35 Mev as EUV plus gammas. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 20:19:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11957; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:14:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:14:06 -0800 Message-ID: <346FB68E.1AE9 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:14:22 -0600 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, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, g-miley uiuc.edu, mizuno@athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73 aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astrol.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, wireless rmii.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, rbrtbass pahrump.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, perkins3@llnl.gov, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, JNaudin@aol.com Subject: Third Arata Errata & Carrell response Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------79D03C7433C5" Resent-Message-ID: <"6AjOM1.0.hw2.AIyRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12846 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------79D03C7433C5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nov. 15, 1997 Dear all, Mike Carrell on Aug. 14 posted a very good analysis and rebuttal of many points in my Second Arata Errata, and again firmly recommended I post a retraction. In answer, I shall let the readers decide for themselves on the many details of the debate between us, and move on to share some more of my critical discoveries, reviewing the Arata & Zhang paper again. I've found a good critical strategy is to flip through all previous issues of Infinite Energy and Green's Elemental Energy (Cold Fusion). Issue #14 of "Cold Fusion", page 8, has an ICCF-5 abstract: "DS cathode (Pd-black in Ti, Ni and Pd tubes of 5 cm X 2 [square?] was used to occlude deuterium into Pd by electrolysis for six months. Excess heat generated in DS cathode was observed." So, this gives us notice of two additional cathode metals, Ti and Ni, and the size of the cathode, which may have volume from maybe 10 to about 40 cc, holding .3 or .5 cc Pd-Black. Arata's Fig. 5 shows that the cathode is shaped like a can, so it may have a fairly large interior space. This could affect our estimates of heat transfer from the Pd-B into the cathode, and the possible temperatures of the 3 or 5 gm of Pd-B if it is generating up to about 20 W peaks. I am sorry to find that only today I noticed in Fig. 5 that three thermocouples respectively go directly inside the cathode, to its outside, and into the electrolyte between the cathode and Pt anode. It would be good to have this temperature data, especially for power peaks, if we are to pursue any possible artifacts, as any thoughful scientist would be duty bound to do. Also, Fig. 5 indidcates that the the inlet and outlet thermocouples are connected to generate a voltage measuring delta-T, but nowhere is data given for the temperatures and actual delta-T values. This is also critical information for the assiduous artifact hunter. Paydirt in Infinite Energy #2, page 11: Excess heat graphs for the 3 gm cathode (Pd-2B), from 0 to ~3300 hours of "Measuring Time" [What does "Measuring Time" mean?], not showing an initial twenty days elapsed [Why?}, from 11/11/94 to 4/5/95. ICCF-5 was April 9 to 13, 1995. This is clearly the same as Fig. 8a in Arata, (DS-2B), with no dates given, which continues the data until ~4700 hours, and has the same initial missing twenty days elasped. But, the Infinite Energy graph for the 5 gr Pd-B (Pd-I), which shows a very jagged history, beginning with slight negative values and touching a negative value at 2200 hours, and rising three times to 80 KJ/hr levels, and ending at about 20 KJ/hr, has dates, 11/29/94 to 1/11/95, with an apparent 8 day break, not seen in the graph, and dates 1/19/95 to 4/5/95. A steep drop at 600 hours from about 80 to 20 has the comment: "break off of water and elecatricity (for 16 hours)". The 0 hr mark has an arrow with the note, "two weeks elapsed". In Arata's Fig 8b, for the 5 gm Pd-B cathode (DS-LB) [Or, is that really (DS-IB), since the other cathode is (2B)?], is graphed from 0 to 850 hr, stretched out to appear the same length as the 4700 hr data of the other cathode, with no mention of initial days elapsed. The data is much smoother, starting at about 20, and at 200 hr jumping to move at the 40 to 70 level. This is likely a continuation of the run graphed in ICCF-5, and if this is so, this represents a goodly amount of data selection, a possibility that has to give any sceptic pause for thought. Is this data the actual values, several times a day, or is it time-averaged over fixed intervals? Another problem: Fig. 8c, "Pd-black 5 [gr] and lower side (c): excess heat ratio, Qout/Qin, (=Q*), of upper right side (b), shows values of Qin from about 87 to about 137 W, with Qout about 3-5 W more from about 110 to 120 W Qin, and Qout about 10-15 W for 120 to 135 Qin, which are roughly linear relationships. This means that Qout is a roughly linear function of Qin, and that Qin was varied in the 850 hour 5 gm Pd-B run among many values from 87 to 137 W. So, obviously if "Cell power (excess energy)" is measured as "Output-Input", then a goodly amount of the variation in excess energy is caused by the substantial variations in input power. So, a much more appropriate measure of excess power would be the ratio or percentage Qout/Qin, not the difference Qout-Qin. Don't we need some specific details about how this variable input power was sampled and integrated each day? What was the source of the variation, resistance, voltage, or current, at what time intervals, with what precision? Arata's Fig. 9 gives 1600 hr of excess energy data for Cathode (DS-K), mass of Pd-B not given, from 1/30/96 to 4/5 [or is this data in 1995, until 4/5/95, as in the ICCF-5 data?], and is claimed, "...seems that the generation of excess heat was corresponding to Pc [pressures up to 800 atm in the cathode] increased." But I notice in the first 50 hr a faster rise in excess energy than in pressure, and again at 1000 hr when the power is turned on after 52 hr off, and again at 1300 hr when the power is turned on after 86 hr off. At the end pressure drops from ~700 to ~400 atm [The two previous such pressure drops were during the two power off periods. Was this drop a leak?], while excess energy is fairly constant. What is the pressure versus excess energy history for the other seven samples? Can anyone send me any more such data graphs from the other papers by Arata and Zhang? Dennis Cravens in a long talk with me, mentioned that Ms Zhang, who I believe is from China, may have done most of the experimental work, and also speaks fairly good English. Perhaps Jed Rothwell could contact her, and see if we can get more details about these experiments. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall earthlink.net --------------79D03C7433C5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mx2.eskimo.com (smartlst mx2.eskimo.com [204.122.16.49]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA21763; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14814; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:35:07 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Rich Murray Critique of A&Z, Round 2, text Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:11:02 -0500 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: <19971114143728674.AAA128 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"Qtmmg.0.Ld3.O66Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12799 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This is the text portion. Illustrations are sent as separate messages. ----------------------- I'm happy that Rich is hanging in here, and that he finds my critique of his critique > a reasonable, calm, firm, well-stated proposal that my First Arata Errata > critique, Oct. 25, of Arata and Zhang is so flawed that I should retract it. > I will answer this in some detail, with much repetition. I am very > pleased with the level of this debate. I will comment on his responses. To avoid repetition, I will often uses key phrases as pointers to his post, so others can find the relevant passages. I am also attaching .tif files of key graphs from the A&Z report in .zip compression. If anyone has problems with .zip files I will send the uncompressed files on request. A&ZFig5.tif -- Diagram of calorimeter, showing cooling water path and position of thermocouples A&ZFig6b.tif -- Calorimeter calibration with Pt cathode A&ZFig8a.tif -- Excess heat output over 4750 hour run A&ZFig8b.tif -- Excess heat output over 850 hour run A&ZFig8c.tif -- Heat power output as function of electrical power input > Some have used the phrase "peer-reviewed publication" to indicate the > legitimacy of A&Z and many other cold fusion studies. I see much > evidence that the system is not working to correct the evident > deficiencies in many studies. The selected referees must generally be > of the same persuasion, ney? This shows a misunderstanding of nature of a journal paper or peer review. A peer-reviewed journal paper is one which has been approved by an anonymous panel of judges competent in the topic of the paper. They are selected by the editor of the journal, not the authors, and are often severely critical, so much so that the process is sometimes called "sneer review". The judges look for gross errors, inconsistencies, violation of physical laws, poor expression, and anything else they choose to quibble about. Sometimes the dialogue between a reviewer and author can go on for a year before the paper is published. Rich's critiques are a form of unsolicited "peer review". His statement "the system is not working to correct the evident deficiencies in many studies" says much about Rich's position. Rich's questions would get high marks from a bright high school or undergraduate student first encountering these experiments, and wanting to be satisfied that everything was in order. His position *should be*, that of a student seeking instruction and reassurance, and capable of learning from what he sees and hears. He assumes the position of a peer reviewer, but he is no sense a Peer. The "evident deficiencies" he finds are in his own understanding of experimental physics and chemistry, not in the papers he reviews. Rich's qualifications include study of physics and history at MIT, extensive reading in Scientific American and the Skeptical Inquirer, but no working experience in physics or engineering. He is not a peer of Prof. George Miley, whose research contributions have made him a Fellow of the American Physical Society, American Nuclear Society, and the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (the world's largest professional society). His detailed critiques of Miley's transmutation report was based on Rich's misunderstanding of how the experiments were performed. Rich did retract his conclusion that there was no evidence of transmutation, and did distribute this retraction to the 41 names on his private distribution list. He is not a peer of Distinguished Professor John Bockris, who sent him a gently worded admonition and clarification of issues which Rich brings up again and again. He is not a peer of Arata & Zhang. Arata is a professor emeritus of physics at Osaka U. He's recently been awarded the Emperor's prize in Japan (late July) and is the first physicist ever receive this. It is Japan's highest honor for citizens lifelong contribution to society. He's also won all manner of other international prizes and awards. There is a 40 page list of his achievements that the University gives out to the press corp.(information thanks to Russ George, now working with Arata) He expects a journal paper such as A&Z to be a self-contained, fully detailed, exposition of the complete experimental history, given at tutorial level which an undergraduate with no experimental experience could understand. Such journal papers do not exist. Peers reviewing for major journals have an understanding of how work is done, and look for evidence that it was done, and then move on to the results supporting the main proposition of the paper. > Also, how experienced are Arata & Zhang in electrochemistry? This is rather irrelevant, the data speak for themselves, and satisfied the reviewers. If the work is well done, it is its own credential. People festooned with credentials can make mistakes. : With respect to the NHE journal: > [Is this a major journal? The poor quality of translation suggests not. This is literary criticism, not relevant. I had no trouble reading the text. It is peer reviewed. >I didn't find it in the stacks at Los Alamos National Laboratory library. Irrelevant. The society is co-sponsoring a big plasma fusion meeting along with NIFS and about 10 other major Japanese scientific organizations. (information from Jed Rothwell) Rich goes on to quote his questions about recombination, even after Scott pointed out that recombination deficiencies would reduce the apparent excess heat. Therefore such deficiencies, if they exist, would reinforce the measured indication of substantial excess energy release and strengthen A&Z's argument. Incidentally, in his discussion of recombination, Rich talks about hydrogen, forgetting that in this experiment the electrolyte is principally deuterium oxide, chemically the same as hydrogen. > Four pages describe the apparatus and calorimeter, and are the focus of > this critique. > [This catalyst could be a source of impurities in the electrolyte that > would change the electrolysis erratically over the months of operation.] Without specific knowledge, I (and probably the peers), would expect that use of a recombination catalyst is a standard procedure in certain types of electrolytic experiments. The problem of contamination would be an old one and standard solutions known or provided from chemical supply houses. The reviewing Peers would also know this, so absence of discussion of this point is not a deficiency in the paper. This is one point among many where Rich's lack of experience shows. > No attempt is made to collect and measure output H2 and O2 to verify the > degree of recombination. It's D2, not H2. Again, it isn't an issue, as Bockris and other have pointed out to Rich. > The electrolyte is .1M LiOH in D2O, volume and flow rate not given. Rich repeats this line, even though I pointed out, and he acknowledged, that the electrolyte does not flow. > [Only a 10-20% reduction in flow rate could easily generate the 10-20% > apparent excess power. The community has to be provided with the > specific flow rate data for the whole history of these runs, if an > anomaly is to be established. What Rich apparently does not realize is the existence of a large selection of standard, computerized, computer driven laboratory instrumentation and data logging systems which will make continuous measurements for the 4750 hours of the test run. Temperature measurements of the inlet and outlet water temperatures and the flow rate will be continuously measured and power continuously calculated and plotted. Rich's postulated 10% change in flow rate might be reflected in changes in the outlet temperature, but it would be detected by the flow meter and reflected in the running calculations. I'm not sure what "community" Rich refers to. Certainly Vortex is not the jury here, we are just interested observers. He goes on with miscellaneous questions. >This setup was run for years. A gross misreading of the text. A&Z worked with this series of experiments for four years. Normally, one would expect trial runs, teardowns, rebuilds, etc. The specific report concerns two runs, one of 4750 hours, the other about 850 hours. > Don't we need explicit checks...Of > course, I don't know! I'm a layman. I'm raising simple questions that > must be settled before any claim can be made about excess heat at a > level that mandates a nuclear explanation.] That's what peer reviewers are for. Rich, and to a lesser extent I, are laymen in this field. But one has to assume a basic competence in experimental science. What matters is the heat removed by the circulating water, which is directly measured. Speculations about other things are pointless. Rich goes on with speculations about the shape and purity of the anode and cathode. I'm not sure what Rich or any reviewer would do with this information. The cathode is a sealed Pd capsule containing Pd-black. In the calibration runs a Pt cathode, presumably similar in external form or surface area, was substituted. The issue is what happens with the Pd cathode of whatever composition it may have. The issue is: 1) is the energy release with the Pd cathode greater than could be accounted for by chemical processes? 2) is 4He and 3He detected in the cathodes in rough proportion to the excess energy released? The experimental evidence points to Yes for both questions. The question of what happens inside the cathode, and what causes the variations seen in the experimental data, is the subject for other papers, not the one at hand. A&Z provide a theoretical explanation of the processes inside, which may or may not be correct. These are not the issue. After a long series of questions about possible changes in the Pd black in the cathode capsule, he says: >This question could disconfirm the claim that 14 Watts excess power was generated in > an amount of Pd-B the size of a large pill. Which is not true. What Rich did not do was to look at the photomicrographs on page 40 of the report, which show clearly that the hard edges on the separate, undeuterated particles have become softened into roundish blobs with some evidence of attachment. This is consistent with general knowledge that high levels of deuteration causes Pd to expand. The attachment is consistent with high energy levels, high pressure, and partial, local melting. There is no evidence of the blob that Rich conjectures without real study of the report in his hands. The explicit claim is that when the Pd capsule containing Pd black is substituted for a Pt cathode, over a period of hundreds of hours in one case and thousands of hours in another, more energy is delivered to the cooling water than with a Pt cathode of equivalent area. The Pd powder, when analyzed in a QMS, was found to contain significant amounts of 4He and 3He. The one change between the two cases is the presence of the special cathode. The processes induced the cathode are a matter for further study and do not require explanation in this paper. > [Extraction of the Pd-B for analysis could introduce impurities, including He, so we > must have the details.] Once again Rich's lack of experience and careful reading of the paper shows. It is explicitly stated that He is very insoluble in metals, so any exposure to atmospheric He, which is almost nonexistent, will not occur, and if it did not occur, would not penetrate the samples. Impurities, if any, are explicitly sorted out by the QMS. What is significant is the appearance of 4He and 3He when the samples are heated in the QMS system. >(pressure inside the cathode cell)This suggest the possibility of leaks, which could generate some of >the data spikes. I already dealt with this in my previous critique. Rich goes on to quote summary information on the energy release (several hundred MJ/cm3 over several thousand hours, etc.).. > and other samples were also at a similar level." > [Why aren't we given the specific data for the other six runs? What does "a similar level" mean?] Similar level means just that. The purpose of the paper is a discussion of two runs with a good set of data. Other runs are irrelevant. One black sheep is proof that not all are white, just make sure that the black isn't shoe polish or paint. Rich goes on to quote my more detailed description of the figures, which readers can see in the attached TIFs. In a discussion of the calibration run chart, Fig. 6: Quoting A&Z:>"Our usual experimental range is around 120-150 watts and "cell-power" is > clearly negative with about minus one watt [for a Pt control cathode] as > shown in this diagram." So, this control run is given a value on the > graph of "~0.7" W, or .8 to .7% of the usual input > electrical power. [I was pointing out the listing of overly precise > numbers like "~0.7".] "Clearly negative"! Once again Rich is overlooking and dismissing an important point. Fig. 6b shows about 60 discernible calibration data points within the "authors experimental range" (of input power), falling within a measured range of power removed by the cooling coils of -2 to +1 watt. The title over the graphs says "Least Squares Method". I'm not a statistician, but even a simple average of 60 data points within a 3 watt spread would justify assigning a value of "~0.7W" to the rate of heat loss of the test apparatus. Rich's characterizing this as "overly precise" is without foundation. In fact, it is rather important to establish the average heat loss of the calorimeter setup as this is important in calculating the long-term energy yield of the experiments. Rich goes on to disparage the calorimitry, citing "meaningless noise". The excess power measures about 8W over an extended time, which is about 5% of the input power. The crucial question is whether this can be reliably measured, and whether fluctuations with time are noise or evidence of a significant physical process at work. Fig 8a, 8b and 8c of the TIFs show this. Figs 8a and 8b show extremely dense data points, evidence of close monitoring of the process. Once could surmise that on a larger scale the graph would show data points connected by lines, suggesting that the process was measured continuously, and averaged into reported data at frequent intervals. > 9% of input power, while showing a completely different time history. > [These percentages are low, if the energy source is nuclear, and thus > suggest to my suspicious mind that ordinary physical and chemical > artifacts are involved. It's a debatable issue...] Rich's suspicious mind focuses on the wrong datum. The important datum is the hundreds of megajoules of excess energy per cc of active material (the Pd black). This is far in excess of any conceivable chemical process. The question is the reliability of this measurement of energy yield. > The random nature of the heat data is indicated in Fig. 6 by the Cell > Power for the Pt to Pt control cell, expressed as W out vs. W in. [It is > not clear what this data is from-- many control runs? Were control runs > done before, during, or after the months and years of experimental > runs? Don't electrolysis setups drift?] The data points in Fig 6 are tightly clustered, with some random fluctuations about a nominal value, calculated as minus ~0.7W, as mentioned above. Competent experimental procedure would make this calibration before the experiments in question. The question here is not drift in the electrolysis, but in the calorimeter heat measurements. Calibrations of other experiments at other times are irrelevant. Rich demands explanations of every data point and variation, as clues to possible invalidating artifacts. What he misses is that every experiment contains noise, uncontrolled factors which affect instrument readings, which is why statistical methods have evolved to separate signals from noise. In some cases, an educated eyeball is enough, plus simple averaging. > If minor artifacts generate up to ~1.5 W apparent excess power for zero > input power, then it is plausible to surmise that larger unknown > artifacts are generating 10-20% apparent excess power in the > experimental runs, which over time, are bound to diverge greatly from > the far shorter control runs. Rich refers to the points at the zero power input ordinate in Fig 6a. What he ignores is that the scattering is no greater in the "author's experimental range" of input power. The range of variation for the "author's experimental range" is no greater, making Rich's surmise just that, speculation without foundation, and contrary to evidence presented. Mention is made of eight other experiments from 1992, with similar results, and Rich wants the full dossier. Quite probably, the earlier runs involved only heat production, not the assay for nuclear ash, and are therefor irrelevant to the present paper. > What, for instance, > is the exact duration of the spike from 20 to 60 kJ/hr spike at 2600 > hours in Fig. 8a for the 3 gm Pd-Black cathode? This information would > help us consider possible artifacts.] Just how would this help Rich? Fig. 8 is full of features which cry for explanation and are pointers to unknown physical processes. This is, after all, and experiment. What is important, and Rich ignores, is that the energy in the spike is positive but does not contribute significantly to the overall energy production. > Fig. 8, Note 2: "Generating pattern of each sample displays significant > difference with chronological change. however, each total amount of > excess energy included the eight samples used from 1992 to now was > almost same." [typos in the original] [Why aren't we given the > detailed data? "almost same"? And, "significant difference with > chronological change" may mean the energy output curves over time were > quite different for each sample. This data could help identify possible > artifacts.] Again, a search for "artifacts". What Rich means, and hopes for, is evidence of some failure or aberration in the measurement system which will invalidate the accumulating evidence of energy yield. Now, please refer to Fig 6b and Fig 8a. The ordinate of 6a is in W and 8b in KJ/hr(1 KJ/hr=3.6 W). Fig 6b shows a scatter of +1, -2 W, or +0.3, -0.6 KJ/hr, with a least squares average of -0.2 KJ/hr. Fig.8 shows data trends with superimposed "noise" which fills an envelope about 15 KJ/hr wide. This "noise" is greater than shown in the calibration runs, which might be expected of an active process instead of quiet electrolysis. The data clearly shows that what is going on is not an artifact of the apparatus, etc. Fig. 6b shows that the calorimeter itself has a heat loss, so the evidence for energy yield is even stronger. The spikes in the output at various points are interesting and warrant further investigation, but they do not detract from the main point, energy yield. Of special interest is the apparently exponential rise from 2500 to 3700 hours, and the sudden drop in activity at 3700 hours. The trend is too long -- 50 days -- for an experimental artifact. This is evidence of a real physical process at work. Now please refer to Fig. 8b. The run is shorter, and the noise envelope is about 5 KJ/hr wide. The amount of Pd black in the cathode capsule is greater, 5 gr. instead of 3 gr. Fig. 8c is another presentation of data, plotting output power against input power. A clear proportionality of output power versus input power is seen, clearly in excess of the 1:1 ratio. Again, clear evidence of a physical process at work. With respect to my comment that the length of the calibration runs is not particularly relevant, Rich says: > ["not particularly relevant"? But in long runs of months, the chemistry > of the electrolyte and of the cooling water will shift complexly, and > thermocouples and pumps may become variable, and leaks may develop, and > so on, so length of the control run has to be as long as the > experimental runs, or it means little, in terms of exposing artifacts. > There needs to be many control runs.] Again, Rich's lack of experience shows. The electrolyte consists of pure deuterium oxide, heavy water, plus some LiOH to make it electrically conductive. The Pt anode and Pd cathode are not chemically very active. The cell is closed. It is pure, baseless conjecture that the "chemistry of the electrolyte and cooling water will shift complexly". Cooling water run through a laboratory pump will not have a shift in chemistry. Thermocouples consist of dissimilar wires welded together, which I stated before, but Rich does not understand that this implies long-term stability. He does not understand that the flow would be monitored continuously, so variations, should they occur, are automatically entered in the heat measurement. The reason for a control run is to establish the variability of the calorimeter itself, not an endurance test on the apparatus. If routine inspection of the apparatus (as would occur in a good laboratory) shows no obvious problems, then there is no need for long calibration runs. The evidence in the paper shows a calibration which places any artifacts from the experimental setup far below the signals from the active experimental cell. The calibration artifacts are less than 5% of the process signal. All that Rich can offer is handwaving conjecture and speculation which does not hold up under inspection. He stated: >These percentages in a mediocre, completely outmoded calorimetry, are >meaningless noise, readily achieved if the recombiner catalyst is only partially effective. and: >The poor quality of the excess energy claims destroys the main thrust of > Arata and Zhang's work, that their complex and subtle measurements of > He-4 and He-3 show the levels that should exist for the claimed energy > production. These statements have been distributed to his private mailing list of 41 individuals, not to mention forums, which can then be cited by members of these forums as conclusions from a careful, detailed analysis. As we have seen, the analysis was not careful, missed essential details, and is false in its implications. I still believe that Rich should formally retract it to his distribution list. The remainder of this post from Rich consists of quotes from his and other comments and needs no further commentary. In conclusion, Rich asked if people wanted him to post here. I commend him for digging into the data with more care than most of us have time for. It is wholly proper to ask questions for his own education and perhaps interest of others. I, and others in Vortex, would be happy to aid understanding. But this is not what he is doing, and perhaps he does not realize the effects he creates. He only partially understands the technical papers he reads, jumps to conclusions, and then broadcasts these conclusions in a pejorative style. This is harmful, not helpful, to the people sweating out the hard work in the field. Mike Carrell --------------79D03C7433C5-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 20:50:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18322; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:43:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:43:59 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:43:18 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3470ac23.17566518 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"f8pW82.0.CU4.EkyRq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12847 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Perhaps the first step is to determine if in fact gravitational considerations did play any role in early moon landing failures, and if so, exactly what corrections were introduced to overcome them. Any one have contacts at NASA? 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 16 23:17:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA08883; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:14:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:14:37 -0800 (PST) From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:13:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117021324_446489597 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Resent-Message-ID: <"bj8zX3.0.fA2.Rx-Rq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12848 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: << In a post written on November 14, Fred Sparber implied that Mills' catalyst would explode all by itself, in a vacuum, if a spark were put to it. Fred wrote: "Yes, The hydrogen will react with the KNO3 and the hot KNO3 will react with the "graphitic carbon" also forming CO which will react with any water to form CO2 plus hydrogen which will burn more KNO3. In addition to that any oxygen floating around will oxidize the tungsten filament. Plus the freed potassium (K) will react with the CO2 and form K2CO3 which is what is used in the H2O-K2CO3- Ni-Pd experiments in the first place. >> OK Fred, I'll buy that. But I believe that I saw somewhere in the mountains of data at the BLP site that a small amount of catylist was used in the test cells. ( reference from BLP site) "The cell was filled with 15 cc of the ionic hydrogen spillover catalytic material: 40% by weight potassium nitrate (KNO3) on graphitic carbon powder with 5% by weight 1%-Pd-on-graphitic carbon". Can anyone out there caculate how much total energy you could get from reacting this amount of the catylist ( in a gunpowder like reaction) with the assumption that the H2 is in unlimited supply? (which it really is) I, too, was somewhat bothered that KNO3 was being used. Hey, O3, thats a lot of oxygen right? But then I think I see how much catylist is used, I think, thats not all that much, but I don't know enough chemistry to be sure. Now, having myself made some really good quality gunpowder myself (when I was 12 years old), that much going off under the best conditions would hardly produce enough energy to account for all the excess that has been measured from the BLP gas phase cell. But again, I don't know for sure. I once had about a pound catch fire in my moms kitchen and caught a serious smack from her for filling the house with smoke and burn marks on the ceiling. (it was in an open 5 pound coffee can) Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada (all body parts still attached) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 00:32:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA14492; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:29:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:29:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:30:07 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"Vc-t-3.0.LY3.Y10Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12849 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation accuracy, on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by Mills and Kneizys. Such a formation is quantized, true? Unlike bonds, which deform and have a range of quantized energies, hydrino formation should be limited to strictly the orbital energy values, i.e. the series of values corresponding to the various quantum states 1/n. Also, given that there are many 1/n states, there should be many more formation energies besides 27.21 eV. An interesting method to give rise to a wider range of energies of formation, even if only one quantum state, n fixed, is available for hydrino formation, is the application of a very strong magnetic field to the hydrino forming environment. This would deform the hydrino orbital and, if sufficient magnetic flux is available, deform the hydrino electron orbital into a Rydberg style orbital, extending parts out where orbitals become fuzzy, lose their quantized values, and where orbital hops result in randomized and continuous photon energy distributions. If emission distribution changes then so does the energy absorbtion distribution. It may even be possible to detect a hydrino in a sufficiently strong magnetic field, assuming hydrinos exist, of course, which would provide a good confirmation of this idea, as well as of the hydrino theory. More importantly, it may help provide a far more robust hyrino creation method, by greatly broadening the hydrino formation energy tolerance. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 00:49:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA11652; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:46:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:46:38 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:43:12 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: Rich Murray Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, droege@fnal.gov, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, design73 aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net Subject: Re: Blue: Cold Fusion Lies #10, "Heat After Death" In-Reply-To: <346F96D8.BE6 earthlink.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"aOb0R3.0.wr2.jH0Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12850 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Everyone, I've left most of these posts alone because I didn't want to contribute to the noise they produce but this one really is too much. Rather produce ANY evidence that "heat after death" is artifact Dick Blue merely asserts that it is so and describes the most assinine analogy that would insult the intelligence of a 10 year old. I suggest he reads the experiences of Mark Hugo posted by Rich a week or so ago. Please feel free to respond to specific points raised. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:19:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA18088; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:15:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:15:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:32 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Electron capture by protons. In-Reply-To: <199711161459.JAA28295 mrin58.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UyiGJ3.0.YQ4.0j0Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12851 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > A question for Martin Sevior or Michael Schaffer (or any other physicist who > might be reading Vortex-L): what happens when the proton of hydrogen > captures the electron? I've heard that this capture occurs from time to > time, since there's a finite, non-zero probability for the event. > This question is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean capture to into an atomic state to form a single atom of Hydrogen? If so the maximum energy available is 13.4 electron volts. This is the gorund state of Hydrogen. A famous number predicted by Bohr's first prediction of Quantum Mechanics. If all that energy was released at once it would come out as Ultra-Violet light. However it is much more probable that the electron would cascade from an upper orbital through each of the excited states of Hydrogen to the ground state. The energy release from each transition is approximately 13.4(1/((N+1)*(N+1) -1/N*N) eV where N= principle excited state of the atom. In this case you get a cascade of EM energy with the final transitions in the visible and ultra-violet regions. If you mean: e- + p => n + neutrino This reaction does not occur in free space because it is endothermic. It occurs inside Supernovae after all the nuclear fuel has been exhasted and if Gravitational energy is sufficient to drive the reaction. It also occurs in some nuclei where the arrangement of neutrons and protons is more energetically favourable by changing a proton to a neutron. In both cases there there is no specific energy signature from the neutrino. It depends on the particulars of the specific interaction. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:19:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA18196; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:16:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:16:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:17:32 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"WNZAB.0.ES4.xj0Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12852 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:16 AM 11/12/97, Edwin Strojny wrote: [snip] >The term K+/K+ is Mills's terminology which he gets from: > >K + K++ ---> K+ + K+ + 27.28 eV where the value 27.28 eV is close to >the calculated value of 27.21 eV (by Mills and Kneizys, Fusion Technology, >Vol 20, pp 65-81,1991) which Mills says is a necessary condition for hydrino >formation to occur. Other such systems which meet his criterium are: > >Ti+++ + e- ----> Ti++ + 27.491 eV > >Rb++ + e- ----> Rb++ + 27.28 eV I assume this means: Rb++ + e- ----> Rb+ + 27.28 eV > >Li + Pd+++ ----> Li+ + Pd++ + 27.54 eV > [snip] Note that if the range of energies for hydrino formation can be extended sufficiently, other prospects emerge: Al+++ + e- ----> Al++ + 28.45 eV Ar++ + e- ----> Ar+ + 27.63 eV He+ + e- ----> He + 24.59 eV C++ + e- ----> C+ + 24.38 eV Note that the distortion of the standard electron orbital of the catalyst electron into a Rydberg orbital may be sufficient to catalyse the hydrino formation. No distortion of the hydrino orbital is required, though it is clear some distortion of even a hydrino orbital must occur in a sufficiently strong magnetic field. The combination of distortions may be sufficient to bridge the energy gap for hydrino formation catalysis, especially in the case of Al. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:23:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA15421; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:20:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:20:44 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:22:09 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"LgX01.0.tm3.hn0Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12853 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "Note that if the range of energies for hydrino formation can be extended sufficiently, other prospects emerge: Al+++ + e- ----> Al++ + 28.45 eV Ar++ + e- ----> Ar+ + 27.63 eV He+ + e- ----> He + 24.59 eV C++ + e- ----> C+ + 24.38 eV Note that the distortion of the standard electron orbital of the catalyst electron into a Rydberg orbital may be sufficient to catalyse the hydrino formation. No distortion of the hydrino orbital is required, though it is clear some distortion of even a hydrino orbital must occur in a sufficiently strong magnetic field. The combination of distortions may be sufficient to bridge the energy gap for hydrino formation catalysis, especially in the case of Al." The above should say: "especially in the case of Ar." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:24:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA15459; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:20:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:20:52 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:17:58 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf339$b2779c80$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"x1ND73.0.Nn3.pn0Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12854 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: VCockeram aol.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 12:22 AM Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst ><< In a post written on November 14, Fred Sparber >implied that Mills' catalyst would explode all by itself, >in a vacuum, if a spark were put to it. > > Fred wrote: "Yes, The hydrogen will react with the KNO3 >and the hot KNO3 will react with the "graphitic carbon" >also forming CO which will react with any water to form >CO2 plus hydrogen which will burn more KNO3. >In addition to that any oxygen floating around will >oxidize the tungsten filament. Plus the freed potassium (K) >will react with the CO2 and form K2CO3 which is what is > used in the H2O-K2CO3- Ni-Pd experiments in the first place. >> > >OK Fred, I'll buy that. But I believe that I saw somewhere >in the mountains of data at the BLP site that a small amount >of catylist was used in the test cells. > > ( reference from BLP site) >"The cell was filled with 15 cc of the ionic hydrogen >spillover catalytic material: 40% by weight potassium >nitrate (KNO3) on graphitic carbon powder with 5% by >weight 1%-Pd-on-graphitic carbon". > >Can anyone out there caculate how much total energy you >could get from reacting this amount of the catylist ( in a >gunpowder like reaction) with the >assumption that the H2 is in unlimited >supply? (which it really is) If you take a reaction path: 2 KNO3 + C + 3 H2 ----> K2CO3 + N2 + 3H2O you will get about 4,773 Joule of energy exotherm for each gram of KNO3 reated with each 0.06 gram of carbon and 0.03 gram of hydrogen. With 15 cc of material(KNO3) at 2.0 grams/cc that's 30*4,773 = 143,190 Joule of energy released beyond whatever electrical energy was put into the experiment. At about 0.75 ft-lbs/joule the 1.05E5 ft-lbs released could raise a 175 pound human cannonball 600 feet into the air. :-) > >Now, having myself made some really good quality gunpowder > myself (when I was 12 years old), that much going off under the >best conditions would hardly produce enough energy to account >for all the excess that has been measured from the BLP gas >phase cell. But again, I don't know for sure. > I once had about a pound catch fire in my moms kitchen >and caught a serious smack from her for filling the house >with smoke and burn marks on the ceiling. >(it was in an open 5 pound coffee can) > >Regards, >Vince >Las Vegas Nevada >(all body parts still attached) Yes, but to whose ceiling. :-) Regards, Frederick > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:35:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA16644; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:34:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:34:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:35:55 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"-0qWJ1.0.-34.X-0Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12855 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I forgot to note: Mo++ + e- ----> Mo+ + 27.13 eV In++ + e- ----> In+ + 28.03 eV Te++ + e- ----> Te+ + 27.96 eV Ok, so all we need do is evacuate and then charge up a cell with Ar and H, place in strong B, and start an electrical discharge, preferably using Mo, Ti, or Al electrodes. Mo is better for heat characteristics. This will generate lots of hydrinos. So, what then? What is the best way to manage hydrinos so they don't get away, and so they combine to make energy? One way may be to enclose the discharge tube in large water tank. Those hydrinos that leak through discharge tube walls then get absorbed in the H2O. The H in the H2O should act as a moderator, thus permitting a hydrino buildup in the region of the discharge tube. Comments? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:45:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA16977; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:38:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:38:57 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:36:55 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf33c$57ca6300$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"OLh5H1.0.B94.m21Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12856 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 2:19 AM Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation >At 9:16 AM 11/12/97, Edwin Strojny wrote: >[snip] >>The term K+/K+ is Mills's terminology which he gets from: >> >>K + K++ ---> K+ + K+ + 27.28 eV where the value 27.28 eV is close to >>the calculated value of 27.21 eV (by Mills and Kneizys, Fusion Technology, >>Vol 20, pp 65-81,1991) which Mills says is a necessary condition for hydrino >>formation to occur. Other such systems which meet his criterium are: >> >>Ti+++ + e- ----> Ti++ + 27.491 eV >> >>Rb++ + e- ----> Rb++ + 27.28 eV > > >I assume this means: Rb++ + e- ----> Rb+ + 27.28 eV > > >> >>Li + Pd+++ ----> Li+ + Pd++ + 27.54 eV >> >[snip] > >Note that if the range of energies for hydrino formation can be extended >sufficiently, other prospects emerge: > >Al+++ + e- ----> Al++ + 28.45 eV > >Ar++ + e- ----> Ar+ + 27.63 eV > >He+ + e- ----> He + 24.59 eV > >C++ + e- ----> C+ + 24.38 eV > >Note that the distortion of the standard electron orbital of the catalyst >electron into a Rydberg orbital may be sufficient to catalyse the hydrino >formation. No distortion of the hydrino orbital is required, though it is >clear some distortion of even a hydrino orbital must occur in a >sufficiently strong magnetic field. The combination of distortions may be >sufficient to bridge the energy gap for hydrino formation catalysis, >especially in the case of Al. You guys throw these Metal +++ states around like they were as easy to get as water out of the ocean. It takes enormous temperatures to get H+ 13.5 ev (162,000 deg K) Al +++ would take about 28.45 ev (330,000 deg K). The measured temperature in a good hydrogen discharge is around 40,000 deg K. Seems kinda unlikely at 280 C (553 K). :-) Regards, Frederickl > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 01:50:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA17536; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:46:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:46:42 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:48:10 -0900 To: From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"toQNR1.0.vH4.0A1Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12857 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip] >You guys throw these Metal +++ states around like they were as easy to get >as water out of >the ocean. It takes enormous temperatures to get H+ 13.5 ev (162,000 deg K) >Al +++ would >take about 28.45 ev (330,000 deg K). > >The measured temperature in a good hydrogen >discharge is around 40,000 deg K. Seems kinda unlikely at 280 C (553 K). Well, Al+++ is not uncommon in solution, and I have had some unusual luck producing underwater spark discharges in strong magnetic fields, even on the back side of the Al electrodes. However, I assume you have not yet read subsequent post about use of Ar. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 02:01:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA21021; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:55:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:55:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:56:46 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"bL6oO.0.M85.fI1Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12858 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >Well, Al+++ is not uncommon in solution, and I have had some unusual luck >producing underwater spark discharges in strong magnetic fields, even on >the back side of the Al electrodes. Should of course mention that the above was with much help from Scott Little. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 02:23:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA21307; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:20:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:20:03 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:18:00 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf342$15703ec0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"D47Ch3.0.kC5.If1Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12859 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 3:00 AM Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation >I wrote: > >>Well, Al+++ is not uncommon in solution, and I have had some unusual luck >>producing underwater spark discharges in strong magnetic fields, even on >>the back side of the Al electrodes. Granted. But Mills isn't running spark discharges in the published experiments. Aqueous chemistry at or near room temperature is a far cry from the plasma physics of sparks or the Sun's surface that Mills is basing his hydrino theory on. > > >Should of course mention that the above was with much help from Scott Little. Every Little Bit Helps. :-) Regards, frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 03:23:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA27924; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:17:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:17:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <347027B0.23D9 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:17:04 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: jonesse astro.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk Subject: Proposal for a new scientific society Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7iBS1.0.Eq6.RV2Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12860 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a serious proposal for a not-so-serious society: I propose to form a new professional scientific society of "conventional scientists who wish CF/OU/Transmuation were real" The only criteria for membership are: (1) must be/have been employed as a research scientist/engineer at a conventional institution of research (2) must agree with the above sentiment. Eligible scientists who actually *believe* CF/OU/Transmutation *are* real are allowed, but it is understood that members are much more likely to believe the opposite, in accord with prevailing conventional scientific opinion. Our society will have no dues, no meetings, no organizational structure and no journal. We may put up a web page, though :-). What we do need are a name and a mascot/icon. These will be selected from suggestions made by the founding members, via unanimous self-organizing agreement. Attribution: This society is modeled after the Order of the Dolphin, founded in 1961 by Carl Sagan, Philip Morrison, Francis Drake, John Lilly, et al, uniting individuals with a like attitude towards extraterestial intelligence. See: http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/drake.htm#dolphindet -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 04:01:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA29159; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:57:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:57:00 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117065402.006adf64 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:54:02 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <347027B0.23D9 math.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"CVoZn1.0.X77.B43Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12861 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:17 AM 11/17/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >This is a serious proposal for a not-so-serious society: > >I propose to form a new professional scientific society of >"conventional scientists who wish CF/OU/Transmuation were real" > >The only criteria for membership are: >(1) must be/have been employed as a research scientist/engineer > at a conventional institution of research >(2) must agree with the above sentiment. > >Eligible scientists who actually *believe* CF/OU/Transmutation >*are* real are allowed, but it is understood that members >are much more likely to believe the opposite, in accord with >prevailing conventional scientific opinion. Barry Merriman is wrong about cold fusion, and is apparently perhaps wrong here about "prevailing conventional scientific opinion", except when he means "conventional scientific opinion of hot fusioneers nearby Dr. Merriman's office". =========================================================== > >Our society will have no dues, no meetings, no organizational >structure and no journal. We may put up a web page, though :-). > >What we do need are a name and a mascot/icon. These will be >selected from suggestions made by the founding members, via >unanimous self-organizing agreement. > >Attribution: This society is modeled after the Order of the Dolphin, >founded in 1961 by Carl Sagan, Philip Morrison, Francis Drake, John >Lilly, et al, uniting individuals with a like attitude towards >extraterestial intelligence. See: > Dr. Philip Morrison (Physics, MIT) agreed that MIT's Plasma Fusion Center DID get excess heat with Pd and D2O in the Phase-II experiment, and Dr. Morrison personally confirmed my report demonstrating a less than scientific care demonstrated following the MIT Plasma Fusion Center Phase II experiment. The Phase-II experiment which was a "positive" prior to adjusting the curves for publication, has been used by "skeptics" to coverup the success of an important replication of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment. Info available in refs at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html or the following: Swartz, M., 1994 "A Method To Improve Algorithms Used To Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy", Transactions of Fusion Technology, 26, 156-159. Swartz. M., 1993 "Some Lessons From Optical Examination Of The PFC Phase-lI Calorimetric Curve". Vol. 2, Proceedings "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion" 19-1, sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research. Swartz, M., 1992, "Reexamination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment -- Phase-II Calorimetry by the MIT PFC", Fusion Facts, 4, 2, 27-40 (August 1992) BTW, those scientists/students/researchers who are truly interested in cold fusion and/or what constitute real "artificts" ought examine these papers, OR those similar papers by Dr. Noninski, or Dr. Miles, or Dr. Mallove's book. Dr. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 04:20:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA30762; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:17:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:17:47 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Cc: , Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:13:55 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf352$469b9340$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"lrf3g3.0.UW7.fN3Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12862 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: jonesse astro.byu.edu ; britz@kemi.aau.dk Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 4:25 AM Subject: Proposal for a new scientific society >This is a serious proposal for a not-so-serious society: > >I propose to form a new professional scientific society of > >"conventional scientists who wish CF/OU/Transmuation were real" > >The only criteria for membership are: > >(1) must be/have been employed as a research scientist/engineer > at a conventional institution of research > >(2) must agree with the above sentiment. > >Eligible scientists who actually *believe* CF/OU/Transmutation >*are* real are allowed, but it is understood that members >are much more likely to believe the opposite, in accord with >prevailing conventional scientific opinion. > >Our society will have no dues, no meetings, no organizational >structure and no journal. We may put up a web page, though :-). > >What we do need are a name and a mascot/icon. These will be >selected from suggestions made by the founding members, via >unanimous self-organizing agreement. After "joining" the Army once,and serving for 3 years, and being married for 45, I make it a rule, to NEVER join anything. :-) However, The Turtle epitomizes the OU quest and a fitting motto that he has is. "You never make progress until you stick your neck out". :-) > >Attribution: This society is modeled after the Order of the Dolphin, >founded in 1961 by Carl Sagan, Philip Morrison, Francis Drake, John >Lilly, et al, uniting individuals with a like attitude towards >extraterestial intelligence. See: > >http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/drake.htm#dolphindet > Regards, Frederick >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 04:57:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00785; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:51:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:51:44 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34703DD6.1BE5 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:51:34 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society References: <01bcf352$469b9340$LocalHost default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gfpeK.0.BC.Ut3Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12863 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > The Turtle epitomizes the OU quest and a fitting motto that he has > is. "You never make > progress until you stick your neck out". :-) Hey, I like that! "The Order of the Turtle" has a nice ring to it as well. To those who are offended by the society---of which I may be the only memeber, but thats ok---the membership in the society is compatible with CF, etc being either real or imaginary. Its simply a virtual place for folks too grounded in conventionality to accept the present level of "proof", but who would love it if sufficent proof were to ever manifest itself. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 05:01:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA04874; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:56:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:56:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971117125430.008f99f8 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:54:30 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"EiMv73.0._B1.hx3Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12864 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:17 AM 11/17/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 9:16 AM 11/12/97, Edwin Strojny wrote: >[snip] >> >> >>Rb++ + e- ----> Rb++ + 27.28 eV > > >I assume this means: Rb++ + e- ----> Rb+ + 27.28 eV > My typo- you are correct. >[snip] > >Note that if the range of energies for hydrino formation can be extended >sufficiently, other prospects emerge: > >Al+++ + e- ----> Al++ + 28.45 eV > >Ar++ + e- ----> Ar+ + 27.63 eV > >He+ + e- ----> He + 24.59 eV > >C++ + e- ----> C+ + 24.38 eV > >Note that the distortion of the standard electron orbital of the catalyst >electron into a Rydberg orbital may be sufficient to catalyse the hydrino >formation. No distortion of the hydrino orbital is required, though it is >clear some distortion of even a hydrino orbital must occur in a >sufficiently strong magnetic field. The combination of distortions may be >sufficient to bridge the energy gap for hydrino formation catalysis, >especially in the case of Al. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Another one is: Mo+++ + e- ------> Mo++ + 27.16eV Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 05:06:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05837; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:05:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:05:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:04:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711171304.HAA27452 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"mVAzU3.0.7R1.E44Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12865 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:30 PM 11/16/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation accuracy, >on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by Mills and Kneizys. >Such a formation is quantized, true? I'm not so sure. From the Bohr model of the atom it's easy to see why the n=integer states of the atom exist and why they are precisely quantized. The electron wave function fits with an integer number of wavelengths into those orbits. But what about the hypothesized n=1/integer states? If we're going to throw away the requirement that the wave function "fit" into the orbital, then why bother making it misfit by some precise amount? As you can probably detect, I can't comprehend the details of Mill's theory so this post is really an attempt to get someone more knowledgeable to comment on the above problem. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 05:22:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06398; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:11:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:11:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117080519.006b0200 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:05:19 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <34703DD6.1BE5 math.ucla.edu> References: <01bcf352$469b9340$LocalHost default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ji5sn2.0.uZ1.NA4Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12867 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:51 AM 11/17/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >To those who are offended by the society---of which I may be >the only memeber, but thats ok---the membership in the >society is compatible with CF, etc being either real or imaginary. >Its simply a virtual place for folks too grounded in conventionality >to accept the present level of "proof", but who would love it if >sufficent proof were to ever manifest itself. > >-- >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 > > May your Fusion Energy Research Program have at least a fraction of the successes that cold fusion has had. And may your program survive the critical scientific (and other) bombardment, peer (and other) review that cold fusion has had to go through. BTW, your director probably gets ~!550,000 per year salary with a ~$220,000 (probably more) housing allowance, right? If cold fusion had been funded seriously to just the salaries of your administratiors, breakeven by CF would have been achieved already. Good luck in assembling your group of "believers", but science is the proper way to do cold fusion, and over-unity. Perhaps the hot fusion community on your floor, Barry, are the true belivers, because there has been no significant progress in hot fusion to support the incredible salaries and expenditures while "bricks" are thrown at the cold fusion community. In contrast, cold fusion came out in 1989 about 10 watts/cm3 and is now two orders of magnitude greaters in power density with nuclear ash of helium-4 (mainly), much lesser amounts of helium-3, tritium, and very low level ~10 keV radiation. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 05:22:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06180; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:08:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:08:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117080512.006b0338 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:05:12 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"VmvHV.0.UW1.S74Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12866 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:51 AM 11/17/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >To those who are offended by the society---of which I may be >the only memeber, but thats ok---the membership in the >society is compatible with CF, etc being either real or imaginary. >Its simply a virtual place for folks too grounded in conventionality >to accept the present level of "proof", but who would love it if >sufficent proof were to ever manifest itself. > >-- >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 > > Sufficient proof abounds for cold fusion. May your hot fusion Fusion Energy Research Program, and personal gold transmutation experiments, have at least a fraction of the successes that cold fusion has had. And may your hot fusion, and gold transmutation, programs survive the critical scientific (and other) bombardment, peer (and other) review that cold fusion has had to go through. Cold fusion came out in 1989 with about 10 watts/cm3 power density and is now two orders of magnitude greater in power density with nuclear ash demonstrated as helium-4 (mainly), and much lesser amounts of helium-3, tritium, and very low level ~10 keV radiation. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 05:40:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04244; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:35:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 05:35:42 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:35:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711171335.HAA29409 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Cc: jonesse astro.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk Resent-Message-ID: <"Gf4Mh3.0.921.jW4Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12868 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:17 AM 11/17/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >I propose to form a new professional scientific society of >"conventional scientists who wish CF/OU/Transmuation were real" Sounds like 'charter member' time for me. >Attribution: This society is modeled after the Order of the Dolphin, Then perhaps we should be the Order of the Ostrich. Both the True Believers AND the Mainstream view us as having our heads stuck in the sand. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 06:25:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10561; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:14:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:14:19 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117091119.006a91a0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:11:19 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <199711171335.HAA29409 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"lcflw1.0.va2.v45Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12869 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:35 AM 11/17/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: > >Then perhaps we should be the Order of the Ostrich. Both the True Believers >AND the Mainstream view us as having our heads stuck in the sand. > >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 > > Some possible confusion here? EarthTech, with Scott and Hal Puthoff, is BIG on ZPE which -- although quite far-fetched by conventional science which has limits to the mass of the universe and demands causality -- is appropriate both for vortex and for consideration of entry to Barry Merriman's Order of the Turtle/Dolphin Group for true believers of OU/ZPE/gold-transmutation. The multiple publications from Hal Earthtech re: ZPE seems to triangulate at least some of Earthtech within the ZPE-TrueBeliever-club. Or perhaps Scott does not agree with Hal's ZPE hypothesis. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 06:54:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18007; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:44:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:44:54 -0800 (PST) From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:43:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117094306_1805124078 mrin53.mail.aol.com> To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: About the T.T.Brown Electrokinetic Resent-Message-ID: <"FPK8U1.0.GP4.YX5Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12870 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have reproduced successfully the T.Townsend Brown Electrokinetic Apparatus presented in the US Patent No 293465 filed on June 13, 1952.... The purpose of this experiment is only for understand better the main process in this kind device by experimenting myself, and share my feedback with you. You will find all pictures and diagram of this experiment at : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/ttbkinap.htm I hope that this will interest you. Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin 11/17/97 - 14:40GMT From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 06:58:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19484; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:53:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:53:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:52:09 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971117091119.006a91a0 world.std.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jNu8S3.0.Gm4.Zf5Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12871 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Some possible confusion here? > > EarthTech, with Scott and Hal Puthoff, is BIG on ZPE which -- although > quite far-fetched by conventional science which has limits to the > mass of the universe and demands causality -- is appropriate both for vortex > and for consideration of entry to Barry Merriman's Order of the > Turtle/Dolphin Group for true believers of OU/ZPE/gold-transmutation. > > The multiple publications from Hal Earthtech re: ZPE seems to > triangulate at least some of Earthtech within the ZPE-TrueBeliever-club. > Or perhaps Scott does not agree with Hal's ZPE hypothesis. > Mitch, why do you extrapolate these researchers into a "TrueBeliever" club? It is apparent to almost everyone that both Barry and Scott are not given to hasty conclusions and neither has ever made any claim of observing unconventional results. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 07:50:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26915; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:44:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:44:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34705876.7FBB earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:45:10 -0600 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 Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society References: <199711171335.HAA29409 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9iJ5z.0.Ra6.rP6Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12872 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 18, 1997 Dear all, I'm certainly a member, even though I never have worked as a scientist--- I claim credit for my four years of suffering in 1960-4 at M.I.T., and my dedication to grinding out tedious critiques of cold fusion reports. So, I hereby and herein grant myself the degree, AA, Assiduous Artifacter. Somehow, that reminds me of the day I had a toothache, and so called up my first ex, Gail, a Christian Science healer, for help. She cheerily replied, "Well, just remember your true spiritual identity!" I said, "Yeah, I'm a mistake in the Mind of God." We laughed, and I called a dentist, and got a massive "silver" (actually 50 % mercury) filling put in-- fortunately it fell out, rather corroded, a few years later, and now I have SiO2 epoxy composites. Rich From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 08:21:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06674; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:16:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:16:57 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:18:17 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"J4duP3.0.3e1.tt6Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12874 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:04 AM 11/17/97, Scott Little wrote: >At 11:30 PM 11/16/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >>There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation accuracy, >>on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by Mills and Kneizys. >>Such a formation is quantized, true? > >I'm not so sure. From the Bohr model of the atom it's easy to see why the >n=integer states of the atom exist and why they are precisely quantized. >The electron wave function fits with an integer number of wavelengths into >those orbits. But what about the hypothesized n=1/integer states? If we're >going to throw away the requirement that the wave function "fit" into the >orbital, then why bother making it misfit by some precise amount? > >As you can probably detect, I can't comprehend the details of Mill's theory >so this post is really an attempt to get someone more knowledgeable to >comment on the above problem. > > >Scott Little I am far from expert, but that has never stopped me from commenting before, so why stop now! 8^) I don't understand Mill's theory either. However, Rydberg orbitals are not simple orbitals, as with the Bohr theory, but very complex geometrical shapes involving multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus per orbital, at least as seen in some two dimensional projections of the Rydberg orbital. It makes some sense that such orbitals might be viewed as folded into an overtone harmonic of a Bohr orbital and it may be that (another wild conjecture) the creation of a Rydberg style orbital might be used as a preliminary step in the creation of a hydrino. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 08:22:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02481; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:17:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:17:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:18:13 -0900 To: From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"kXIZl.0.hc.Nu6Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12873 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:18 AM 11/17/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >Granted. But Mills isn't running spark discharges in the published >experiments. Therefore he should not be able to create hydrinos as fast as by the method I suggest, nor does he have such a convenient a means of testing for their existance. >Aqueous chemistry at or near room temperature is a far cry from the plasma >physics of sparks or the Sun's surface that Mills is basing his hydrino >theory on. If it works don't knock it. The underwater discharges I have been running are quite intense and bright, and at high voltage. Question is, does it work? Spectrometry may provide an answer. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 08:22:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03038; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:21:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:21:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117101527.007384bc mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:15:27 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971117091119.006a91a0 world.std.com> References: <199711171335.HAA29409 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"qG_eY2.0.Ml.lx6Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12875 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:11 11/17/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > Some possible confusion here? >...perhaps Scott does not agree with Hal's ZPE hypothesis. Actually, I'm delighted with his ZPE hypothesis. Whether or not we can tap ZPE energy is another matter. I'm also delighted with various hypotheses for CF. It's the extant experimental evidence that I am concerned about. In another post you wrote: >Sufficient proof abounds for cold fusion. I disagree and submit: >Sufficient incentive for further investigation abounds for cold fusion. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 08:51:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06232; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:46:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:46:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:45:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711171645.IAA02802 norway.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: About the T.T.Brown Electrokinetic Resent-Message-ID: <"F7ttt3.0.IX1.QJ7Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12876 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jean-Louis, At 09:43 AM 11/17/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hi All, > >I have reproduced successfully the T.Townsend Brown Electrokinetic Apparatus >presented in the US Patent No 293465 filed on June 13, 1952.... > >The purpose of this experiment is only for understand better the main process >in this kind device by experimenting myself, and share my feedback with you. Nice experiments! What is the power input form? Pulsed dc? Or constant dc? Any ac component input? It has been speculated that pulsed dc or kva input had a greater effects. Good rotation on your model. More "movements" than what has been experienced by researchers working on T.T. Brown's effects. Do you think that Brown's electrostatic motor 1,974,483 claimed 1,000,000 ou is possible? I always wondered why he never developed it. Sincerely, Michael Randall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 08:55:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA12700; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:51:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:51:57 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117114851.006957c8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:48:51 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971117101527.007384bc mail.eden.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19971117091119.006a91a0 world.std.com> <199711171335.HAA29409 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"i5oVc2.0.G63.iO7Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12878 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:15 AM 11/17/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >>...perhaps Scott does not agree with Hal's ZPE hypothesis. > >Actually, I'm delighted with his ZPE hypothesis. Whether or not we can tap >ZPE energy is another matter. Actually, there is no evidence for ZPE(*) -- based upon the equations and lack of causality in some of the formulations. It seems improbable but sufficient incentive exists for further investigation to see if it might exist. [(*) The only zero point energy is probably the half point vibrational energy in the solid state at absolute zero.] Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 08:55:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA12429; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:50:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:50:41 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117114740.006aa804 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:47:40 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971117091119.006a91a0 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"cHPQ62.0.723.WN7Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12877 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:52 PM 11/17/97 +0100, Martin Sevior wrote: >> >> EarthTech, with Scott and Hal Puthoff, is BIG on ZPE which -- although >> quite far-fetched by conventional science which has limits to the >> mass of the universe and demands causality -- is appropriate both for vortex >> and for consideration of entry to Barry Merriman's Order of the >> Turtle/Dolphin Group for true believers of OU/ZPE/gold-transmutation. >> >> The multiple publications from Hal Earthtech re: ZPE seems to >> triangulate at least some of Earthtech within the ZPE-TrueBeliever-club. >> Or perhaps Scott does not agree with Hal's ZPE hypothesis. >> >Mitch, > why do you extrapolate these researchers into a "TrueBeliever" club? >It is apparent to almost everyone that both Barry and Scott are not given to >hasty conclusions and neither has ever made any claim of observing >unconventional results. > >Martin Sevior > Excellent question, Martin. Because cold fusion, unlike ZPE (*), water vortex devices, and coupled induction magnetic machines, has been reproduced, confirmed, and proven that in difficult to achieve conditions it will produce excess heat consistent with the commensurate amounts of nuclear ash produced. [(*) This does not include the real zero point energy which is the half point vibrational energy in the solid state at absolute zero.] IMO the "TrueBelievers" are those that link cold fusion to the cited less believable (but I remain of open mind, if the requisite data is presented) systems, or "push" hot fusion and ZPE, at the exclusion of those fusion techniques which have already been demonstrated. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 09:09:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09050; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:02:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:02:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:03:15 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Cc: jonesse astro.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk Resent-Message-ID: <"Kmi3x3.0.ID2.mY7Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12879 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:17 AM 11/17/97, Barry Merriman wrote: >This is a serious proposal for a not-so-serious society: > >I propose to form a new professional scientific society of > >"conventional scientists who wish CF/OU/Transmuation were real" How about: "conventional scientists who advocate the study of CF/OU/Transmuation phenomena to determine if it is real or not." > >The only criteria for membership are: > >(1) must be/have been employed as a research scientist/engineer > at a conventional institution of research [snip] How about technicians? Students? In fact, why have any qualifications? Why not model more along the lines of the Planetary Society? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 09:13:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16167; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:08:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:08:49 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:05:42 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf37b$09dc70e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"X1XnW2.0.Xy3.Ve7Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12880 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation >At 7:04 AM 11/17/97, Scott Little wrote: >>At 11:30 PM 11/16/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >>>There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation accuracy, >>>on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by Mills and Kneizys. >>>Such a formation is quantized, true? >> >>I'm not so sure. From the Bohr model of the atom it's easy to see why the >>n=integer states of the atom exist and why they are precisely quantized. The Bohr ground state orbit energy w = kq^2/2*r is 137^2*13.6 or 1/2 the rest energy of the electron. The wavelength is 137^2 times the"wavelength" of the electron (2Pi*r = 1.765E-14 meters). All of the orbit energies are 13.6/n^2 thus the "fractional orbits" are going to be 13.6*n^2 in in energy w = kq^2/2r. Thus if r decreases by 2^2, for example, then the corresponding wavelength is obviously going to track this. However, a Light Lepton that is gaining relativistic mass, Mrel = Mo[qV/(Mo*c^2)+1]will fit into the fractional orbit wave functions. >>The electron wave function fits with an integer number of wavelengths into >>those orbits. But what about the hypothesized n=1/integer states? If we're >>going to throw away the requirement that the wave function "fit" into the >>orbital, then why bother making it misfit by some precise amount? Doesn't, with relativistic Light Leptons. >> >>As you can probably detect, I can't comprehend the details of Mill's theory >>so this post is really an attempt to get someone more knowledgeable to >>comment on the above problem. >> >> >>Scott Little > > >I am far from expert, but that has never stopped me from commenting before, >so why stop now! 8^) How far from an expert are you, Horace? :-) > >I don't understand Mill's theory either. However, Rydberg orbitals are not >simple orbitals, as with the Bohr theory, but very complex geometrical >shapes involving multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus per orbital, at >least as seen in some two dimensional projections of the Rydberg orbital. That is just smoke put up to save QED. >It makes some sense that such orbitals might be viewed as folded into an >overtone harmonic of a Bohr orbital and it may be that (another wild >conjecture) the creation of a Rydberg style orbital might be used as a >preliminary step in the creation of a hydrino. Create an LL pair near a proton or deuteron, and you will see a hydrino post haste and an electrino to boot. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 10:02:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25846; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:58:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:58:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:54:09 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Proposal for a new scientific society Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711171257_MC2-287C-271C compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"AkqmQ1.0.fJ6.5N8Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12882 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little disagrees with the statement: Sufficient proof abounds for cold fusion. He believes, instead: Sufficient incentive for further investigation abounds for cold fusion. Well, Scott, if you are not convinced by the calorimetric evidence published by McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann, Bockris, Oriani, Storms and others, you must have a reason. What is it? What weaknesses in these papers make them insufficient proof? Surely your judgement is not based on the fact that you yourself cannot replicate these results! As I have often pointed out, you cannot replicate an airplane, an atom bomb, a neutrino or quark detector, but I presume you still believe in these machines. You could not begin to replicate the industrial catalytic applications developed over the last 40 years by experts like Fleischmann and Patterson. In some cases, other experts struggled for years to replicate them even after patents became available. A quick look at the literature or a conversation with someone like Miles will teach you how little you know about cold fusion and why it is so unlikely your experiments could have succeeded thus far. One's own abilities and experiences cannot be the sole basis upon which to judge reality. Evidence can compel belief as surly as it sometimes forces us to doubt. A scientist cannot chose what he believes in. Unless you have a rational, carefully thought-out reason to doubt replicated, high-sigma results, you *must* believe them. There is a large grey area of unproven, unreplicated, low-sigma data, but if you place McKubre's results in that zone . . . you must also throw in nearly every other accepted fact of modern science, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to the germ theory, to the immutability of the speed of light. Most scientific "facts" are backed by less solid data than CF excess heat affords. Any fact is, of course, open to question. Any fact can be revised, found in error, or found to be a special case. Theoretically, we might learn that bacteria do not cause rabies and the HIV virus does not cause AIDS (as some scientists claim). But a sensible person will go on believing the germ theory for now. I say that people who dismiss CF data, or people like Scott Little who say they do not believe it but refuse to give a reason, are not doing science. Their beliefs are based on faith -- not rationality. Faith is a fine basis for religion, love, hope and charity. But it has nothing to do with science. The only article of faith in science is the scientific method itself. That is, the proposition that widely replicated, high sigma experimental data *must always be correct*. The implications of that data can be disputed. People like Larry Wharton have tried to show that static calorimetry does not work because, as he puts it, the Second Law, "when evaluated to a more precise higher order, is violated." I find this far fetched. I think there is a mountain of evidence proving that the Second Law cannot be violated. But I will grant that Wharton is, at least, doing science. He proposes a hypothesis that might explain one portion of the data. Unfortunately he dismisses 99.9999% of the other data from other experiments going back to 1790, including most cold fusion experiments. Mitchell Swartz dismisses much flow calorimetry based on his theory regarding "Buoyancy Transport Corrections." Experts like Bockris and McKubre say he is wrong. They point to textbook theory and calibration data which shows no sign of the alleged artifacts which he claims should produce as much as 1 watt. His predictions fail by at least three orders of magnitude. I believe Wharton and Swartz have not got a scrap of scientific data to prove their hypotheses, but they are, at least, attempting to come to grips with the data. We can debate with them. We can show calibration data and other data which, in my opinion, proves they are wrong. Scott Little, on the other hand, dismisses all data and gives no reason. We cannot debate that, so it isn't science. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 10:03:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18648; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:58:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:58:27 -0800 (PST) From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:54:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117125442_-488827019 mrin79> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: mrandall earthlink.net Subject: Re : Re: About the T.T.Brown Electrokinetic Resent-Message-ID: <"_GKtc3.0.DZ4.xM8Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12881 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 17/11/1997 18:49:43 , Michael Randall wrote : << Nice experiments! What is the power input form? Pulsed dc? Or constant dc? Any ac component input? >> I have used my Wimshurst machine at low speed, the voltage delivered is about 30kV bipolar DC ( + -15kV ). The tuning must be set in the twilight for obtaining the max leakage current between the thin copper electrode and the aluminium wing. ---------------------------------- << It has been speculated that pulsed dc or kva input had a greater effects. Good rotation on your model. More "movements" than what has been experienced by researchers working on T.T. Brown's effects. Do you think that Brown's electrostatic motor 1,974,483 claimed 1,000,000 ou is possible? I always wondered why he never developed it. Sincerely, Michael Randall >> Yes, I think that it is possible, "In march 1971, Dr Jefinko proved that a wire held aloft by a ballon at 1200 feet altitude would provide 70Watt of high voltage power to an electrostatic motor (an improved version of the Franklin motor) for long as the ballon stayed at that altitude. The wire was a high impedance conductor; and the motor ran at 12.000 RPM or about 200 pulses per second. The motor was a small capacitance device; and had it been run at the impossible rate of 20.000 pulse per second (120.000 RPM) it might have drawn down some 7000 Watts of FREE POWER!!!" ( Extract from "The Vindicator scrolls" of Stan Deyo) In the Feynman (Lecture on Physics "Electromagnetic Vol 1") chapter 9 - We can read that the E-Field is about 100V/m in normal air. That give 400.000V for 50.000m with an average current of 1 pA/m^2, this give us a current of about 1.800 A, thus a free power of 700 MegaWatts..... PS: You will find some color pictures of T.T.Brown working devices in Bahnson labs company in 1958 (courtesy of Stan Deyo) at : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/ttbahb.htm Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin 11/17/97 - 17:45GMT From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 10:27:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19947; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:05:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:05:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:05:34 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"h52kF2.0.Zt4.aT8Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12883 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:14 AM 11/17/97, Martin Sevior wrote: >On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 Tstolper aol.com wrote: >> >> A question for Martin Sevior or Michael Schaffer (or any other physicist who >> might be reading Vortex-L): what happens when the proton of hydrogen >> captures the electron? I've heard that this capture occurs from time to >> time, since there's a finite, non-zero probability for the event. >> >This question is somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean capture to into an atomic >state to form a single atom of Hydrogen? If so the maximum energy available is >13.4 electron volts. This is the gorund state of Hydrogen. A famous number >predicted by Bohr's first prediction of Quantum Mechanics. If all that energy >was released at once it would come out as Ultra-Violet light. However it is >much more probable that the electron would cascade from an upper orbital >through each of the excited states of Hydrogen to the ground state. The energy >release from each transition is approximately 13.4(1/((N+1)*(N+1) -1/N*N) eV >where N= principle excited state of the atom. In this case you get a cascade of >EM energy with the final transitions in the visible and ultra-violet regions. > >If you mean: > >e- + p => n + neutrino > >This reaction does not occur in free space because it is endothermic. > >It occurs inside Supernovae after all the nuclear fuel has been exhasted and >if Gravitational energy is sufficient to drive the reaction. > >It also occurs in some nuclei where the arrangement of neutrons and protons >is more energetically favourable by changing a proton to a neutron. In both >cases there there is no specific energy signature from the neutrino. It depends >on the particulars of the specific interaction. > >Martin Sevior It appears Tom is talking about electron capture from an orbital electron. Some portion of the electron distribution of psi^2 is inside the nucleus, thus the weak interaction can occur with non-zero probability. Don't know the half life for H but it is a very long time as the range of the weak force is very short, and the hydrogen nucleus very small. The half life of e- + 23V26 --> 22Ti27 + neutrino is about 600 days. The reaction e- + p => n + neutrino has not been observed in "free space", as you put it, because an unbound electron typically can not stay around close to a nucleus long enough for the weak force to do its thing. However, I think electron capture from conduction band electrons has been observed. In seems to me unbound electron capture might be observable in one of those intense electron beams generated by one of those superconducting skin accelerators (don't recall the name of those things that look like metal intestines in peristalsis.) The problem might be signature. The signature is typically provided by shell disruption due to loss of an inner shell electron to the nucleus, and generation of sprectra characteristic of the Z-1 element. Capture of an unbound electron by a non-ionized atom would not necessarily disrupt inner shells. However, it also seems to me highly unlikely that target atoms would remain non-ionized in the presence of such an intense electron beam! Possibly gamma emission when nucleus is left in excited state? Another issue is that positron emission is a competing process. Heavy elements are more likely to capture an orbital electron, while light elements are more likely to decay by positron emission. Might be a *very* long wait for p to decay though. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 10:29:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22306; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:22:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:22:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:23:16 -0900 To: From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Resent-Message-ID: <"gzDUq2.0.NS5.aj8Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12884 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:18 AM 11/17/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >>Should of course mention that the above was with much help from Scott >Little. > >Every Little Bit Helps. :-) Well it's more than a Little Bit. When it comes to underwater sparks Scott's the main part of the dog and I'm just the tale a waggin'. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 10:41:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03549; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:35:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:35:12 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971117123443.ZM15190 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:34:43 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Proposal for a new scientific society" (Nov 17, 11:03am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"2vrv-1.0.Jt.Tv8Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12885 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: New society? How about just creating an informal email exploder group to seriously discuss theoretical and advanced physics and chemistry? We could call it "vortex" or something like that. Of course one could expect several pointless discussions once in a while, but since most subscribed members would be actively busy in their fields of interest, it would be reasonable to expect that most of the bandwidth would be taken up with discussions and first hand accounts of current experiments and research. Oh well, one can always dream....... -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 10:42:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04530; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:39:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:39:33 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:38:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117133853_-691810601 mrin54.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"e0E4e3.0.i61.az8Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12886 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/17/97 4:54:23 PM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: <> quite far-fetched by conventional science >> Mitchell's commentary about my "ZPE hypothesis" is a mystery to me. Existence of the ZPE, not only for solid state vibrations (which he acknowledges) but for vacuum EM fields and all other quantum systems is not "my" hypothesis, but is mainstream, textbook physics. See mainstream texts by Wheeler, Feynman, Milonni's (of Los Alamos) recent publication "The Quantum Vacuum" by Academic Press. An excellent introduction can be found at the Scientific American level in the Aug 1985 Sci Am article on the vacuum by Boyer. The only "speculative" part about ZPE from our group is the issue of whether it can be tapped as as energy source at a level that can be useful. We are pursuing this with some optimism, while many others think it unlikely to be fruitful, but this is an argument at the level that applies to solar energy and hot fusion as well, not at the level as to whether these concepts are correct science or not or whether the phenomena in question exist. Proof of principle of ZPE tapping is provided by the Casimir effect (see Forward, "Extracting electrical energy from the vacuum....," Phys Rev B, vol 30, p. 1700, 1984). Two metal plates come together, driven by ZPE mode suppression by conducting boundary conditions (see Milonni et al., "Radiation pressure from the vacuum: Physical interpretation of the Casimir force," Phys Rev A, vol 38, p. 1621, 1988), and when they hit they produce heat; hence, conversion of a minute amount of vacuum energy into heat. Conservation of energy all the way: the universe with vacuum energy and two plates far apart is a higher energy state than the universe with vacuum energy and the plates together - the universe decays from the higher vacuum energy state to the lower, with the emission of the energy differential in the form of (infrared) heat energy when the plates collide. Whether ZPE is real within the physics literature in not the issue. Only whether it can be usefully tapped for application. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 11:10:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27784; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:52:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:52:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117134816.006ae6f8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:48:16 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <199711171257_MC2-287C-271C compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"gWa871.0._n6.r99Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12887 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:54 PM 11/17/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Scott Little disagrees with the statement: Sufficient proof abounds for cold >fusion. He believes, instead: > > Sufficient incentive for further investigation abounds for cold fusion. > >"Well, Scott, if you are not convinced by the calorimetric evidence published >by McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann, Bockris, Oriani, Storms and others, you must >have a reason. What is it? What weaknesses in these papers make them >insufficient proof? Surely your judgement is not based on the fact that you >yourself cannot replicate these results! As I have often pointed out, you >cannot replicate an airplane, an atom bomb, a neutrino or quark detector, but >I presume you still believe in these machines. You could not begin to >replicate the industrial catalytic applications developed over the last 40 >years by experts like Fleischmann and Patterson. In some cases, other experts >struggled for years to replicate them even after patents became available. A >quick look at the literature or a conversation with someone like Miles will >teach you how little you know about cold fusion and why it is so unlikely your >experiments could have succeeded thus far." On this, Jed is mostly correct. ============================================================== > "Theoretically, we >might learn that bacteria do not cause rabies and the HIV virus does not cause >AIDS (as some scientists claim)." Mr. Rothwell has less accuracy here. They do not. Rabies is caused by a virus, of size 4,000,000 daltons. It is RNA and single stranded. The nuclear core is 2% the size of the particle which is enveloped with spikes some 10 nanometers in length. The whole particle is a bullet shaped cylinder some 175 x 70 nm. ============================================================== > "Mitchell Swartz dismisses much flow calorimetry based on his > theory regarding "Buoyancy Transport Corrections." On this, Mr. Rothwell has precision, but NO accuracy. This is untrue. I presented a method to improve the possible calibration and accuracy of VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRY. Mr. Rothwell will hear nothing of it. Worse rather than coherently responding in a scientific manner, Mr. Rothwell falsely states what it is about, which was tolerable for a while. Mr. Rothwell DOES NOT WANT to calibrate HIS vertical flow calorimetry because it amplifies the purported output. As a barker, rather than a scientist, Mr. Rothwell prefers the pseudo-large measurement that results from his failure to calibrate. Milliwatt-watt signals become "kilowatts". This pseudo-amplification is corroborated several ways. First, Mr. Rothwell also shuns proper calibration because that would demonstrate that he is wrong. Second, the fact that the artificially enlarged XSH levels collapse in horizontal flow or static calorimetric systems is unimportant to Mr. Rothwell, BUT this corroborates that he is WRONG. In summary: this (and other) semiquantitative calibration is important for a vertical flow (and other) systems. Swartz, M., 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) Swartz, M., 1996, "Improved Calculations involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 3, 219-221 (1996) BTW, noise measurement is also important, and failure to measure it may yield spuriously large signals under some conditions. Swartz, M, 1997, "Noise Measurement In Cold Fusion Systems, Journal of New Energy 2, 2, 56-61. Mmore info and refs at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html ============================================================== > "Experts like Bockris and McKubre say he is wrong. " This is not true. Dr. McKubre did NOT confirm this to me when I spoke with him. So the evidence is that Mr. Rothwell just made this self-serving BS up. His believability will increase when he accepts all scientific papers and calibrations which are consistent with the scientific method. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 11:13:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09203; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:57:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:57:56 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117135454.006af67c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:54:54 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <971117133853_-691810601 mrin54.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Lg9S.0.eF2.pE9Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12888 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:38 PM 11/17/97 -0500, Hal Puthoff wrote: > >In a message dated 11/17/97 4:54:23 PM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > ><>> quite far-fetched by conventional science >> > >Mitchell's commentary about my "ZPE hypothesis" is a mystery to me. > Existence of the ZPE, not only for solid state vibrations (which he >acknowledges) but for vacuum EM fields and all other quantum systems is not >"my" hypothesis, but is mainstream, textbook physics. See mainstream texts >by Wheeler, Feynman, Milonni's (of Los Alamos) recent publication "The >Quantum Vacuum" by Academic Press. An excellent introduction can be found at >the Scientific American level in the Aug 1985 Sci Am article on the vacuum by >Boyer. > Hal, Seems I was correct about you being "big" on this. You also have an article in this months Scientific American, which I hope to see shortly. Congrats. Zero point energy is generally regarded as the half point vibrational energy in matter in conventional science. BTW, let us separate the two for a gendanken moment. ZPE(conventional, half vibrational state) = ZPEc ZPE(vacuum) = ZPEv In a cm3 of matter, what do you think the ratio of ZPEv/ZPEc might be? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 11:15:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12469; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:13:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:13:12 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117131311.00735ba0 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:13:11 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <199711171257_MC2-287C-271C compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"FXFcV.0.f23.7T9Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12889 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:54 11/17/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Well, Scott, if you are not convinced by the calorimetric evidence published >by McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann, Bockris, Oriani, Storms and others, you must >have a reason. What is it? Each of the researchers you list above has _apparently_ observed the CF excess heat effect. There is no question about that. However, as long as the evidence for CF exists only as a relatively small collection of related experiments, and as long as there is no protocol which will produce the excess heat effect upon demand, I believe there remains the possibility that hidden systematic errors are the cause of these researcher's positive results. Does my position strike you as overly conservative?...unscientific? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 11:18:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12825; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:14:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:14:50 -0800 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971117131333.ZM15667 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:13:33 -0600 In-Reply-To: Puthoff aol.com "Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society" (Nov 17, 12:47pm) References: <971117133853_-691810601 mrin54.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ZPE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"vy5SR.0.J83.fU9Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12890 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 17, 12:47pm, Puthoff aol.com wrote: > The only "speculative" part about ZPE from our group is the issue of whether > it can be tapped as as energy source at a level that can be useful. We are > pursuing this with some optimism.... A while back, there was a mention of a gentleman who fabricated (or proposed the fabrication of) a ZPE tapping device. If memory serves me correct, it was a thinly layered system of powdered piezo crystals suspended in an elastic medium between conducting plates. The idea was to have ZPE induced Casimir force to compressionally discharge the piezos and use the elastomeric to cyclically reset the system to generate a current. Either the device suffers from terminal inventor's disease or it doesn't work. Never heard anything more about it. I want to say the idea was presented at a past conference and was a multi-layered device to amplify the effect. Does this ring any bells with anyone? Did anyone ever follow up on the idea? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 11:45:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05074; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:40:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:40:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:34:47 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: society Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UVoI03.0.BF1.5t9Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12891 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some Organized Coots Investigating Everything Technically Yadda Yaada Yadda "Yadda Yadda Yadda? I'm sorry I gave him the damn library card now .... " ".....on his face and 'That's it!'" Lenny Bruce The Society Society Motto: "Knowledgable is a word that should have been clubbed to death years ago when it started crawling about like the late Lon Cheney" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 11:45:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05466; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:42:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:42:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34709DFE.5D6 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:41:50 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: jonesse astro.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk, g-miley@uiuc.edu, blue pilot.msu.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, droege@fnal.fnal.gov, drom vxcern.cern.ch Subject: (CF) Announcing: The Order of the Tortoise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fAESz2.0.HL1.uu9Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12892 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Order of the Tortoise is a new, not-so-serious professional society for conventional scientists and engineers who wish Cold fusion were true, whatever the reality of it may be. Joining the society is mainly a state of mind---and an email to me---for any professional scientist/engineer. If you've burned any braincells at all thinking about cold fusion, you should join...but serious professional scientists/engineers only. For details, and to meet our mascot, Harriet, Check out the Society web page (which will likely be the only function ever engaged in by the society): http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/ -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 12:08:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA22387; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:58:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:58:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:59:46 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation In-Reply-To: <346F8EB4.1763 interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"fz9v91.0.hT5.b7ASq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12893 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > > > Lunar Gravitation > > (Snip many ideas that seem correct, and a few that seem wrong!) > > > What are we going to do about this? > > Jim, the first thing we should do is try to get our clasical gravity > theory right. The situation as I see it with my limited background: > > 1. I think it is true that in the INTERIOR of a massive body > the gravitational forces can be very complex IF the mass > distribution is weird - indeed, the near-field can be very > complicated OUTSIDE of the body also. Far away from the > body this effect will fade away and the body looks like a > distant point-mass again. > 2. Both the earth and the moon certainly have "masscons" > that complicate the orbital mechanics of bodies in low > orbits. > 3. However, taking the simple case of spherical, HOMOGENEOUS > bodies, both solid and hollow, if you are anywhere OUTSIDE > of the surface, orbital mechanics works just as though all > their mass were concentrated at their center. Here is the issue where my hypothesis may be falsifiable. While it is possible that orbital mechanics SHOULD work the same for either case using Newtonian (classical) rules , my research suggests otherwise in that NASA needed the information gathered from the Ranger series to determine near surface acceleration rates. If the Newtonian rules actually held up in the case of a descending from orbit example for the moon, this information would have been derivable from theory, and experiments of this type would not have been required. I would say that orbital periods should show velocities discrepant from velocities postulated by classical Newtonian Gravitation . I went to the NASA website which posts information about the Lunar Orbiter series of spacecrafts , and very little information about Orbital parameters is posted, most significantly absent is the orbital height above geometric center OR surface! An orbital period of about "208m" is given. I presume this means minutes , but the figure is rather meaningless without a figure for an orbital radius. > This holds for all orbits that don't intersect the surface > and the astronauts like to avoid the other kind. (Not saying > that masscons won't complicate the situation!) > > > I don't know, Jim, the idea of a hollow Moon is a neat concept but I > can't see why we need to think that it must be so. What we need is some > good seismic data on the Moon. As I posted in my earlier article, NASA commented that the moon seemed to "Ring like a gong or a bell" after the discarded lunar module descent stages crashed into the moon. This being a most unscientific and inconclusive announcement , to be sure, but what could it mean? I wonder if the Apollo missions placed > such instruments on the Moon and if any data has been forthcomming - say > from meteor impacts and such? They certainly did. That's what they were commenting on in the above quote. Again, I don't think NASA has been very forthcoming about what the siesmic data is or what it means. I know, me from NASA and I don't know - > add it to my "I don't know list"! > > I don't see why we need to worry if a race placed a hollow-Moon ship > near us. If they're there now, they don't seem to be a problem. > If they are gone - what a GREAT colony site for US! Maybe they left > some great OU energy gadgets behind! We may need to send a good > journalist to the Moon to check it out - Oh Jed /\/\/\/\... > Frank , you are such a crack-up , I never know when you're serious. By all means let's go back to the moon and check out ALL this anomalous stuff! Jim From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 12:42:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA13981; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:36:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:36:04 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971117094306_1805124078 mrin53.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:35:33 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: About the T.T.Brown Electrokinetic Resent-Message-ID: <"fGRsp2.0.GQ3.igASq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12894 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jean-Louis - > I hope that this will interest you. >From you AVI and the descriptions, it appears that the device moves in the direction of the positively charged wire. A few questions: Does it work just as well when the polarity is reversed? Is there anything with this experiment which indicates that it's anything but ionic mass flow propulsion? Do you have a vacuum chamber big enough to support the spinner? Thanks, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 13:44:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24871; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:40:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:40:34 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971115012444_1536545653 mrin41.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:39:26 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"V_IYs.0.X46.FdBSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12895 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To answer the comments of Vince Cockeram, >Larry, >Where in the Calvert writeup from BLP, do you see where it states they >are measuring filiment temperature? Yes, the power to the filiment is taken >into account as power in to the cell but I fail to find anything in the I was assuming that this was the way it was being done because it had been done that way in the past and figures were given for radiation heat flow, as in the quote: " Helium was admitted, approximately 10 psig, to the cell to test the impact of a change in pressure, and heat transfer characteristics on the response of the cell. The helium was admitted after the cell had been isolated from the pump for a considerable time and a steady pressure (approximately 100 Torr) achieved. As can be seen in Figure 2a, the response was a short-lived small increase in output signal, followed by a relatively short time period during which the signal gradually returns to the original baseline. Within an hour the signal returned to the original baseline, with some drift evident. The response of the system is expected. The helium increases the rate of heat transfer away from the platinum filament, and heated boat. Thus, the initial addition of helium to the system results in a temporary increase in the amount of heat reaching the thermopiles. That is, the boat and the filament cool off; until such time as the boat and filament have reached their new steady state temperatures. The steady state temperature of boat and filament are a function of heat transfer mechanism. After the admission of helium most heat transfer is occurring by convection to the walls. Before the admission of helium a considerabl fraction is by radiation. Radiative transfer of 10 watts requires a higher filament/boat temperature than does convective heat transfer. Figure 2b illustrates again the impact of adding pressure, or removing gas, from the system. Upon the addition of helium there is a very short lived increase in heat reaching the thermopiles. Upon pumping there is a period of time, perhaps an hour, during which the heat signal goes below the baseline. This is consistent with the model in that pumping makes convective and diffusive heat transfer minimal. Virtually all heat transfer is by radiation, which requires that the filament/boat temperature increase. It takes some time for this new steady-state temperature to be reached." It is clear here that heat radiation is effecting the calorimetry results and that these effects are of a time duration on the order of the experiment run time. That should be sufficient reason to dismiss the desults. Any objective person who has seen Figure 2b would conclude that the results are unreliable. The actual way in which the radiation effects are caused are open to question. If we accept the theory given in the study then there still are major problems. If going from the conduction dominated region to the radiation dominated region requires a change in the filament/boat temperature then the amount of heat involved is the specific heat of the filament/boat times the temperature change. If that change in the amount of heat causes a large distortion in the calorimeter reading, as in Figure 2b, with the level still not back to the baseline after 1 hour, then the experiment is useless. The implication is that the alleged heat produced is on the order of the variation of heat contained in the filament/boat structure as it makes a transition from radiation to conduction as the main mode of heat transfer. That is a joke. The alleged heat produced is on the order of the variations in heat contained in the reacting mass in the interior of the calorimeter. And there should be some explination of the negative readings in Figure 2b. I interpret this to mean that heat is flowing from the oven to the filament/boat structure as we go from the conduction to the radiation region. >+++++++++++++++++++++QUOTE FROM BLP+++++++++++++ > >"The instrument used to measure the heat of reaction comprises a cylindrical >heat flux calorimeter (International Thermal Instrument Co., Model CA-100-1). >The cylindrical calorimeter walls contain a thermopile structure composed of >two sets of thermoelectric junctions. . . . This quote is not contained in the final report on the BLP home page. It may have appeared in an earlier report but it is not there now and I have never seen it. Sure, the experiment is much clearer with this description, but it is still invalid. It is just more clear that it is invalid. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 13:49:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25354; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:46:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:46:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:40:14 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: More on the sideways hypothesis Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711171644_MC2-2887-1699 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"u3dRl3.0.4C6.TiBSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12897 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: I presented a method to improve the possible calibration and accuracy of VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRY. Mr. Rothwell will hear nothing of it. I have heard quite a bit about it. I do not understand the theory. The claim posted here by Swartz is that it might produce a spurious 1-watt signal in a McKubre style flow calorimeter, or a false kilowatt signal in the type of calorimeter operated by CETI. I do not think so. I think the calibrations performed with these calorimeter prove that is incorrect. Worse rather than coherently responding in a scientific manner . . . I think that my response, repeated here, is in a scientific manner. The calibrations and null runs with Pt, Fe and the like do not show this effect. The excess heat is only seen with Ni or Pd cathodes. Therefore I do not think it can be caused by faulty calorimetry. I do not see how changing the metal in the cathode can produce such a dramatic change in buoyancy. Mr. Rothwell DOES NOT WANT to calibrate HIS vertical flow calorimetry . . . Not mine. McKubre's and CETI's. Unless you include the Tinsley test of the Ragland cell, which I assisted. Since that showed a neat balance of 80% of the heat recovered and no sign of excess heat I do not see how the sideways hypothesis applies. . . . because it amplifies the purported output. As a barker, rather than a scientist, Mr. Rothwell prefers the pseudo-large measurement that results from his failure to calibrate. . . Again, this experiment is CETI's and Craven's, not mine. They did calibrate, repeatedly. Swartz should argue with Dennis Cravens, not me. Milliwatt-watt signals become "kilowatts". I think that is impossible, and so do all of the scientists I have asked. I wrote that experts like Bockris and McKubre say Swartz is wrong. He responds: This is not true. Dr. McKubre did NOT confirm this to me when I spoke with him. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Perhaps we asked McKubre different questions. Swartz should ask McKubre whether he believes there could be an undetected 1-watt error in McKubre's calorimeter because of "Buoyancy Transport Corrections." That is what I asked him. He answered no, emphatically. He said the same thing I say here: there can't be; it would show up during calibration. If you ask him whether "Buoyancy Transport" exists or not, or whether it can produce measurable perturbations at the milliwatt level, he might answer yes. I don't know what he says about that. I asked about the claims and specific numbers published here by Swartz. So the evidence is that Mr. Rothwell just made this self-serving BS up. I do not think so, and I do not think that comment is appropriate to this forum. My language has been and will remain more temperate. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 13:51:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13670; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:45:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:45:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:40:00 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Proposal for a new scientific society Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711171644_MC2-2887-1697 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6OCSy1.0.TL3.fhBSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12896 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: Each of the researchers you list above has _apparently_ observed the CF excess heat effect. There is no question about that. However, as long as the evidence for CF exists only as a relatively small collection of related experiments . . . It is a very large collection. Much larger than other scientific phenomena which are widely accepted, and the data is at a much higher sigma level. . . . and as long as there is no protocol which will produce the excess heat effect upon demand, I believe there remains the possibility that hidden systematic errors are the cause of these researcher's positive results. Does my position strike you as overly conservative?...unscientific? This position strikes me as radical and unscientific. No other discovery has ever been held to the standards you have set for cold fusion. Look in a graduate level textbook on electrochemistry written by someone like Bockris. You will find *hundreds* of experiments that are much too difficult for you to replicate. Would you dismiss the whole field because you personally are not able to do these experiments? Many famous experiments are difficult to perform, expensive and inherently unreplicatable. Well know examples include the Michelson Morley test of the speed of light; Eddington's measure of the bending of light by the sun's gravity; the search for the top quark; hot fusion; and practically anything in astronomy, radio astronomy or planetary science. You cannot make a Hubble telescope. You cannot personally send a probe to Mars. You cannot get time on those instruments to verify or replicate findings reported by NASA and the Hubble researchers, but you accept their data without question. Their interpretations of the data are debatable, not the data itself. Open any issue of Scientific American published this century and you will find experiment after experiment that *you are not personally capable of replicating*. The era in which most scientific breakthroughs could be replicated at the bench by a generalist ended sometime around 1880. A few breakthroughs after that, like HTSC, have been relatively easy to replicate with some degree of success, but most experiments have been too difficult for a generalist to replicate or even understand. The term "hidden systematic errors" has no meaning. It is like appealing to gremlins or evil spirits. Unless you can specify specifically what errors you have in mind, and show us how they could produce multi-watt, 100-sigma spurious effects this statement means nothing. Some people can already "produce the excess heat effect on demand." It can be done with far greater ease and reliability in cold fusion than hot fusion. CF reproducibility is astronomically high compared to industrial areas like transistors circa 1956, or some kinds of biochemistry today. Storms and Pons get easily detected heat more often than not, ~50 to 80% of the time. That kind of reproducibility would satisfy any scientist in any other field, if it were not called "cold fusion." Because it is cold fusion, the goal posts are moved. New, arbitrary standards are set. If Storms gets 90% of his cells to work Scott Little will revise his standards again to demand that 95% work. If Storms routinely sees 10 watts instead 2 to 3, Little will demand 100 watts instead. The fact that anyone, anywhere in the last 100 years could have measured 2 watts with *absolute confidence* cuts no ice with "skeptics." We are not talking about instrument noise levels, standard calorimetric techniques, statistics, or the known capacity of thermistors to measure a 5 or 10 deg C temperature elevation. We are talking about emotional noise levels. Scott cannot do these experiments. That bothers him. Neither can I! It does not bother me. Why should it? I cannot perform triple bypass surgery, fly a Boeing 747, or design factories that way Martin Fleischmann has done. Scott seems to believe that anything he cannot do, cannot be done. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:17:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28875; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:20 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Rich Murray at Work Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:11:54 -0500 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: <19971117221116487.AAC211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"pQYqU.0.f27.z1CSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12900 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I want to summarize for Vortex some of the actions of Rich Murray. He expressed a desire for some good piece of evidence for CF, a good paper, for help in his disbelief. I sent him the A&Z paper. He spent two hours with it and then published a lengthy critique containing many errors, misinterpretations of the data, and pejorative summary comments. I corrected these in detail, point by point. Rich issued a general list of questions to be asked about calorimetry. Many of his points were irrelevant to the A&Z paper. I answered them in detail. I recommended that Rich retract his pejorative conclusions, which are unsupported. He did not do so, but issued another critique, repeating much of his earlier comments. I answered this in detail. He did not distribute my last critique to his 41 names, nor his last statement leaving it up to individual vortex members who have followed the (lengthy) dialogue to draw their own conclusions. He went on to search for more Arata data to criticize, ignoring the central issue of the A&Z paper. I will state it concisely: Arata is a professor emeritus of Osaka University in Japan, given the Emperors Medal, the highest honor for lifetime service and the only physicist so honored. His accomplishments require a 40 page booklet to list. Arata's name is on a building in Osaka University. He has worked with his double-structure cathodes for 40 years. He also oversaw the building of Japan's Tokomak-style fusion reactor. With his associate Zhang, he published a paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of the High Temperature Society, which devoted an entire issue to this paper. The thrust of this 56 page paper is that using his special cathode containing Pd black, he was able to produce excess energy of hundreds of megajoules per cc of active material. When the cathode material was heated in a vacuum chamber coupled to a QMS, clear signatures of 4He and 3He were seen. We thus have in one detailed paper clear evidence of substantial excess energy from a D2 loaded Pd cathode material, accompanied by the appearance of nuclear "ash", 4H3 and the very rare 3He, within the cathode material itself. These signatures have been cited as necessary evidence for the reality of the P&F effect. This is one case of the evidence which Rich says he is seeking, but he refuses to retract his pejorative conclusions. Rich then cross-posts to Vortex another of Blue's attacks, without any critical analysis. I have commented on Blue's "lies" post elsewhere. Rich's actions are those of determined critic, blind to the evidence presented him. I wouldn't care, but he broadcasts his "critiques" to his list of 41 names. I invite members of Vortex to use their browsers to look at this mailing list. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:17:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28831; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:09 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Blue's Myths and "Lies #10" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:42:52 -0500 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: <19971117221116487.AAB211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"aygOT3.0.I27.v1CSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12898 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dick Blue continues to work to create a myth of the nonexistence of LENR. Rich Murray helps him by distributing a "Cold Fusion Lies #10" post from Blue into Vortex and his private list of 41 names. Rich does so without the critical analysis which he gives to actual work in the LENR field. Blue's post is a collection of misinformation, innuendo, and misdirection, the tools of a mythmaker. The thrust of Blue's argument has to do with reports of the "heat after death" phenomenon reported from several sources. There is actually little mystery about this, and "heat after death" is consistent with other known features of the P&F cell. It is known that a loading period is required to attain the necessary level of deuteration in the cathode material, before the LENR turn on, which appears to be a spontaneous process sometimes aided by some kind of shock. This level is sometimes given as 85%, sometimes 90% of the available sites occupied. The reaction proceeds, helped by continuous pumping of D into the lattice by the electrolytic process. This pumping can be interrupted by turning off the hydrolysis power, or the electrolyte boiling away. The cathodes do not immediately unload and the LENR turn off. There is still a high concentration of D in the Pd cathode, and every reason for the heat release to continue until the reaction conditions, whatever they are, are exhausted. This is "heat after death", dramatic macroscopic evidence that the heat release does not come from some artifact of the electrolysis, or calorimetery. It is a datum which mythmaking cannot erase. Blue's commentaries about the physics of candles and feedback mechanisms are simply misdirection and handwaving. There is a perfectly simple explanation for "heat after death" given above. But it requires acceptance of the existence of LENR, which Blue is adamantly refusing to do. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:17:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28848; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:10 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Third Arata Errata & Carrell response Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:20:56 -0500 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: <19971117221116487.AAA211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"xMNf41.0.c27.y1CSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12899 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich says: ---------- > > Dear all, Mike Carrell on Aug. 14 posted a very good analysis and > rebuttal of many points in my Second Arata Errata, and again firmly > recommended I post a retraction. In answer, I shall let the readers > decide for themselves on the many details of the debate between us, and > move on to share some more of my critical discoveries, reviewing the > Arata & Zhang paper again. This is a bit of an evasion. Quoting Rich, >These percentages in a mediocre, completely outmoded calorimetry, are >meaningless noise, readily achieved if the recombiner catalyst is only partially effective. and: >The poor quality of the excess energy claims destroys the main thrust of > Arata and Zhang's work, that their complex and subtle measurements of > He-4 and He-3 show the levels that should exist for the claimed energy > production. I object to his posting these conclusions to his 41 names outside vortex and allowing them to stand as seeming conclusions of a careful analysis, which it wasn't. I posted the rebuttal to Rich's comments to vortex only. I see no evidence that he has distributed my rebuttal to the 41 external names so they could draw their own conclusions. >move on to share some more of my critical discoveries Shouldn't this read as discovery of something to criticize? > "DS cathode (Pd-black in Ti, Ni and Pd tubes of 5 cm X 2 [square?] was > used to occlude deuterium into Pd by electrolysis for six months. > Excess heat generated in DS cathode was observed." > > So, this gives us notice of two additional cathode metals, Ti and Ni, Both are known to be permeable to H and D. This points to the action being in the Pd black within the cathode capsule. > and the size of the cathode, which may have volume from maybe 10 to > about 40 cc, holding .3 or .5 cc Pd-Black. Arata's Fig. 5 shows that > the cathode is shaped like a can, so it may have a fairly large interior > space. This could affect our estimates of heat transfer from the Pd-B > into the cathode, and the possible temperatures of the 3 or 5 gm of Pd-B > if it is generating up to about 20 W peaks. Fig 5 of the Arata report indicates the cathode capsule having a 3:1 length/diameter ratio. Taking the 5 cm^2 as the surface area, a bit of algebra gave me a diameter of about .73 cm and a length of about 2.1 cm, and a volume of about 0.8 cc. Rich again indulges in baseless speculation. Heat transfer from the Pd black to the capsule is irrelevant, since the output to the electrolyte bath and the cooling water is what is measured. > I am sorry to find that only today I noticed in Fig. 5 that three > thermocouples respectively go directly inside the cathode, to its > outside, and into the electrolyte between the cathode and Pt anode. Fig 5 could be better drawn. Of the three thermocouples Rich mentions, one is clearly in the electrolyte, one is apparently tangential to the capsule, and the third is shown superimposed on the capsule, suggesting that it may be inside it. However, sealing the thermocouple leads against the internal pressures inferred by capsule distortion would be a significant engineering task. This third thermocouple is thus probably not *in* the cathode capsule and its role is not clear. Fig 5 also shows what may be a tube extending from the cathode, which may have been attached to a pressure gauge for some experiments, giving graphs of internal pressure and excess energy, as in A&Z Fig. 9. > It would be good to have this temperature data, especially for power > peaks, if we are to pursue any possible artifacts, as any thoughtful > scientist would be duty bound to do. No doubt the data would be interesting, but that is not the issue of the paper, and Rich has consistently evaded reaching the conclusion that a) the calorimetry is adequate to show substantial excess heat and b) this is linked to discovery of 4He and 3He in the Pd black material. He is confusing data which would lead to a more complete understanding of the process with artifacts which would indicate faulty measurements. Also, Fig. 5 indicates that the > the inlet and outlet thermocouples are connected to generate a voltage > measuring delta-T, but nowhere is data given for the temperatures and > actual delta-T values. This is also critical information for the > assiduous artifact hunter. Again a misreading of Fig. 5. There is no indication that the thermocouples are "connected", only that delta-T is derived from the signals from the two thermocouples. Rich is again looking for something to criticize, and finds the absence of laboratory logs and computer files frustrating. A competent researcher connects the thermocouples and flowmeter to laboratory instrumentation which gives him the important number, heat energy removed by the cooling water. > Paydirt Paydirt? > in Infinite Energy #2, page 11: Excess heat graphs for the 3 gm > cathode (Pd-2B), from 0 to ~3300 hours of "Measuring Time" [What does > "Measuring Time" mean?] Fairly obvious, the time interval for which measurements were recorded as significant. > not showing an initial twenty days elapsed [Why?}, from 11/11/94 to 4/5/95 It is common knowledge that the Pd systems require a loading time, which can be days, for the concentration of D in the Pd lattice to reach the level where the reactions begin. If Rich had been studying the available publications in the field, he should know this. There is no point in putting the data for this period in a graph. .. ICCF-5 was April 9 to 13, 1995. This > is clearly the same as Fig. 8a in Arata, (DS-2B), with no dates given, > which continues the data until ~4700 hours, and has the same initial > missing twenty days elapsed. So what? > But, the Infinite Energy graph for the 5 gr Pd-B (Pd-I), which shows a > very jagged history, beginning with slight negative values and touching > a negative value at 2200 hours, and rising three times to 80 KJ/hr > levels, and ending at about 20 KJ/hr, has dates, 11/29/94 to 1/11/95, > with an apparent 8 day break, not seen in the graph, and dates 1/19/95 > to 4/5/95. A steep drop at 600 hours from about 80 to 20 has the > comment: "break off of water and electricity (for 16 hours)". The 0 > hr mark has an arrow with the note, "two weeks elapsed". So? This is an illustration of 'similar results' for other cathodes referred to in the A&Z paper. The "very jagged history" is once again the signal of an active process whose precise mechanisms are unknown. There is no evidence of measurement error. My arguments in my rebuttal to Rich stand and he has offered no creditable counter-argument. > In Arata's Fig 8b, for the 5 gm Pd-B cathode (DS-LB) [Or, is that really > (DS-IB), since the other cathode is (2B)?], is graphed from 0 to 850 hr, > stretched out to appear the same length as the 4700 hr data of the other > cathode, with no mention of initial days elapsed. Pejorative, baseless comment. One fills the available space in a publication with the best representation of the data available. Rich implies an intent to deceive, for which there is no evidence. I discussed the reason for the absence of data for the loading period above. > The data is much smoother, starting at about 20, and at 200 hr jumping to move at the 40 > to 70 level. Correct. > This is likely a continuation of the run graphed in ICCF-5 Assumption. A&Z mention a number of runs with 'similar results'. > and if this is so, this represents a goodly amount of data > selection, a possibility that has to give any skeptic pause for thought. Groundless speculation. Just who is indulging in "a goodly amount of data selection?" And it would be useful if any skeptic paused for thought long enough to doubt his own conclusions. > Is this data the actual values, several times a day, or is it > time-averaged over fixed intervals? Does it matter? If it is time-averaged, it still shows a strong positive signal of excess heat. Rich continues to evade the conclusion that excess heat is being generated. > Another problem: Fig. 8c, "Pd-black 5 [gr] and lower side (c): excess > heat ratio, Qout/Qin, (=Q*), of upper right side (b), shows values of > Qin from about 87 to about 137 W, with Qout about 3-5 W more from about > 110 to 120 W Qin, and Qout about 10-15 W for 120 to 135 Qin, which are > roughly linear relationships. This means that Qout is a roughly linear > function of Qin, and that Qin was varied in the 850 hour 5 gm Pd-B run > among many values from 87 to 137 W. So, obviously if "Cell power > (excess energy)" is measured as "Output-Input", then a goodly amount of > the variation in excess energy is caused by the substantial variations > in input power. Fig 8c clearly shows proportionality between input and output power, something that Dick Blue declares absent, quoting from his "lies" post imported by Rich without critical analysis: ---------------- My evaluation of the CF data I have seen mostly points to there being little or no dependence on any control parameter you care to mention. --------------------I will deal with Blue's post separately. Fig. 8c shows proportionality between input and output power over the range of roughly 115 to 130 W, roughly the "author's experimental range" in Fig 6b. The data show two regions with different proportionality constants, but both are clearly displaced above the 1:1 slope. 115W input produces 130W output, 135W input produces about 150W output. Now no explanation is offered for the variation in input power. There is no statement as to whether the power supply is regulated for voltage or for current, or neither; perhaps this is something so obvious to those skilled in the art as not to deserve comment. The fact of the variation is irrelevant to the issue at hand, the total integrated excess energy from a few mg of Pd-black. Rich continues to ignore this. > So, a much more appropriate measure of excess power > would be the ratio or percentage Qout/Qin, not the difference Qout-Qin. This is totally irrelevant to the basic issue, and is an attempt by Rich to evade confronting the conclusion by generating a spurious parameter which will have a smaller numerical value, which is not related to the essential topic of the paper. He is returning to his "few percent" figure of merit, which will not help him, because the variability in the calorimetric data is a fraction of a percent, and there is still a real excess energy yield over thousands of hours. > Don't we need some specific details about how this variable input power > was sampled and integrated each day? What was the source of the > variation, resistance, voltage, or current, at what time intervals, with > what precision? No, we do not need this data to reach the conclusion A&Z present. > Arata's Fig. 9 gives 1600 hr of excess energy data for Cathode (DS-K), > mass of Pd-B not given, from 1/30/96 to 4/5 [or is this data in 1995, > until 4/5/95, as in the ICCF-5 data?], and is claimed, "...seems that > the generation of excess heat was corresponding to Pc [pressures up to > 800 atm in the cathode] increased." All that is said is that when the cathode is producing excess energy, pressure inside the capsule increases, indicating an active process inside. > But I notice in the first 50 hr a > faster rise in excess energy than in pressure, So? The excess energy measurement comes from the cooling water, the pressure from a meter connected to the capsule. The physical mechanism responsible for the increased pressure inside the capsule is not well defined, but one could surmise that it is due to diffusion of D through the shell of the capsule and heat inside the capsule. A little D can produce at lot of heat without increasing the pressure much, so this lag may be completely consistent with the structure of the experiment. > and again at 1000 hr when > the power is turned on after 52 hr off, and again at 1300 hr when the > power is turned on after 86 hr off. At the end pressure drops from ~700 > to ~400 atm [The two previous such pressure drops were during the two > power off periods. Was this drop a leak?], while excess energy is > fairly constant. Again a careless reading of the graph. The excess energy drops quickly when the power is turned off, as would be expected from the proportionality shown in Fig. 8c. The small number of D atoms in the Pd black will finish reacting and the reaction will cool down since the electrolysis is not driving more atoms into the capsule. The temperature in the capsule will also drop quickly. Now Rich raises a valid point that the pressure drop may be evidence of the leak he is seeking. However, the power is off for 52 and 86 hours, two instances. We know that Pd is permeable to D atoms, so they can diffuse out of the 0.8 cc cathode in that time. This diffusion is not a "leak" in the sense that Rich is seeking. The excess energy is fairly constant while the input power is on, it clearly drops when the power is turned off. Rich's "while excess energy is fairly constant" is entirely misleading. > What is the pressure versus excess energy history for > the other seven samples? How would this help Rich (or us) other than to find more data to criticize and evade confronting the conclusion of the A&Z paper that substantial excess energy was produced with the appearance of nuclear ash in the form of 4He and 3He? Not all runs had a pressure gauge installed in the capsule. > Can anyone send me any more such data graphs from the other papers by > Arata and Zhang? Evasion again, search for more data to evade making a conclusion.. > Dennis Cravens in a long talk with me, mentioned that Ms Zhang, who I > believe is from China, may have done most of the experimental work, and > also speaks fairly good English. Perhaps Jed Rothwell could contact > her, and see if we can get more details about these experiments. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with seeking more information on the important experiments summarized in the A&Z paper. I think what Rich suspects is that the paper contains fragments of "good" evidence selected from a sea of "bad" evidence. Rich is apparently looking for data to support his theory that cold fusion researchers are conditioned pigeons desperately looking for bits of evidence to support a belief in LENR. In this he is following the lead of Dick Blue. I remind Vortex what Rich ignores, that Arata is a professor emeritus from Osaka University, decorated by the Emperor of Japan for a lifetime of distinguished service whose summarization requires a 40 page booklet. He has worked with electrochemistry and his double structure cathodes for 40 years. Zhang may well have performed many of the measurements under Arata's direction. The A&Z paper is the capstone of their work, putting a consistent set of data in one place. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:19:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28996; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:59 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: A&Z Figures 8a,8b,8c and 9 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:04:56 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.EE515AC0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19971117221116487.AAE211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"oMGKv.0.z47.n2CSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12902 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.EE515AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Figures 8 are resampled at 150 dpi. I have added Fig. 9 since Rich Murray refers to it in his latest post. Mike Carrell ------=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.EE515AC0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="A&ZFg8_9.ZIP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: A&ZFg8_9 (WinZip File) Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="A&ZFg8_9.ZIP" UEsDBBQAAAAIAK+CcSPVn61HvQwAADI7AAAMAAAAQSZaRmlnOGEudGlm7ZrfjxPXFcfv4M16aZb1 pqjBKRsPW6pQ9aGyg0S8YHYgqEkjtaXPldKaQksfqmCUKuwqC2O6aJ0qqxg1UgKC4lb9B4jyAFUj 2cYRy0oEV4oqUYVkxnGEFbViZ3HK2PJ4Tu/88tz57XUS0Sp80XjuzJyPz73nnjkz18tzz30XzexE CB2e+Cn60wLV28PAagWbeOkB2pceoH3pq4hmllwvFwsAKyIUL+6/SK3/zxakiybRuTfxB+pXERJN XeKdFsPDf8/+BA210mgXjMo5mAcJZBY4qPZQVoSpSw1oQBtfAwZfE6GjGOHe4q2r2OCe47Ogne2h Mka3v6kYdZRTRd1IVQ81ztrQTAeEpRUgJIKvTFR4GbTv71cmOjM4KrwIg6KZgVF4OSAqDlnmda1e u2T6r8gRkFilVa7JSQbKHEiHi1UPFKxoKCcwHejI1w9Jj51tnwe4c5hx70vejs4yIpyDZpfbBmc/ bE534eqxmUY/aANmmZXVMwcq66tb4ez55vQP4s80M8dcUXuH4Xh+RTjzm80Pcwm4PCGeeO6dO+1j /aKNI8K5sZ0Pc6nq7AVx+kfFOy3xqT7Re9v4c9/bOctNy+1b4vR7F1+QxP68yrPH6u+e/fb4+uvP SI+dF88sM58cF/pEt4YFdC1RWZ+tSeO7m+VrzD3oukfYgUZAVhrqnd3t1LSzTg5cxkqq0/Urs76o v74odGZpYDS+FhQHFEz0yU11H1u7LOiOjS7V31M2rwOP9fLgYQqeHLLUrBHNE+01ohGivTZUpomD /wcUaKJ9f1B1osgS7qv/qQi3QnAfUFUDoiwEoz8nDlTbPtGu1eta0Ba0GOKQQCMQgLZBoIlDYqw4 wisBaIsmDi0RFvzLGkYjRvtfNbKY5kB40zeHSRQsJTwMwtvZwMJtan8PlRkQtgd45UmvlpQQwgFj rbmjchha1QDU4tWcVykMgfPK54jDtaR/u7UnTByaXtu9Qy+1WxTplegwCwGoMLcvTxwSOUxDEJry QpcgCEVhEiXC1IRg1CMlFPmifDJEomoPtJSgIaCE80nKvcOSUhED0JDHWJXFp2+H60mvMAWizWiY XMwTkxOAFmAVbSIHRKABk0NDDT3lgfYO3ZWHMgq7o5Jfh1kX1AyTfBi8UcYX9S3hjI6Sa1wL2vUs 4YwSpjJVcfeKs8m7hDMKWs+STq1v4cI5PrD6mrKim2vgriK8RUNlDNw73KJA2Oid/uN4rFbUnFeM tuxjrRoNBuIMnDrU6D+b8sYKhIGLNAyxDY95VWRDORNFtDwKa0CJH38Q041YrwV47Tb1lowYLmL9 HSkAFXQUh4nNn2c9IqyKuFRQUF5HizjCdtTm1YGGdFSOM4VRX5TosBWVKJr2R23ZxJX0p6KCFias 1/PKhzea1UtgUabo2ATrh9rWr9xJo3rKFIxh1GdyHB2uaI0ij73GfOfVRBm8dbnSQQNNFGKj1q/2 nFemAHCTK1HaUYFPwGtah9VfLn1RlgP4fbUUMtHsnBomN7RhRXEAT+av9FD69jrJihJjzQKZEmyh itFKDx3bg3TUsCDQC6wlDFwV1nOVee2Arn20B815et1qQ5eB7qERXk4rqOiOHjDRqhKmNkbLhlf+ RAZ5jxWjRgFZUtAuFLj39LG+khmKIglMtGB5lZ5kpYrptTHfhXzhxjrtxOnM0EhGUrNJnlVO0Jbq H2Nb7+slvLoK4dwKRq9v106cT0tIQRQ0U1VRMv2zuPrzgY8LU4TXOka19G4vdWCM/rSdz3OM5rVE 35lJaB1utDlQf1C3JKJcMVAOxk7U2vMRA83SN9KTWphu8zQ+MWXP4YaONl6V0einrfk8N6uj1FW0 qqKF22kFTVhQ5SYxvH4gI9SWQoUPDTS6sEdH7ymrswtbLe8SyEAbnQbIo1S7FYpwuzWUp3+856iG iqs0NM9bUEkCPZsanXKFQdSqgGIfMrpX+jpSfmZv8HSzGYGaPGlBZQNttqkKjaiagOaeP66jGxZR XUeFCAixODnWbg9dBWopj9J1Hp24xagvcVAuLFKihtZbCrqFROUeKnQoMZ9tYZT5SENXs5tuqNms oALN3I1RjjBpaCX7fg7xFexVR+ulcHWfeqlEVxBNN2NbLYmovUqLNRBCiMpl0yE+IcdYnGRtmM+G q6oT3BEFrccmXUp4E+djFFF1lEYofi82w6poLlwtaCg9j2J0fcISYVUNBeWjW1AGo+mZdGyGmcdo ZT5cpXU0NDHBXIlSjmKKo9hp8Sg9ngnxCLV+EUuyuE5cpf5iohSaYErRkFsdFmZ4VIsmsVeqlY5N s/jRsXDgHquhwghCQ3NMFrl6FVp3051oMo54SkDD01CBbrZmFCQhiW/UuWmEnF5FEMclHh3Pjqt3 M/9oCnttoXDKQI/is6k42uKGwum5J4cRGg1lEUrwsRR7somtXzLQF0sIRfF3PuSGZkfx95YLYWwT 52NzbLlJZbP79esCW9K644qWXkDj0XKhgSOcEWKpcPljKotoEx0ZKqEoH3ZDU9hbtAx1FaVT6J9X Mcro13mmNBzheRW1pETrWVH5cyYV212GZmkiJAjcO+hkDnfQQFdZXkGT+M3G+hYuhUS4O4QiY3MU iJWUgkqICpMo8KnH+dKs8lJkRT/gUf+yoO0PBLiLUGxsbhYaVaax2i1ISJ1hw2sThIkNPGJLYAtT u/KZ3EJo+ydzM1CvAtcBjM7hSSbR6UitxK7Y0dbhe9IMQrv445KCFvBDVkWnxwxUuS0j9ax6aJuc eydw72gF1Soy18Ion8J3vInmxSzrhn4LJyEtdiXdVkVRatpERVipZ82/JJroZ+lRCj9TjhvvGnis EgpdNrJf60styzScqLBFXfJ1jWMVDf9RYoBQreSKIvQo3u02jjl5BKMFG8qrOyeKWAuKx8qCbEHb XVcU33FAdBij7G1wl60iYnQXWNARNTRFOweOOiyM/lvZmSj+5yWb19VX1BMEqqkITtnGWs+6o26y obXQEWU3CLr6MaPsBkNZZTcI2lxVdwN51ZZ/xLzaAVN2r3ZU3xfBKWcdVuSJkkskKyo6UKndrFUq uUhsIpkRapVceAw30ryjIsLHJ5vzubHRiWQ8Xa7MD4+NjuDWXvwmsW4kiuJU7cpCaCw1p/4PEFsJ h2WeuhL63VgqOSvWoVrgemEq6gbea7plbW4GCdNyUJhIWdG6F+qmoAiDtwLm1VDRfgLcXn4UDZJN dtRP7h3uiQNv9ZnDbvocqK0irgW11WGvyXGTzav+G9HniPCXESbvKhFYYEh9eYnI6fsiOPXFddg7 TLJxqBY1FvzTv6PYMroRgcouqKyiqsuCgWpGHeU/3xWBE/EaCpvJjJy3vUofFTWj480CvtIESfF6 qp+XWvmXIqzyNz1MSeE1yyhLoh8dEhxG6x42+q/IXgp66OInsKg2HBE29g4ZaFsv/v2lvyozTHoj 6Kbr4MCvqLNjzqsuE2Xxln+5yrUbEwATB2loLh4ASCwycHV8yYHuXoFuqk6DuHgUpPgCAwvxHCdc ibIwUotADU2CvP1UAW6gTRYUf5GcfBa6yb00NM7jVXV8vAC3D12C1s0KC4vXjkBtcgNIiUQB3l3Y bkHxOld+cjPA1MgREM/icO+Ic3D1ie3QOqOg+GxZQZMY5Rc2WtDX8bYRo3+LHoFmeQPIL2G0gL9f Gt/Hwg1K6zDETzHwLspZ0HN4+wNG/zqyH6/qHgIpM0zDhXgOtLEejEB7VAnTazhMCWuYlLGOPwtw eZ8SpgMgTSlhmqpCW0zhCDuSyYoqEQafNy2rHPPa04rnFV33G636WLnKGqY16QtBcz5WrjLReR8r V5loyMfKVSZKeViUOIBXZcZ5oYfKdlQ+war7LIfvKPVJYJPp1Z4Csr7UvgTKj7MMOOSDpl587Yly ZUm8OUwnDzLgkA8a3Tu0Zc/JnHgNRZJbGXDIBx3Ze2rH9eWwuHya3rWNAYd80Kf3D++4tZzHKDu1 rQgO+aDP7EHxHy7nG8unI1Nr9PqrAxgth+vLr9NTYQYc8kFZdfeU8sH4T46HwspHQX2K2BSI5j2v BKLeut9oUf0DHedl6JSGsvglg8FP7GqD9rW2SEXlfTjlEnEhgZ6mA+wJaehe9Mbzb70iJOJKSehX GpqOvTH158X6ZHyCC7AnpKOLr6eom5lJ1Ptdtg9pYfrt1fdPJG61E6MB1hb1JodV3uiK3oZOGSi+ T4oDogPoAdqXHqB96SuFfv9xhL6Gt8fwIu5neB9BMhpClLGuo7T2P/AHpbe7ynKPCqltZQsR7WGi PUatU/cjeHsEs+vwPrMToa8TNt8g2o/q38/ibZNu/2ts/03qIfX8erxt1tuP4O07OhvSu/pfUEsD BBQAAAAIANiCcSPfcAwnWAkAANE2AAAMAAAAQSZaRmlnOGIudGlm7ZpfjNxGHcdns2n2ItLbBgS5 9o64FQgQLw06qbqKNA6KBIoEyjsPSU4NHA9BlxLKXURab3Th0orQS8UDVEnkSrzygvKCVMB72eg2 VdvsQ4VyVf54LxudJR7iu2xhfazXP34ztnfH4/GudxMVCe4reTye+X52PJ7xz//24MFvkl0vEEKm xn5I3p3PtNcwsJzeliRtoqm0iabSJppKm2gqbaKp5KOtmtrdJpOPOkWlu00mihrQWjMLhOTKpEiY hnaQUIfgeer7J4A7+fC7ahSt63rrXqVAUivXRhsLprt0xIA6eBpUYANA8fMWuIAFjl8Aql+g03yA WnOmW1YM3PBoSbOdWDSxgXUJKMo7fPTtCtQMCdqAUEaYEdF3Knxtb0VbHRSdGxhtlE0YEK3j8R4Q 9TEj0RkTj1IZa/u0Es14ed0qAuQ1qL+UEl2/pL4JJuiruZx1zX4whT15yUuF6s33wXARfXByxnow /SHOtvG/giZDOxMxRO+Ddr40PHLjlGqtztxxJmFcP6emQY3mfVU7Wzp24fDGgl1t3HGOnhm/dcWQ obG+Nu2d2q+WJy8cPrU0tTpzuXkMxsvvpUQ/+K36xPLk3N2N1akHM5frx+bGrXSouv6mcWnr9WcL h382ZQ3P3GboxVSosTahFrdkhkc+zOWLxLq77ShcgbKaCg0z7Ny27QW2oYFEiah/gts1mqabEobU JVUEbVkswKRUBHWusrCWUhHUvX7ISLaKiqLL/YTwTAS9XtElP5+gkr8K0OLAfQ1CeEo9rnGFvtBA n3Gr/8+onuCTKBbCE3wSxUJ4gk8iDi3mYdC+PgLKZCT4JOJQljWSraI4lHXbSLaKejytsv4ayVZR PKrAI5zqg4ZwV0W0d/hti4vDjgJF85y8BaB3z4Jq/oqieN9dNPWYw5f7WqyIC+EUTeyr8+VYEdfX qgIl1Yg5fLlKrCiKJg+O+2SsKO30t57UxSIOLdOMIRrwaQXVWMGhE8ShKzRjiAZPpam16KhiTc85 7GVpatWKqljDoez3DdHgMrRmWapYwx8mHSSok6V3XyWrpog1PY+wU6JPZnPWoirW8ONKK3WhvrV+ S28YMNdgT8UaXyVOCT0CmuDU3/8dPgFmgfY1OkB8CI8/XeXBaVyfw4eB7WBTVEuNekrTabQKOcNV joRoSw1r+cMkQWtuuVXIGpfUCt1hOrM6U6Pr4HjqnFNyC1n9Epg2Q/HhWZOhIKKgZJfLLiHK05i/ CBXXKnecPGqZIupVMgWK7v4YNxah4lhlc0OG1vQY+j1Cst7EmKLhRhHMDRvMNU2CrqkxtPwGyXna ZXr8ENWd6TPr/1IlKDsAUdQ6rShsLgLdYeWTSmFiVZGgOJvEEF7dp+g4nGsM9ZQLebLHkqEo+kqD 19o+NmLs0HziaRNkH6KNgIqiV83eQb8jrY3iDUHRXODadNyWl2c5Oji3Z4m6CBNwV4OZJg1kH3Ra RTTaV+fEa57SRs/PklwVRjRX86ZybNJ2UJQVCeHO0dNBjqFaFgcqn7+9sipD/Zcz7cIMf43yRnM1 T8OHxMVq/hzMdZ/Dy7kwd5MmWRvnf3mheKCg1OBMV9QdUoBXmaJgV7NEqWpntW6oQ6IX25rlr7Nj pKpe64LWsKulcOMmh1pfGSH7VYyBIqp20IkD9XCDXY6CLeu5kdn8wqdKcqsPCam1z82bPLpnYtbL QBe0WsjU26jJoeC+/qJHv3UloyTb3l+/1Y5e9PZrcVQPM/VrKiSLhtXku/AHGiSLhtVEtGKL9oi0 Ln0t86jQV+iBWpzRBFHq4KgWQV16ohhSd+fs5MShG/SQGTJTb/QiDIo+3A6D7jBFO7HJ5F09d3gU 7gnRP5R0evDXnDqGcD2sMHmXFOUmIg5OsZ/oz7+DMRA1wt80+QZ6tYp62Omrybv4mdWWMBETjnAv dC15InYTRat9olyrNt0tI6wwZW6ZGEpfHRo9jJz4ViOoKXNHxKFWn2ggdoQjbwjMJGtb/BxWYNBW mfQwY8psESXGYVN0xiRF6S2aKTFHFXzniaK7dwzSVwOXCtma7OxIEsKbw4RwX50SJUGLQ4VX5adZ VHHUujryigNLSgLQkQQtngL6wC/3c5Kg1Qx4UFASgI6iaFk1vPuEor82ExFBAYo3te7r27KIGl3t vAL0Hv0SmlbZCLpqnvvbUJ4+ashbiKjsrwL0hmKMvaEh2r6d7aLoHC6pBvvPkZc1EvycxMG54v9d iagyc1Qi+ofvsFVBlZmjirXq99LVZOaoRPTPClv5b15SqY2+q7HVIGihm0uqTqvdXFK10T92c0Ul HqbzSca4xGCa+B4xrmCeD4KKcZh/fk2n+DUntTbRVApRY+DB8ZQzNRPXrWitCV0UoofOLJbODY9N zB5dwfXusYkTKyVasJdmyqxmHTMLu/fOnmgIaNqJqLU2onHY6+cjqtBqwmODVOL01xN8yXocqNHF JNcmmkptVO1iEiROCSXBJ5H0pjad/jtooM/4CAd6HKjRxSTXo6M2Q4X/rbFnfFMC+QrQ0oIBvVAt dAQK0PrzBo40+4/eOt159h899pnApG+1VXr/oOFvuVzPfNStTRd63kG3leNRrzLd+jZkRm8UT+wn 6nST2y1oeC58rIFHd3+hXiT7n1J5FMp56FsBWuvuksqBgRWZiH/Bmyn3pIlJXccLZkUDP7TbNBO7 AIco+7A1cQAzz+bpPzQx2TiLZdYQYks7sfL8tzAZwauc87ISRXVM3hvFg/3Vr2Py/WmA9bexyHoZ 0bfmMffRbzAZRcr5iRZFzRA9PoVbFK3+CX/uHkXnl7DyDqLeLnQ4p+14qxexwr1PWz2O6NoFLPt3 FP0CdRwXUBWT3x8IusmS1jyW1Whf52lfbz+H6Ag6vMkjEdQ/whiw3HGTHmFWhpRFJ7z9S0y8k5js tdqVj2Vc+9cmmkr/c2jn+2dMiajlnx5rCsCqJn2vnYjWfPunQFHpa+Jk9K09S8sjJ7wmsa2x/tCV 83vml0d+7tbJnD3UH1rdsWfp1sUfuc0f56wf9IfeP15F9BW3+QvF/mmf6DWy7XPvnHSbX8utHpSj jWcIocvTeAl7apSQPPHIVpIJr2oZP/93TDJB/h+4bMlkWZ4uWS6/jcsPZ7aw9RAuO5Hdguv8C4R8 nvN8kct/Kfj9V3HZFfhz6H8m8wQr347LaJDfics3AjYb7Op/AFBLAwQUAAAACADrgnEjlfSPfREI AAAMLwAADAAAAEEmWkZpZzhjLnRpZu3a34vcRBwA8GzP9lrEW3+gnvZoFJSKD/UHgsUfnVZEUaqC b/pylhZ9UpCKPx5kVis9hcpVfbDF4+KfIPhQoaW5tnJ7ot762NKr2euVW4Ryu/WE3bDZfJ2ZJJOZ ZCYTKxXRfmGTyeRz+TnzzWRvn3nmXuvFLZZlvTb2svX1/gqfwz8ZK4b1DYfNZjDAz4BM7Az5nANH y+pjS4fvf3PJX9kIC9jTs9EdG75+5YR/oVJdeEDPTh7cddvmPT/6ywvVc99qFfzyxYlPHn613l9e wOeOeFp25qC1fvNddX95Dp37Us8mD20fG77jlH9hrrowpGdR/EgnHrgGdpZOGkZWN6y/GlfjPxb+ LDIaEv68bTQk/P3eQeupbx6177C2W9ffZa2x0tj0No5QCH7NswqCqS5gv+agAFrgBOCT3mvTWQvc EPfJDIWMkcJgFmFaAFrTVs3I2glEpjjeP482L0WVjWGXM2UsRwwZ2HzEbAP7lU1bE4zt60bpfxHC AEksPoUGrcUf/xA0AhiET74VBD8rWJftEE+/0G9fBD9obw4C6RE0EE6fsKf7vZ33L37a3hcE8yLz JebtXu3tXLd+bfuzMBjBwpq+xJz39gU7J8auax/7PpgXmXjNAU2/f7ZD2OPtTSvBisg8iU394Def /HD92pV1QVPaGmkPAtu3FIzuGV08MLMYWJuEFUkLiQLHc1Y3gHQqHxuGXCQ7K8X6JvYTq2uZ2Byr a5djxmM7AKVYNcdaOM+2DdNpgFPmz9p59hBjPWFr/rxj55jFmJ9eZvAveMmBCGwoLnQ463g4gxq9 iLXFnZ7MHVtjxrqJzifFM23kznSyZrEqt/i6VWt8PFnAwmptiJf1DKoT7Hr0DWyS5QJYNbCqxVir mAVVy07KhWyYl4uYVeXVBawXsTDLUJbZdMYaRwHrbMe8LCaHtJZFr4lRUi44tksdxtoG5l9is4aB rV5Ky3+bBXt76bnrWY88NxHrVoWsZrPZqoFZG9msW46BzPxllGFIyWYdsZ4znGEfZpJD1PnCiKXJ oeYhiU1EDMQZeQL8Lh9bOCEtpUWZBdIhaC9I/BRvGVgnWmoYWLMcm5GWTFszMjY1PgGjpuuXY/1y LAltr18tx5bY1I2XolMJWGaXWHTnk6owxnQZi2ySrU2qtKcwKS7omUMnyfWQWqfE2Nb46cZsPsdY q2xlWC3LQsb4wFd3bCECMf4ay51CQBf4ZUvYR1nG+m+av/kp+LNSB2StMmltwrFlxiEnQIq01zel HHJKZlGThz+yjLUjjy8GiR6cl3bKtubwxTCpHcinwBjKskVKRNYAKWLGDtHMIMtoCL3mr7FFFRMi Zr1yrOTWllRMWC7YadraOGPNC8lMHC3E5ZaCiVEwwBCj4PKmr50JG6iYeFvjjHSUEiQzJ8dClt8w aEN3bF45NsHfnYrYYFjopHrWq8qpXMdskCJh2K+LPaupZh1EXgRQWj2D5C8Dk56F/Y4j9PoPMhc7 HWBILyn7bbG1cdbD/rw4DjkglGkkrRcPpMQ1pmYk6m7KwsdQV8V6lKQs2Ib5I0Fk7AamrIcySSRm gcw6KNNE1DttYvEmpqwPEpuRupLAXIktys1I3initUvR5nOMBeYlaYgnsExGTt91ZFZxJVbNdpno jMJ3KbF5pZ2WJSafAmG8HEXcnfsyyyDO5DTY0bGtEmtmLxs/UzpBSeWleCCVYyyX4aSyC3Jr09yF /BftIkMpw2XYpNz7ZIY5Gw60jIwcBJZRAlu27aQu10DS5DBYTpPDw4UM8drMI1zY6WBZSFyOngln mv9Hh/K65ePvsEwn1TF5dK9l2Wb0j5wCLxSyXGvTsJyS0p2dX52E9PWmDql3mr9sChbiXGtTM68M U8blM2lkoWf51qZk8kuilqlCwbwilgwwusp/z6b9dM5z6XxJue8eZ6cb8UskVrA0h5yOtqaOdKcn 7TIMWvFQSh5Z5FgSitamum7icLeAKUNkrg4ptqbofSqWy/VqpmptV7Iv2HSi6KSgSA6OkmV2qvvf d+by6v4Bfpk3S33ZcltTdVIFUzbKK5yRFLk+w1oI6ZqRyFhyUOU2mc14SJllWPDkQFgVJpW9D4Tk QJgLDfM9pcmhrm5tYrRcV7/yMvqpq0PZu/CbluG07Ga/yBGYUEbqpJVnmtZ2mVsbAk1IFyR8pwyz 1bmNRskBhrRTTe/LMKQ9UZkpc32elb282oMT2TYdkuOYfpW4tZLsqFZlG3l8qm2+gs66IqvTHBLX yKwl9dNxJyTMC0kiaUe/iqC/g8B99qsIzma8mvVK8Y8rEiZH9GuNa6z1lpW217lxKBOnbCO5AjEg WWsUYGo39OcRbN3Nfs4yvYu+z9HKJDoTEI5imLqb/Y5l+lr6IgdTr4O/4sFUml06RyAcwnD4U/Av ejD9En1Dg0PPEe1RzRl5p0vZsTMwOE/YdTD43YPTMrsdw5kNZDc2HDpFvykGZxcAmU3dmTIyzCNv 5At7AVYQfLcbBnUEsJc+WCDYC1fj3xz0oekaTA+zf+DYBtaNvpH0DKztEhZ2jcwh7PhrRkba71cj pdgXzxt3euFz+/jwiJE1Hxw/vu4NI+s8Mj79xsgDjoEFj4yTwW3fNjDj9Y/DNYqr8b+Je261rAr5 3EYeizvIvGqF5PFYSZ6Xlai8lUwqcfk+MllTGWJl+hkSyuuE8khlDZuTR611A/lb+uh9dotl3SiY m4XyLfH2D5HPrbF/gvjbK2tZ/Qby2RiXbyCfe+K/HYoP9U9QSwMEFAAAAAgAfYRxI5pE6Y3cIwAA 2z8IAAsAAABBJlpGaWc5LnRpZu3cP+ht23bQ8XHOuf8CQXkBfUTTvICYCBYSUrzChECaJ4imEJJY vUYUbGKjrxCUhMBrBMEmNiZFipDqNYJgExtNYSE2vkYQbJJGU1gEweU9v73mnGPMOeaaf9Zae6+9 z/fDu7/fWnOOMedYc43fPueed+/9znf+inzr578S+fs/8avy27/5Ln5fDiJKO/oEZ+1vlrst/vY1 jKub9VLCeGchOiOtuk7cxvTCcTq7zqpaTqPP+eyXLUo7+gwnVWAXC4fZ2Vd9hZgM0UPmkdJcra/y m3OYUz75bZsDeAzJtVM6ZMuY/glDqq9MSm8VklYVMWvIuvjaMrFzzLoqPU2c9x7s+R51zj5J2sFn kVw7pS1bRMIbTicaX3b5tbMI0euJ6q60XfgmZiTlL7GO01+3Pd07bKR2ewgptHMawhpxpfTudR+k ET2evjbYcrPr+FXP2IeTcsIGHCqvdjt6mhjt+NOIo521rVhI1Iv++DXMqcA00nvqzWL19m5YGjcN eYbsRM7aSLR2+IlCCcdVVK6TdkjTNjTvtMrSRmfYJTgnshk/K+7z8KOJVYjSzNpSLnO7jkN6fe8z pXP7CxxeJ/dEthImpX0efzKpDFXVzsYaHJ90hdPr4hzrKbUf9f4Ooeu4VGEtz1HlR96ZnlD8td5e XsjzNNbzuEtfXautqn1FYx3GO9HDD/hibbUUldBXB3Pf99EHfLW2Wso6rlZhTVakrfg6xfunefDp pnd24Zemirx4ler92GKvU3nlJA8u8Ble2NP01fpN1m/5B0KZ8gC1gzz2aJ+irUxfXbdQMY1VVHqN yuvHeGR9z9FWtq8uW2qoLfRVMV2Ex69m3As+zD366gne1Y1pq0t/YInql+LXQYnvLj1KjE6j4SJf /gj1QzxuQ0nawY8lVjvhMVR5Zalq5PY9fFnyvkrjR5PInfFShtX3uKhU8FUrTsXZb2pybaAwkgJ1 ug46VvUADztYidqxFyFKO/oRUnWhwlSpmA6Ks3Y4Ntw5D7hxfAcd69XfUM2l65ZbR9m+Uo0Vvsax Sl8tZz3gxtkdtOWl38+GVPf1Co8tIul36PpC9dX259VZjbV5csdseN2303LdxgolSWoX2yq3b25g 1ldHvWbr/L563ra6cGON9pWka/11OeuPsLaP7YjzfOa2unRf+f2yxFH1dX0C/TQp/4w/aGgc2u4N 05M8ZVtdvLFCXUWJadi+4pSUDTkb7NJYde+OorSjL+m6D5AVpeu7zYR5t3SVe/yTtU7swL5qB1/U Ez/CoypuHthxfdWOvayXeIi7ah4XbfWGzhrTPKt9B/kyb0OUdjTO7avXeRe6r2islo5z2nGKL/Um 6Kt+Pcc0f4ov9yborD5dh3RIX7WDnwKN1aXriI7oq3bsk1CN9VwPdddqu85n+gBfr6uWp/3Eulu5 A+czWdJLttWzNta9qlWn0/68mirpRdvqSRvrTsXqtjqnr162rcYO7yoe0Fcdwc2Q0uu2VdZYz/GE 9+2rrv2mSnqZtopPYZ7m6Rrr3n3VYaakl2mrJTxH/jw0lmfkPD7pvrr11NuF/f2A7qtneMy7VDnY VtN91Q68uvAM5bM8WWPdo8iRw5g6t+c57pZ6Xz3Zr4Sv0FdP11XVesOwP60a6/IPe4cSh45i4tQe e9LZm47Xt+/pzskp7/LvGXme1rrYx1V4HwMefMrmPatr/fX242umVMnZAmGstd21G+tuH1ftwNXY gT3+jGNDhH9BTuK3OLuktpLbx06ev343NxUSVUMe7+zixs9gqq0eecQSP5JiHapH4ld7W6T399VT NNbJtY2fwNhxXeGApdJXi20kfRReXy3dfaUa67Ktdae+akeupsIv0VeLKkRiS90G15aJAZW+8v5z Gi5RtuIe5z591Q4MxuIvcbbr/roSCX2l3r4uc+fn1WLW3g58kLv0VTsuGkq4xslK7CvVFmFGwlc9 Z0vWSem69VCSNCIf4pn76iIHq9pG1LWeUYPi9VWYjw/T8VCStEIf4NyiJp57IP4i56qrePseK5K8 yySO5I11G6oE+ERpBt9b/8/HhKmn7k64yqGaKryCwn212LRACOh6KrHaCXeQzuH29Vp91ZNxmQPN C6jXc3ytl2usUIf+9D3a3PP2pVzoOB9agVjthJOtVXz8clZFk8/al3Odo3xUCelXTK2RdLq1iDPr mVy6L+cyB3nW7yGa4r6SaeSd7PRiZlfuSrrIIT6Sen77Kh97JmeXMrtyV9o1jvDB1BGI1co81cmF zC7dkXeRA0w2qjmzRnUKspgX2so8kyrjSn3V8YF1iePTUjl5YedWmR2EZPePkao4sa3agY5G6iVO T0vlFKUdXaVdTYw05GXeT1bRoXYt3Eg+sew5sZJbUaa0PT9am13kCVHukndjyjnanqW3c08te0aq JX1mqMlKijtX/oo2JObm696XKedge5berEs2Zx8hlZO6IpvUxUqMiF9FXZm0XKPjbDUPo8s52K6l t5Jla/Ikrb3ygsq20q987Y51wDbKYpexloI3X4u9p2rBe22cRY9adnGId9Gzmykp7yv1wRQ+k1Jf heEwtPRTx5F38kbWPZxUQ/m0Y9x0MSqZx+vcTgVlnzlxaB1XDxDaTYf2q5zHfY/Hd1INxbOOKk/r UW3V/SwxRrKXfPtm+kfUcDa+dKsdx32Pp+KcIpynHVSuIEY18Xid+4WgourbN9N4etg05MiTVQ/j vsfjO6eG/e++PDJR6nln6NtQQqvkHx63bx191dvBq/ppXKCvzqnhiNefn5okW2kPI6pJTNXLYvtK RLLgdVxd96ifxUVPaLdDXn/eRFdtq9g5a194fSW2r5bspyTOxOku9bN40cY65v1nq6j3cG+bm+oG KZt/vU7TS3jrKTKG3yLdXYZs1ns/R1dhT3aeXeWBh9XYWj9v8eypdSSbvY0s6nPnmGO7Rl8VB7Hf CUsul/khbKk8u26dYlKHbUz2OuP0h53VV+2wQY88qudo6eCUH+tB8jx91Q45zZN8Vt6c8EYHSdIO 7veKfdWOuYzH9pUY7fh+D30sPPb3V+e1FX31cA86/uyf+TmlrV6rr57scR5y/FJqJ/U7pVcfjb5q cJrqnL5qB+I0dz9/t6Poqxdz5/Mvmmrd/cgi7Mqv4rme584vwG+q5Zy+akc+FfqqqtpW9NWLueMb qDfVsb8av2hbPdcD3e8V1JsqTPp5o160rZ7s91d3+337Vlcd2t2v2lcP/f8mJ5z/CiRTC3BSJ7xs Xz2Zc99B3lPuZsd2wou21bM906lvoaOpUpg/N+rYJr0O+irpbKv4f0JXpkc0dsKdnPkairba2Oao MuirizjzLdiW2trlqG5Q272YZ3ukE9+CbauO0EZQh/1tddWefMa+akdN0F3V3OGgvjqkrR73AtPe ZQ3P9xF8zkkONNVy1K+Dx7TVo96g2vuRzX2UUw5SdVXX4se8zx19FZIu0VfeUzxdp51wkqK1w5eD +6odmFNZhx9Gv1i99xjP+PurY2sWrR3+5pgqpldJxR59GENCFcecxmMd/gyitKODI4oY3jQSq51w hqwIPq+MyfdzRBXju0ZipNGtnKP5NahZL+m6pt+Fa+NktoxnlGb2Xamib1/iaCPxQGI5807SlR15 elsHs2UipTCz740uOq1yRE1dUhcrjZxncOBTTJ7LIYc5u4Z9m2mVA0rqYjfWtWRRfvplHXh8tUNp msuyZpfIXuXb9/SiW9m7xa0ll4dVFriq446vciRdZvOi6Z1t2W/fRGmm72S3Xm/us/WpDjy+Pe9i bxU7tja5kmsl75Htk67vsPfZjnsEfUTD9lYxvXfIWFMlV8/cL98pu7ShtUWu6qjT2/cmdqS+Gd07 a6dsct+zdJK6t8k8uLLMVR1zfvpMZuzJ/ah/8/W1rZeaiijGjid1i9NHz/eL4iGnp89kxq7kpT+/ eIdKPr+c+ctPrQiJdbRWuLojHsGcyYx92f0fV/k7fMtK2d7sOZydtjZ8vjY75Ox2v4R9+Y1sPZO/ RWlM3r2xatH++GUdcnYHvIJdC2y/ETuZahVrKUbC8Dm8zeJ21afxh6/niMM74hXsWWFz+/KN3e6k VHaanNNXtonDte6mfOPbrehhkSt3WXy0afp85u1Ywttf3cT6JNxWPipSnOiXfbhsszDWyImJceSc 6g4iu+vLTmhM9jGyGVvjFWDuYoDkL1XPpJe3xPuTPq3MrpWg7Dbvq1b+w9XL66q754yqVNqOcyoL MPcyZ7lDX23G+KPiXfe5cxvW6ms8uY4af8Y3JnHvMtmnVRqRSQ/9vMon1zs9Olrd5n4nqGzXenIb 1lNxGWQyu9fJORXoIQmfPeuQNJkQb8d9ulaX/IHiqNNiPfY+zXByJaHvWAcO343UI7NPnvLyJg0N lYbSVMWStdVZfdV42nxSP4OEKy/Rl36c2rG+8eRKfNdCMlCtG6lHph9cHbYZ8tqo7KtKp62rVLbc yexSD6hObOaW9EE0g10TudWEjoVGntEN1COzzx1LUOmxLskUSSq4CDyrrZa3pbdWt8UuS163DJUm qbGasRUTyTs3693QDTRnN/XgqQabL64szVspThUBB8lLqQU5d6GsjgWSGL3reSaSKxk9zz7whM3A sdMKUg15vpTi+EZj2e/L8UwxG0H2Nn7LnqZKwl8xeNfjTCT7Kc3SO59P6erT7ZiSqiJLl1IYzjar RS7HsztsRbnD3cf+McC2YTtn00R67SHaP1NDxXqRemzu0XURKbs8Uh218YvmZBW98lrqYep6CS2u Cizz7YC48pwRU6/GH19n3Un7RjuoWPNG44nMPLp/YLcBe6Axah0wSXoZVeXx/SXGVpjOcB6oyM5G VFg15Wz+hrc66uWMlpqCdZpaZfTRRclnnHnTVjYhWyWVuRxLMpth+kb/TsnPLoby6DJl0Hiyv+Fb HdVy+krV0zHW5KlVxh5dtHKsEhGG3bXi9XISsVpx6lpd+enlmPiWWeOp/m63IirFdJVpAtK1ztSL jD23KOWISHabnbi3WD5Zhu1Wq8iNc1Lq+XqwnhIiZv6W5Ki+SpMfZ/2n2N5KhxTX5XC7sfSsKOWI Qy+TrbvY+TRYjO11q6SoyI1TGb4i4za4kaE4mx7O3WXd/FaELWSzuDSqYky4hB+ruFIR78qmYxVi 7ypqqy62rdL1ds6UUEmzIr259zBufjXQkyc3HZWybu5VslWbHg/XNlw8acJZ0+QtZR9VV71NhpDN ldWlavNqypxQUUfPhoj8YRZ9beO35DHLsIP7KmssM1TJSlPZ85ibTJpyVs3zytvqud7mKmsGkiLi ZUo/zkBJi2w/V1ZbJSKLVDPDjuorNZuKqf3EhMtsyukr8em4xZPHZ6l6fuL87Du6fR3J7zSwZvEk pTzam68G5nstJ3CXNZWFYvSNbqu3dsti08JFZi7tmO5y61SI0bnVF+CvVNCh6XpkhT4jZeWPISU/ 2JuvrGnH/TZQQRuTvmoNS61k0SlppJhOYXm2DTVHl5eSVohBeslD+0rMdS1h0khZ+WOsVxJOuRKa ZdXW9Ea3+2pzsqJew6KKyR8gC81DwlQe4whh4dYTZnRItkq1wCYVPJQ3Zqwu+yyqo4oFpGJjzWp2 mbPDRgn6ulaBO501ijOtrk14WYueizGSW24PYgY6DQVPGyxLJH/G7Ifq7etS7St/zWKunTTNW09t JR43VGJ/mIk85jZmc1LC4svSdbK4Kus4dLwsZ/17xGNlvYUWz6MLXQdqR1tbVIpJm1szcSregrJt CQ/m9Xv6pgbrK95mY8ji20j3R/upjOHcbmNl3YKLB8pWEI8Tl0fX1yizUlh1rsJfUTaljdR9Pbgx G1ZTA61yslMqpk2qu6IOiBll9pzKeXqhnlBG9kBmidqZb6+Zx7Ty4/1kW3lpdreyAimiPOVKzo/O 7dIM1WvJqWnv9RUDJTGF7Gqs8HzF+Mi6xXOVfSVVrTV107dW2Fivxa+m3CofiTnORB5UNJeZDZMb Ld5u34/iQk6mt6ZjJNYj8ajcmV5pBZPmd8QtSN+74lx/X6X7iUNxivG3y/UFbq6qJxf9HBWSmsdT z+o/l71tValmpIQlhVdLlzovfPEbu5GeRgaKj6FFMd5ujpCZLith4ZncKWfjfFjNVBaqJ6rs2uxx 6tUMFhBWsAvl1z5/RdVXjXedJ0mZtCktUSzn7CTzig3snbNvdWq7h500k74xf4h6Oc36cmuCTdM3 UlhuR+MuZ5LLyha73jqjp7cVVakbG2gUA0P0Dvl3S6e4k8tS+5PApZJl0k/uLBH9uxyzlzO0LYbb JjDTVrGEpYKyThV1ae+dUU+YTbG6r+qNld8PSulZDUvOpGxTy4eVuzIaQVP8E7IRo5u74Wks36y9 thtlcs1a4aJjgzJU7EQRmzd2F/eAw/dFv4WllDLcmWUp/9ZSH/e26tq7qCqM21yKGG6rMiGN5Zv1 rK2S04hNTvdpIgVVdgnzEpkJJ9SMyoY06QSG5KVDyvBnbrP5Bp2Lb6y+g1Qs8anTQD83Iw3lO/VQ PRkv8vQ4JK58SZNUhhVJTlCemoWoYDUchuzK+nsmreJOuJZ0ZE0hY6K5nBT95E5ZqjwZbudGhtlo lpNuay/46xTR2WJuoJtahtiLdLNYOmopqVR/xhroqOCWN/E2ygyp9FV4unDXbBLXdobebV6RXj5M ZvGPXP+da5pPOSkwnZmJ0cvru9gp5VK3SbWI2qCMc9OXfP8YNn6uKnmIyYhts2SVqSm1y763H5iq sx1GqJQ8X1zrA4j6mtOlqIu8QolrhPF8p6yvYqBKMeupRfJJG+iHhHH91tbxIrZBdH4/k6D7qvIy 9B7H9JXTWBvBddl7t1P+Q6wPmqekizAcM/RyZvnFLCJbzKGLulYLpsntw5BKiNrMlCvpsbuJ+/9P N2SPWFTj2VhuhllyfoONvtp+z0m2UhzO5vMdJGsrvWCxRpbrvuQYoFcsw5Z6X4Ufliyo3L6HbOxT k73RogKPk7yLXXQ/Z72txzF0tjOpV7M71N5evPQW8hTJ6nsluDLsL1NbqmEwcT1J/dS3YeMWZ585 jO02WHGN7vdyOelk36EaV6N5xfqd6Sw9nZewVOmAcFnNqUzYffIrf6mmoUSR/CPaNHZWhr0/pq1O 6St3fqdsLXNXa6vblN2+Up9aTbVkSLA72uCNxlI35fiokVTpVIZvLjvkmNUafVU8jowp1tK3+sxN Qrp2F/KlGJ1di/UWdWqwc8uc/lzp5IQvh/27GEc2aU3twXrd1tBLlRuYjZbszs9qiBlzfaX2NY21 zOp+BtHyezXkhcuOAo9nTs6brurquXUNtVS2XdZJ2bYpW4W2SSs0r8UOa172hM61nAJ0Kfo4nfD6 uvc33Vebk1FYJEX729lJc6dPcenTjDTllcOJmz2jb7myAKcUfYR+xLVs9VX8gZNB6yJxLbW0t028 daqRcqiiGZntl40mfvacngXTrn21tCMexTS/N58XnDWXvnGbzq7UOJ50XwnJh33twKI6PehO7te3 qFT6qhbcDnqEVEutMG/UPkf+cFaRlO4rU1meCVk6dEX6m2Q/MkdrLuu31FZWX9T9NfvKUTxH8XBO wEZfuastGX/UI12htRhJnNmdWuuas9PqGVs/jJfQX1fxwP4JqJu3yyIgX04PFFG6ERv8bZyYLErs x4Wbt1d75bD7LbCvlBML3q2/MFHUQHOJytObpdaRIqg66ul+E05fZY92uHXt6vJp91ROJVQnjRzP HcRHHDnJdPSSD9gwN7GYLXP391VPTKVg71GOJVXZZPdreQtth92PiIS/uh7gjT4GO1REOVnp1kws Tce+aqdiM+NMHEZqzOztenOh6xL9lO3wmzLcyc+HqpuM7X2Yctt7fV4tS+1v/MJsvOws43rt5zxV mxdf5OdBtW26Nz/48Iptb3e1Mu9H7d5bxuX6SrR2+MqLL9OLGJOmjq5v85ECezgb20+RSt7ZzBk9 rox9RGuHB33hRYzeZ7CvRivsUO5s+qqWdjp1RI8tZBeJ2rHJ5OOWG/XufsIZF0vebk7YaVZ3IZdr PtHa4cncg6h97M9k14ffOZ9XS3oY1VcbeWdTm3cW8th6PaK1w/dS+4j+cHjI6aWtzcL3Oouamd2v 1lb6l6E799W630BfHS7sHQrQFW1nnunB2x/mrs9RtNEj32Lsq9RRy0X6amz/6/Whes93Ka7Y77Fv Uez2l/jAGt/+oeX61EPcqbassbI3e2fe7o+taKKvHlyvT1d0n+LMKcjl+urRbTXx8XPJxrr7r85e X23Fnypt//Hb+tfDX9Lo/ldsq3sfY+qkx/8yuKjHv/XUNX74h/e/5KdVPMe7VCexla7wFsv9r9BX L0Af4737arlWX90u6KtD3P0UU1+lm0bKibK+MsVhj3ufojjaWadx+2o7BV3SMd7nQC/VVrdy8n98 s5WDEfc60Eu1lfqlmL46xyfdV/oTq5WCEXc70uv2FX8zeIK7nSl99Um525Feqq28XwhbGRhytxO9 VFvpvrpKSZhyrb5SjUVbPbdL91U7ARd1qbZKv/xdpyJMuWZfXagizLnWS6SvXsa1XiJ99TIu9hJp rBdBX+EMF3uF9NWruNYbpK1wBtoKp6CvXsiVXiJ99TIu+TusdiSu7WJvkb56EbxGnICPB5zgir+f ocuf3wX7ik/PV3C5vuKX5RdxsV8E6asXccG+orFeAH98hTPQVzgDfYUzXO0tvnZX7fipuftP3ObP +GY1IXOy3MrGW6upjDJ589NKZHO6oZa7uVplxzASK5I4oaed4zHxTrq9t1J4lp5PF2nu/O2ytpoa qWcX00XudrieXr9n0437uJ8+6nr2Yu+zWz88z170rgPZsnivonW4HYu257P7xnT/ajObN8Lr0YO1 zTzKg6b3P3gYrUct2bwb7qYvSU+4nl9Hh9N1cnXay06Jg6e/DlXTWwcXsrLsympOYrb4OuRnL1Y2 nZWaZvM8Lzq7r+Rk9Vbn80E1vWxyprf329Qq9i2mPjNe62K2Gyq7p9a6rszp1T3ztWKnyx09nfAS LtdW9NVLoK9whuv1FY31Ci73Gumrl0Bf4Qz0Fc5AX+EU/A0hzkBf4Qz0Fc7Ab7BwCj6wcAb6Cmeg r3CCB/wfch83rG9LX72E2dd4y7P/iGVsFu8fAPx4G8M2/vlA+uolND6vsh5I105fpciycdTI7aLa WPTVS2i8xtBXkt+8fdXXugWLpsmWWdS3HG31Etp9laJ0Fy2hryTNxq95W3mfbpWd+bh6EfqTxJtc v+c3a1+Fb7ZpyrbKM3WQ+Zijr16EuNJk+h5GYxMs4X+pKcJ1vof6bm50ot0aTy5/r+bl6ibIGuIW FqN1aqOv3M8ryZPwclRbuZ9XYcz2lcrv6qsFnyrz2eL2VfgWhns+r0L6gk9U6p0ldUJsEjMaPtO8 vtI9l/pqwacq/tZn7QjTNHowBaeZch07tuBTZdpKd041emOKTyisis+Y+eagqxDxGYMz0FYAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgOSMf+vsCf9Ftmf5l+9OqPOcR3+2vjrrFM54X8+yZjtm3NMUenPSvyxO Xx3tyfqKz6t20KAn+nXw1A+sdsy4F+yr/sD+Mgd27w0dOaSJA+1OOeUUBt7XY492pK+e5ETP2T74 tPvq+DV1obL5H0rbWFKyzJFTUrw5fZeus8Q811ms4S2hJ8uNqVRyu6kW4zyFiXVWvK3pZekgd7Cc jDEpcCPLzaytuqRFiywb5sz7S3abz5xRKbZyLoV6B3gTeFq8z+exJO5kOZjm6qmbP9Q20wbWV10c 3ryMmUr6qFpInPSyxHuQctLL2t7Sz1KT1WR/PS9rWRa9jz9dy2zbkziZOcl7/sbBbZpOBAAAAAAA AJ7PM/xBmP5j083ALbXcfQeQ/znx+k1VOli0/bPJdGPGD3xpB/5JqPqDVX0Cu/60NTtIdV3L2GCP 0NY6WWyeam+KmE5Zgi3U6bEOOlytUy65rx2OeX4r1SWVykfp3PJ6K9Ojk1SF6nK8WBUe1tl/AFm8 WsjvsS4pWq2jv759G6w0F7J1ecOVZm7Vxsv1q6zVbmXWhOryU9XDA3ROWMg52sFq1Zrx9oA1xdxU lpsrVC2u17ktPFqqlg5YVSwTz6/Zk4jf1OW4UN6i1rTDQ9LrUhWWCw+ubKPta5fJNVW4hLelX5ne oJd952EsfYvDc+9KVZo9/6KGhrnVpk+quVXVGZZrTlQaU8xqaWrqDGxwXuzkuabovK+W2UVVX6kG WOK3uNaeFjDLTpeqhGqzY00Ps5FbtbnmRKXqaON3PTRVrI4ui5081/RmJOTuXVQ9dHmqeq2Jg/1I LShm3TQ7wa32oL66XYaRyTf1kWSp+SuaKlZFO8VOnmtaQdLXMGSve0m+5mKKU2tNvSy9oDrffQ2Q ljXV7lxWgiVbM14Okiy1+rr8dJd5HxIu0v3cAaQV4hGIemd7Co3r5OcQFps4WF1pKm+Ro/rqlq4e YNey1TX17IjiaLNXtOd1OVfTa+o3E97V7kXVkuHWnkP5HCNUW+l1dzXAkj91/KorHxZLkoPWTA+Z rxa+6qg+MVql7V0zC9cPXJ5zrxis6nLPc+pd3dgumn/+RNYSw81Svrth2XmKWW1mTd0D+vf/Yo52 bOF0lCrPWXNqUXOnFjXXnWK02OrM5bKjBRZ7GGa56UV1sUW1k6uKTj5izZijF6hdd8pSJRzjnjWL vkrDpjmWESncFJSvObqsEZN3Pr9i0/Nia1nbzIOmy+lKs6rK4YnXFZli967Zjp+u800lecfj33iH unPNXfXUVGra+/gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALws/Z9VAA6i/nsdG+1l/qMeQBN9hTOo dtlqHPoKQ1S3NBqHvkI/+grG12/5iPdMX0E76nfS9BUMCdqhW/QKb5dqzXCvp/HqBhpLFGeuFpal dG2FZ7fVLBuheazQVzCkt7XEKCd1WLjQ34tIvLjNjjFxRZeoOd1YZizLoLGelm0U71eoerBsv/ba dBpPK0ilrxY8p7JVhjSWbowXV0JfvYrNtmlpLNyaKK6yFPrq+ZUN47RRft9YsDWRX+Up9NUnorup FvoK3fqbaqk3hUpv9FXfPnh6A10VO8WboK+gDHTV2j5e+EhfLXh9Q21V/2xz+wqfrpGuWkJjtePw iRtsEvoKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAADgfv7bXxZ5pb/+2V8S+XER+ZOvr//wb4n8zj8W+d6/Efml/yjy0/9L5N0338kPf+6d/ODv vZPv/4t38t1/+06+/d/fyTe+eC9/9Fffyx/8nffyW//0vfza776X7/zn9/Kt//Ne/vQnPsh/+cUP 8nv/8IP883/1QX7l33+Qv/Y/P8iP/Ohn8j9+5jP5d3/3M/mXv/6Z/IPf/0x+4b9+Jj/+fz+TP/nJ z+UP/8bn8jv/6HP53r/+XH7pP3wuP/3Hn8u7H/tCfvjtL+QH3/1Cvv/9L+S7P/hCvv3DL+Qb776U P/qpL+UP/vaX8lv/5Ev5td/+Ur7zn76Ub/3vL+VPv/mV/Fn5f/KZvJPVu9v1L7//+nK9/o0PIu/f fXi7/urrvz6s1x//+kJd/5l372PMN77O/dmvv//Nn/tKfkzF/Dl1/efX9b/x9V/fXOO/99e/kr/w 7vO38R/5+q+/uF5/jPmpNffDWur/B1BLAQIyCxQAAAAIAK+CcSPVn61HvQwAADI7AAAMAAAAAAAA AAAAAAC2gQAAAABBJlpGaWc4YS50aWZQSwECMgsUAAAACADYgnEj33AMJ1gJAADRNgAADAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAtoHnDAAAQSZaRmlnOGIudGlmUEsBAjILFAAAAAgA64JxI5X0j30RCAAADC8AAAwAAAAA AAAAAAAAALaBaRYAAEEmWkZpZzhjLnRpZlBLAQIyCxQAAAAIAH2EcSOaROmN3CMAANs/CAALAAAA AAAAAAAAAAC2gaQeAABBJlpGaWc5LnRpZlBLBQYAAAAABAAEAOcAAACpQgAAAAA= ------=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.EE515AC0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:19:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28945; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:42 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: A&Z Figures 5 & 6b Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:03:00 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.A91C5FE0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19971117221116487.AAD211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"2Dhzx.0.B47.T2CSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12901 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.A91C5FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit These have been resampled at 150 dpi and are attached in .tif .zip format Mike Carrell ------=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.A91C5FE0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="A&ZFg5_6.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: A&ZFg5_6 (WinZip File) Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="A&ZFg5_6.zip" UEsDBBQAAAAIAHKCcSM5ZjxjeioAAPG9AAALAAAAQSZaRmlnNS50aWbsnG9sG+d5wF+KmkUDjEk3 GEKjjEm1gQ3sE1VvNoUSPsku0BgNUOzr9mFSZTgYVjfWBDQWFOeoP5AMzJCcGCjsVdXtQ7vtY5At 9oI6ESUFYoyp4ocBDVJ2IW16vg2IJ3IHWORE3bvned+74/F4d7qzWmBF9QAij3cvf3yfv++fI3Xh wh+RMx8RQl6P/xn5u9mA8Uz3Lc29m+wlB4iWHCBacoBoyQGiJb8jCHGvBgfmNMkBoiUHiJYcIFpy gGjJAaIlB4iW/LYR+Wm3q7q4IwKy22VNXBHT8hbddmvAxBXxY3mj+5RbAyauiH55g+wTQaAXY24N mLgiAvLGoX0i6NbTe4prA5Q9Qkume7v1IM1a8ltG7O66XGyJG2JHdbnYEjeEsinu7rhc18QVcUhs /AYQd1yua7KHIvtGqLTRcLmuiRuiAYh92gJkd+9c/z1JM29811Z1UU24XefiiqgKzYjbdS6/CwhR 7XG7zsUVAWNIwO06F1fEAjjF7ToXV0SCUlVwa8DEDYFv9xAYboi6SJkye4gbooYPay4NuDghyuDN OTyoOjRoiQNCJYSqLKzqAq2677c7IOqRMiECHqk9gEvYt+LigCjDREv77CzpUYP2rbg4IExGrBIR ic7igLBkF3Ovk9gjrDHpGmD2iKZoOeGW8xpCDWBqG2c7kitvPWESHXGY0pvHjbMPrc0q1hMm0RUp Udo3LepnO6K6Zj1hkhai9M1pQT/bkVtuZUNHFL4aGZ9e1l50OsCtbOiIza4jV84say9swiDRccYQ AxE8Mra9rL2wyU6XsmEgBo5MGIiVznYuZUNHzJPImLKsvbCp/C5lwzBnLNJXE5oswZuJznZ1ofOc JqYAF6hYJThulMXOdqpziJsQkio+pCTiMPzMtdpZrrSn2RpUPFq1/UBWMppYe6AUta2i2xHgOih4 IrWRegIas2uXaOOOeQFsINisP4GF10FrUC8baAow0i7vLJpXrwaCzVEF6iy5rnKAFQ6ZKovfNF0w EDhHVcWON7akzko6WFV+b3vSFqFQq2GsUk9QVjjk1PbChOm8DwQTKBzy+9uSbS/QxtqcPV+ijgJN 8lEXhFabiCEitUoTbaEs32o/xQURfM6uEquYwpW136Hm2X0botJ+6h/bODxcmNN2qW1o4Um+xLes YpJZjuAVABGWNYoJ0aSvsyOHVYzWd6HjM0yI3S2OUOQStRHtjctaLrTEFBeN/El2lN8qUBvRWkod 4WNGTHPEQmGL2oi2dJa8IBIbdojtLZE9S86IBm3IDKEKtghZTrBnyeiPLibE7hZDNEVbReRtiT3/ XHVE7NKmyjxSp7bmfHKGn/3xpuiEwAMZigJMDLZLtFPkbR54t2YdERh2MlZOhxXItsxj69YhRwSG He5itc0xoVKRN/ihssVj69am6OQRNLVMLVaomtJMawrmdEQs2CAU2vxTHQELziZk/UeqY4DjjEzG rrQjDAFbIcctR1hhdUfkesBgy86ZisO/bB1IzMVJxIcEIpzqBYWBSrbeSVYCknHMLkmIsOxpmKwb obJ1LFKOSXot44gCIiz7lyZE3gbxskQl/g5+iSEsKWRC1ADRfpEqwdvDpCex9D+ihthChNTeyISo U9kSNIDIBrKHjoSSQ+ePiHhCRkSivZHpTapoh+i5PXM8kBrqioh4YhsRYnsj85sSsnVrUYlPzt1+ LAaiI8d5LxRAWD/H/FqSrRthSiwbQERqZOmsyE4Awjp/NCMKnYhAaDj76DhJfX2K92IHENZZrBkh dyIg6j+Xz8avjqxxRAMQ1oJiRiiydSDrCHBAdCwKzIiabN2Oa08zikm6bLVmG6K+N6JJlzsWSO0I 6/2UDkUA0bFMa0dYbwB0IFS63LFYNCMabgiuiCouS5Y2eyFko5gaCMHSxoKwjoSKDlXp2yJ7Fj8W LW3aEOOypYBTpSDrzXiAU/FjahVzptogNriPmuNU+3TxPrVKO8JqbWXjdbaiqvfLSyI7I7giqA2i IFcFeK4fm/aEsFMEEAlqRizvhWgtwLgocl7rhazZQvKP4KvLZkb3yJ6If7BchejkGypntbjYG3HS clXRo1LQV0yl50DwBqJnxOuWqzpCNRAFB4RWJmwRbP/EjOiYUSJCfZMd2veCVeS9EfyqOv7EBsHq XAuxkLFBVNdmxZIoUsEGgdO1Jt2zF+VA18Xw8a6uo6vjT6wlxzzj44i8HeJJLHUxnPhaMDk1/lgO LFuue0LkF9OXXpO61pLzgCASP90a1gq8lS72vYinL20IZPp1CRCyxE/7Q6AtXhMmp3tK4/8hb80t BjI7ZoSED9k3XBG1/Owr3xLuTJIlREyHSCyVvXjYyFmO+C5/odLP7OOC4h5S/sPS+ENZ/lvy6a3u 2xcPG1stDFHd0hH/5oIAQcTtwxu3Fv7l9KCxYSzhQ+3hOjmSGQVEERFP7BACxeisQC+uAWLx9MOE 3oAdNHJZEo4l3+mqfI6I9vBpy1RAvBvYeIfETgwaCAEfal9Ofe/CdPjY1wYBsSQyhMGxIPK3Dm/c Tk4eatmCIzYO/fDC2uax1AogwrFLK2vl/7yUtkWUSeDYxiSV5/uN4YAhqhvHGeIbhX+//99k6sTg 5OOBS1ELArNhXC5roazllAmRvfQa6Q584xeAGF87sXGr/OrFo7aIBkNEzJvYyxyx/r3X0kMr3YM/ yQDi7zemq7GL+sTMpAiM7Pw5aF7MCuZWZ+liZpNMn3htrprqQIgmRNsdAMncSgAEmPPiq9M7qeSL 2kntIttGb2g2ZFGii4QPeq8EusSq1u403X1T31XiCJWQtEAbk9rJSAdC1F9yRNtWI0fUmRlH9bsx czRnjCgSPrSmqxrCPHLaIio0q8+SRYk9JfT2S3bllwlpNMjQqK5IjTa00VUVJPa8oLd3RtRFeKjp m9d12iivkSPHrxq9wNrVJKSvIGWsc5D2uDBOio1yjnSHUoenRyV2Bn3FynkikyOkfVfVjDBEFRpl knplpSs8OVRiZ3DWnEWEkMEk0C3FREcgmwT/V3slNB53jSUfyi/cSXIEzhL4+zLUKjqCfQQXATzZ eBweS67kw3dOckTNCDhnBGV7z0zg0xZqjwf+OgnHd05w6zWMLX1XhC4QeYXa40djJ2KpgakkR9SN ez2eEFXT3aWFiYLejJ9rxrWAbYkNAmJE1qctEjUQ3JH1UMddB44oa6WFCSREhSEabYiEjsjaOjUn mBfiCfQhRxQMhJas9RdwsG+7LckRc4laojU4LCBCZsHQQmi1sB5xQCyQvpdbi+CChtgxI7TbXhAd 1rstGiLbG20h8qjCdhuibt4Dkmib6IhT2W8b52QzYkFrZl3CtkRXxIxQ7HqhGEnwB/aI6KlAHgrC S06IJnTNvMUudiByqRQ5r5U/tLctgptxay1ri6heTcUqBiKA5rciCo53M80BXhendYTe4YhhzkLr XpjjHh87ltPy4lihhdAl9KbEqxLeYqi331G0IhaVzXFQO2xlkITuEES0leA2RQABgDiMAYV+ebG2 lpZvDLUQNwxEvmDegbD2Qs4oS+MwQC8qhfHKfehSISMvjRbSlQQVAJvAz6nnNnodEHC1XFmaKPTT hrI5CrAvADC3NAZduq9I9OR9pSRxxPWvOyOejBfS8k9wgZ1Slia2MvmlIKi2qHw6LtFTcKQhPnVB PEKP/II2MsrsOHz40vnCYejBF+PlTIKO5zM64rqTLeracBKgjaVRaH9bAcAi2GYrU15KqFcr82Me FClzRP1QanJRyY3L3coRsMf20tWCpL4FRuHmHAgPOyNY6WqYQisVSFcWwSOypB5KVeIJvfT4QJAQ f+otqTw6vCIgU2Gukbt2n5CYhvoLKl73j4ChIai+jGe2ci+UWAl/DkSPeoxdqorPjQj6R+T/XyD2 VsT8Bk+I5zNnHXNkf4jqPhF5jqizMvvcvaj99B09R96eez6P1GAIqmeNNOM5ckWUfCH+C46K8L6u FgISTCXf9Yz44EPauHxvskRXxa2oGRHx7JHiX+LRO1BIt2nwB2CL0i4MhpIa84YAj9TugS1+Xgzs 3l3duczN+ZRWJxKqsOBZkeYdpkiRPnqGAf7Gtbu/LKI5JzwjmCK/3IG4WD1dBEWeFWEFWkWPeEOg Ih9ijhSP7t7NjYMi/XDh2vJ7oMhphvCSZjVMs8v/PFl8cE7dQsTTu78qDnnvha7IZ8UAvZc7Q4Pf 738G5lz2oQj24mfYD4qK7GiKXF724RG0BaqCHrkwgCUHFLmnckU8xwUq0vhR8ShdzlFU5ONf7Vym 7/lT5IOGochTrsguhJakni548ggqUnoAitDJ4sQQV+TyvWdMkQlfitSfQYDfY4ocu1sqgjnFhJ/Q +tmHrBdUzVH0iHjt3nYJnXrGM6JahOnaFijynYEznwW/REXUEiryHWdFjNtUWi92xmn9R8XA07vY iy/77xaLlz9oBbgnRT54BxT5ACcH9PJLd/snsBc+06z4V3g0uVM893EJFUEp+/IIK79MkVXwSLOf liYu/xQVOesjwHdAkY8mi8UBHEf6J4wA9+4RXNI8w5LDA/xuqaQp4gMBA+J2CT1SfNrDAhxqJ4TW D72VHA2Bey5Tg+RttMWEEeC+bFE2BjOSJtGvXvgTn06FPDVv5PsdijREQ1uzq10GQnpOBC2pArtU pX4UUewQDV8I214wRGFfvajvX5G6r17YKuKvF78vCC+ZuodTfwOI/cWFd1uoJNDXQojsks8cMe8c LZgRkmdFOr/fCfJl5KwPW6ih0ZVYpTs1FR1uowje5xcq6cvFKrOj+ejI/LEn8eEbqbXw0AwZ8IPo nY2tkiSJksBMdDU+Op+W41cKsUeC97hQx+b78/HhzXQlPLoeCzAlkrOxAR8zPjU5Gz0fHp5NV+Kj +czIDeCMXE/Nxb0jwCOpXGy4OzkF5Xs2NhxOrccq19N5f4jRlUxltg/NGVuN985EB0LJm10hX4go CQ12p9ajw/OxdTQnaqSb0xtidDa9Fu4FgxCShQ7MxNbQro8E7xUcEeCRedzEycdGbqRWQ8Mk6ye0 WIAPEDDB+fDoHCCAU7l+BczpI7QwwEdmUqvR4RmAdZOp2PD1lO6RJm6Ft32Xyd6pKzzAK2jOYbRM CkNL60V1oX072g4BAX6OvAIr3WEjwFseaVJla0sx98M2wDf7ZTTnWrhvNjZISHQAA/yc3gu5/snY adMOnUMv1rQAL2SYOSHAV8MGovqtU3980h2BAQ6hlQ3ihw/f6EOPjLc8Itd/cOqVN90R4JG0Zs5o LoYBHkhmp0I6Qql//8z8GXcES7MZCHDIkU/iY8ycm3p0NmktN/TijZfcERjgoWEM8O4siaFT46Pr 6UdCSYsLMhT89ak9EPPgkRGWXevxkXBqCgL8ZisuVFHd/kJ0R7A6hWkG2ZWuzI9azImSML3NqYKP zKZmWYAPhpPQiyxWLUBI2huEPRBozhEsOegRHmNDpgC3im0Fn4nmeIAjgpecguERQv6wLrojmDnz PLtGMcC7SVcIYkwvOXxcSrgjevHdWHLiY4UMMyckO4SW5B1BUtkoZBcJhiBbKhDgccMjks0v+ZwD HM15I5oL9XZjEYsGNUTWE4Iks1DB+2YxwMvxsU0cENdjZYZQYx4QNV7BodycP9wdHXiVBfgVrYJL 1bc8INAjRgWHgSzcNxU7T25GWQWXHnqJC0UNQJ0K8ezKM49kWgHe4w0RupLDCo5TlGyUjakj1yFS MFOPJ7wheAVnAX4UAxymKBBar2IvsqI3RG82yoYPMoIBzksOBngJfyXlDQFTlArPLphpXIAKziJ9 FRERj4he3SNQ7zIVVsGzGOALeGfaoy2SWRw+yHkcRxBheKTqFWFU8BEW4NkuKHxYckp0xWu9gDSL Dc4wjxxj9YLNL3KA6JE89mIMKzjUnXOD3bzk5PmYKtUFb4gajqm6OcEW4WSWDCSncNJYpl57AcWb jalrOKZigGv1ojSJJccTgk8aU1NBgiUn3LcOiKuIiHgsv+iRNTZFSfEKPhsdOJx8PxgSNgTvvSBZ HNnnuEfGjEljjnpGQICjLaJrMJfP6VkPiGnqWRE2CGhjapqVnGESvUnORrwj+KQResEQN3SPYOH3 6tTQKCxpZvrWyTAU70Gc6oxch5EAf0viuRf6qoiZk2X9FXCLHwQUb7yBOUWGb5jH1KAPBF8VzeOq aDa2wkoOZP2QPsvxguidSa1pg4A+EsCqKAY59hwBHmABrs1yqOS9FxDgaSPAYe4XHeSrIh+IAJSc ke5U3ghwbdLoGVHjJQcnjSGCveBZH3vipxdjpkljGktOaDA5dXvAjzlhkXyeDM+CW0Y3+eqqcn0U yq/kx5w5tMUqBHdXbAWXM5XrfayCe+6F7hF9TI2uhpLZr4R8hFYV5v0YF7O6R/rlRQzwk5J3BJac ONoCPpy82osjO65Te3wgTCVnE+sFTj5T74b8IGBMzZFegtP4WeYRPqbO+UCERj9JY8mBaXx0YACM glPXufi3PSNqgFjXc+TYCpvlsJHAuyK1am83DgJ9uLACBItVzBE/tlDm0z2s3sHsPUpwOwgHVw3h KbSqYMQgegS/a5TmsxySmiJ+ENie6Ksrfd45F897QDQMj+RTxCKpqZj3XoBHMLFwGl+Zx60PlL51 P7aoVSG2V0MQE+cCr9yEnIVZDjlaSD9HgG/C5BMreLh39s+DBOadfhDJbqh5Wr3rxwBPB29DvfCD wLwcwZ3Gwe4sDkN5AtP4uQzPEW9ODcPn6iVnBcpvKhgn2a8YcbGztTcimcQOpHBhdRQDPN2zOLzZ 8kitsBeiVr1yBOfgUHLCvTM3wTXQi2GTUxseegFxAMt0VnLmU5UbKRKrZN9rhVbji2slD4iWDIav 9KQxwA1zNn+d+vx9YrzLDqHgI/ztWmJc70Vz8dSDd90RNe22WXiEUqlG1Z5dNW5GqJmTD9696Ipo V6RrMQGXHsAiVzYQPf4QhKQzZxMhM+IqGZjyh9DFyNS3oit7IPgLmdKHj+wRFnFDwJGklOGw2rUv BH6dvyribQXqAdGwQbB/TzJJ94Moi+z76PtB4Pf+q0IbQhWdN25tEIv4becVakU4btzaILKnoEmP BSHU/skHIqAwPdoR3UdfjHhG1CMK+/4YIpqGOcnfnHJCdMZFOVFherQjRv/1fe+IgKQwPdoQKiBE r4h6RKowPdp7kfz8lmnr190WZUGqMD3ouBkRjk17NmeQSpWyAC/K/c8ZnZAfUoWFJ+k398IHIidC jkCXmyRw5zl7EcQ0E/Db6JE7+PNvHYHFw/o/X+wR9SBPsxzJiZ9rCAGd6h1RPsXSrE6EIFZwA9EU aZu4xAXmR/brTRJpRtggoCOs1nDuRb0H86NCgvjrKXMvrN+Rd0aUhW2qRnIBlmcPDFs0Ov7vmDNi EtMMv4SO/05qxYSQXRBttniM96Wy+BsNzDMzwjJDce4FBITSJAmZ1wuzIpI7omAgJjHNeiSZsv/2 aEYI7gijF5igSgD/+QWrF3daoWX6aZ87AnMD/gDB6kUL0TC/wxUR2KIVGIb+r73z+20by+74VZi1 HNSIkg26o8xqQ89mmrQFimbGwIxSK2YG0+5ksYPOf9CNkUGMAn2wa6BJkIxJw4U1AwTWFga6Cca1 +tbXLbboNtjOhIYGZgYNzKJPW2wRUcPUQl8qMQRWEszw9px7Kf6QRYnMoMUWyAUcUyb1ybnnnvs9 51IkVW2yfrinAyt6YxB9XzjZltaEkKh697NfDKywEyIMSa/gI72qEB70uXO5F1gx+lEJAUKhFWqA QDK96DpCCKGNQgRWOFmxQlc7lOmF1evmQohKMoQhSq1uDhFr1LRBvkIIMRmCSLRlyIDYymomdfHO GB8hJULgDW4tAUsAJQsFd1cMIwYJMQjJm2ZtAZ0HMpwa4fD32V0iAgKfFdnzJefwTTmxCHgfqIWk sX7AG/tWNJIhnlP8GBtK2OxDjV2LF+rIzjiE1keoLYcIXQkQ7ObBALE6DsGt6MH7viDZzg4+tqMr wq5gjpxOgLC0rUVNeZUQuZmlVY31Q/VnKrs0cCyiNrWoQb4qLKmFpcp6G9WTnKQSRzi3xiG4L7rX wZOFJaWwVCZXs4WrsLzSSm1dBMRhuYgJrWkit5j2VddVmocF0o5WWGQIKyGCEpm2aPs8IHazLhEM uYG+QMRaUoSGTwlSYY48VCVDgDBr9N1ZToqAprtZnOxqm8ggnz4ilwLR6kJOpdv44SukZR8hJEFY zW28tbql4GS/h/dOrlEfMZdNhKhNLWmFpV2yrIkH7N6wXAghJkLQ7aUmiysYSDK1pJMZvdSAuEBE SU7hC5hOTWdRvGvtkeVyoaHlFzdESi/R5AiMq7aTeajztNyAuGRxMR7hJ0Rc1rXvZAHByt9wfTEG 4Vuh6LRrtWVAMI15AQTkVLuHeqHzp26eTIiwwjlVa0Bx0BV01o/8G8kRGkoOxAVZqp2gqtTN6GuY E0gvVUcQoZJ3avklUJ3Vuxm9tCgSCyVHTNMRVarpn7ezJWuVzKvFJSXfKOcNPQEicOca3hFq3KAH D1YtQ7YV2dI91UqKcHMV0ItMh/buCRYLM6svOUkRGJC6A8VBj93k3BVD2SwJoqFNLYL26uS2RtuZ CmXpzOoreEJEYVHLz++SpfIkOQ0ztZSpf550RHosLky2cfBFzt4l5OLk0npeWM/Pl4tXdSmpFRyB xYFKhAcVfI6rXko9IngY3u5VQgR7FDV05Dm8P3loHTC1I1nj9oMq7YqU9gfVTYYwGcLIGUJz9QAQ 0CO/ROGIEXcMW+zBDByR+YLIRq4HiDW+Swqs6OYii8TDVsCgLtFuluRgxoMVXRH2tGfC0dnT2uJo BCYBVhyQwvIDdlZKJafCcdFrWtWRCLOJSQSKA4jRaw8Kmb08FAcw5dv1fkeed2w9HsF90XNIFmbq eWo9yAt7J8CknXLR2JA8RM9ujkcYGbAHyviDB4rskExX2qEstMYi/OiEZTrP7KAXXZisKih42Bed hbFWsMnelpr04J/w7naIzxqfqZ4Vu+dHILgVOOz6KiyLD36EgtEV4Y+RuDg7FoFtLwuIHnvehkqj CEf+ezEeUWGSs6SVllQRZj7JiLyMjyAovSnFI3h0zpfz80p+fr1AZvPz+gWhLkcRbin0rriOlNrZ f7YmCpmfA4hcWy+aEBd7ko+QEiAwszvnu8IDEftRv2TqodAaaHEIVXfchUAvalFfjEJUPISb1R25 mUG9wHmGCFStNFa0pUcoO4hA3QPRSGxFH7FqfYn3I9meXpAZRCSzAuOiXJhXSUPH5Zn9cxHiyiXE xo485IhwZMYgtKl5hczv5q9O5K/NFjJ6EeSCIXhHemUb7x9YWXxDj0Ogdirv2nrJyBbM2XxGAbmY bKxDXDCEZc0AQndl4/TjoQjPFwJuZZrUniW3CTmr3mlo/biw7Blb6+25cvPTvRFWoDJAZgfERYIl 9Bq1/UG17Nu2cvXx3MoH/74nxyMwgHVDBkQRH3UB8hFCdABx/QogHuVGIWRPL2z2HQ2wmIgiNo8j 4hfjEHs5QPBLQfEUVzAizRn70+Pfd1c++OXwjqA7W2dQtVSJNg0iSJSd4wshOoL96bkrczcXPtXj rIC4uJoFvSjZMJyzEj/HZwcBbq+bmxcez5HFN+LdCVXOexhXkIGE2WJjg9iVEiB6XoDzp1G53+vS UYPq4BTDZf+p2aJ5l5gbeXMdWBwR5HVnBMIFF+r/ShYMGzqC/ZAhWC0vtILjn49CyG5uj4hN4WCW n7Bw7ZBeqOSHNNxiEG1JyVJDBCvw9IVLloO48O6TEcchFHxSPejFrIT9UFAv+ojuiatJECvsmU+g F7N42ZxBLp8KOnLo+w2GxQWebcjsFdvZj+zinAAESdgMELXxCJMhlvfylyfyZrEoQPX58Xdqflwc /raB4ZOd4GQXms/tCwRw15RirdyPC3b+MwECmt4VYaZeYA88guKgfsmLi8Nf9RCPMChDCKw4CPLI 6PNaUYTA9AI/xIBkZPYRbuhTjXGIx6gX+FUuTEl9hPNGcgTUzU1q4OPZ8OSD2dcLIzRHYhGN3cK8 VmyTS1QrXkYEJlXfirVkCKgpUC9gggt/UDTrhNYRweJiLpcEwTpSNHLFxvoFRKBeFGsbPC6KUhJE k22v1rumvmpDR5SPOgFimiZGODk932lmEcHOTq55HRGSIwxJE5le8JMoMK7cnblECK++YKdbAcHm RNHTi66U2AoHlqdotT2D/QD58IQPxjeRFZBhjElZh5URWIG658wJHkJJhmisY916ba+kQjaeBdO7 d+6IHOEeT9aRBqy2jxTnN/IZSB9volh0FImHVncusS9cEfUip5fMC6ShFE1S5KnIcJN1BBEyVFMG bYFegBdQ60wWWrXhCF2v0uoQBOhFC5QX/26w+gI6knOHdiQOAXrRcolXt/LioCgNR+RqVZiJUQT2 DvVCYd8YivHJECdoDGLn3uJOGMEzO357i0oYAvUCERBqMR1R703XwgiIi6sVyEOXHDInIALnGSLA muHufPT43u9rgwgoVI8XycQF4c2i+R+ZzkMmObBQT4ho4qdfzuoGyRwnJiCUPIwoDqoSh8g9/tG5 SEeYO53cIyL/d7YDHVmVOx5CikPs3JteHUC4MMUh+xsSzFT+bMV+rTU8Ojv3lj4ZRMiqmg3rhY8Y N0dsH7HCSpAs6sWOt0tOiVgkYh1TEFiRjSCSSs6lX0E6r1MDptmM92Gd7SazIogL4rXvzqi0jzgY ZYXuXe3jWVEvmAoZaK+5H9lPRlihU/78fX9EqF2S66qshhhTEBrxVriA6A0gtmkd67Sqd5XEJCk5 5nYcombefbdWvjiA2KNPcoA4Q8gx3LMBed723Rn6LjWGeHfn6DurE9+JIqx9XI8Y2ANmRYVcBH/5 CCmK+OCTo4/vTU9FEe22DEFvZJQit6KszNKmj7C+HUXo1fXHxcUCbtt+Qnx28w5IlXGG3OSITXU5 jDgZReQ2JgDhBIhG13GXS4uIwEdCMcR9tQli3HfnIYRydOpj8n4I0e7emdkma412QznuIbYsPDHe R7RnoogPahOTa9ydXkd6YMVettZoP838ITl6rFrRzCfLuare8q2wowj+ayAuLHavnoE3omcA0ai8 JYoVbTTCjiLal+W6/3A+aGt/LUGy8RHR8Bo62fFLFAGxqkxcPvJ93LMJsy0RImRFARBO9pcbfyZ8 iXv+poFnCBPoRWCFegb14r2Dbbn1X7jnybsBwsHujUYYjiyTo0vr7MpScpT54m4W380R3QSIO3Mw u5bL/SeEsfZKgDjUkyEdcVfm3rxJc0ZILzK70lbdi4uRa7NAfpdLbk6gT48dLX11C/fc35fy/bio JEPY2+4U6sXR4k94gOMTUrkVkVPg8QjH3nNhMQOIvPI7uGf7Bu7kCDkZwtrHBRQgCPlT3FO5gX/m iEHC8NBy2m0n5yFYdJZ/jB++MMToKx8CK57dXJQ8BPPFmoZ7GGL0ZQveZLe6znKJrQxxPLnkNGFh xhHCSITVlxxneSvLEVeOnH5Yb9GtDkgeQzhRuRlEBB1ZVnOtPgKEwty+cfc9s4uI7nIyhLukomqB 5BxXoCMts/K2opltRDSicjOI8EcEioNW07aMSTK5fxr3lMuo64jQRiNC9UUeXz+dJI/+keW5TU3z ELmkCFKS4fX+vT/6F55t73+V44gVMaHkhJ+MMo97tthpaEDclJMgIAk4ZLCxaADEfCLhMyEuFp/J 1FNw3rIeIjseUeXa+eym3mEB/oPiLYiLxtqO40qShOvUsYNa7Vc5ZYwLvCsSJadzf8dZkUQJ03LC EYEqR27aPQO7wGbqFivGYLEoJ0ewU5kMwRR8+wZHtIfnEQeq1EGEtR9FVN7mCHW4FQ5eNs9apMqJ IMpljtiIscL/1kA+Inj//7Ob+Bq2nL99B7c2NYZwzwy3wv1KDBA8FUkCC3D2MAEe4E2G6K7EII5W IwjUWWEbX7Pi2dJAxgq/kquQ2S03BnGsPoig1u58u7tymSGagNj+CwlLlFoc4tZhRPsrq9u9w5Iv c1+Zj0glDtELIaoeYhFfG07W5TNzjY3InBiDcLDEHEA8K3KEgMsQ2h+RkhyHWBEPIewCRyx5VvAR uUBjEEELITY4ouch+BwRkiJQL5Z2PYTKERU2R3KJEZDNFllUqY5FZEus6M3y3+FrcTwimCPPFvVm BxDvFhChmWvrEBdfSCMRbGHFrUDn28VyzbRUZ6LkuVOjD6swTZ1YRIdfzRuRHHrQM5zcHB9U5k4z zgod/pmh4Pp+R8zecwhw3Gfgd2gxxAa6syLFlK4fv9aukcYOKMEQd0I0WXhnaxkU3JHkGCvunX26 Nv3+yQkfwd3Zgl87DmUjotU211dEkovzxaMbzdpb7xezEYSn4A5V0J2t5v2mLK7qcb740m4Kb/1x XpIj7tzSUcHxhe9OjcYh1LNGZuL9E2/LESvYJ4xccvCf7QWITTeuI+p5QFxejfrCeuojWMRUFqgr xiJQHdeXa96I+ArOEIRMHnsDt0DBHTm2I6HfHMHXqR7Cq/hAL9p0HOK5j2AVX8lHsDwCemGORVAa Dq3lrQCBMxXK+Aod4YsBBM+pWtPs9RFQNF6fEyvryazou9PA0GIIqG9ancr5klTR4gI8iqj2R0SH 9NFH4Ij8gqbsSGhEGGJTW2WIFB2xgxGZwa37TZiqNB0iGJGzuLW1n03bEXvPR5zCre3rQhoESwL7 PoL5ojItpkUs9ucIxIVU1c0y++Qq1aBC3Ql60Q+tsrmpYmil80WpUmtYuw+/vMI60oI5IlU3pFSI LVjHHLB0vob/bOEf3cQIfKPFVCtAoGqlQPA5gq8DROU8TTwiFf5GXuVo06647s2R5IgqpTXQiz8v csSdnODNkdSI5QK+3l0oyTOnaFXnVU7KAL+rdzoMIa+JuXJt6+mcKG4k9gVLAl+g5OwuzIkyuFM3 N67LkpgutNqGDkXv7oK0LW/innKKEamGR2T3eqkicUTSETFDAc4QVz/8DYEh7qcbkUBytAv7p8un cGsr3YjUIIvytKxJlPLzFVsLqRBMclhaZgHOJSedO4NCaef3/oHWBdCLWnlCFqt7qXzx7CakMC+P IOKnfzkn5hKGVtUvlDTTz2ZeGf8k/YgcIGKSJ4H0c8QaTALpRoSpVpAEGCLliLAAD5LAC0tOkJZn cCut5EQLpRk8F51ectzlrQqvciY/OYVxAZIjJZWcaj8JwHqkrU5CMjtFH+rN7esraRHtp1Ad2diR zAuPCJMcFloMUa74CDMBgs2RYh9xjCF+GoxIEgQeHVQ5vCMPghFJgoC4cO0nUcRWagRUOXyyK2SN hdZGMEeSdaTttNsQF9YjsCJ3ii111/1BTYYwyMQiBuYVsOIyJsTmz3ZTI7IlREySE4R8E7cuGvyD hcRxAYgtjoCGV4OTEvwpkS9MHyHs+Qj2zJozVxMiAisy+1FEbjodwgJ3tjlC8TpyXkmFqLUBcZP9 38cUz4oZ1UPQhKHVH5Hc84+n6E+8EUnri+w2Q4ARYtsbkQnpTGIrghEJmj8iyRHE4G+Vvd/+iIxD BHHB3Ykfj/HfbyupEdydAWI26Yh4iANAFKKIS0YqBA5qv70u8d+lpO7sI4Y+4UVI5QvWFImi9En0 ex4Dz9q+AIIfwq9BdF/MCn6Idxnj/ykCFXxFlpScfeAdkg4heghJVAQoQO/ARkXNVLTOwYt0RKQ9 x+0jTGZaUoR6i3Vg0BfAS4DgM1UNxdOxAJGmI2FEtCW2gtL64HOc0iPA5tutS531r4egeDb3oPUZ rR+wb+Bp+kcn8QU2d/CwANEc3DUktLC5P/yIft6/sA6b7R89FlHlWzB+9PNO/aPm5wd1hL0gItI6 /tGJEbdb8M9BsOsFrXBhRDp1Sj+jqRAi3zrUkRQI77J5F7/oza7favV3pfDFsLiGlln42ghs2YQI 5cQICMH0NhYRadbhz5jTIiJNUb42ot/+PyAOl9dD2v+6FVA43+/Khw6JtnGIaJvO/Il86A3pENH2 ys8SILDZIzFk4JurhyKiDW9w+pqISOMXduToYEuBiGsvEUF7iQjaS0TQXiKC9hIRtJeIoP0aI9xh XzMS24Ye+iwrt7N49YbbouPbUMT+NcnkiIVhuwfaUMTesqSXsQJExFhDhiOyD/X9qdfWjPWF3ZUF adghoTYcIVTr+5enN40jC7sfnjtxuLCJtJiOVPWnV8msfmRh/fXXyflhxwRtBCJ7UT+zoE19eCr8 +NQhbTjiWrV5bpqc3H11oVZ43X4RxG5WMs4dnV4FX6zdOye8CAJvFYGlv27vLmhb11+oIx0q+9vS sAMibdxccKUxBySYqfK4A16qVqi9RATt1wRh/xYh4Z/fhZ/TsAabOkcI/QEhz5YI+c8fw5qMuOQo yfRXeRm+/a0jsOlt/xtsH8kIbBt/hND2RGj7eOYI+40fRZ2E934Dfp/9jJBvho75zdD2tzz+X8HP K97xOTj+1cw32N+Pwc+3ve2T8PPb3nsFz9b/AVBLAwQUAAAACACYgnEjV6mwBRAPAAC9TwAADAAA AEEmWkZpZzZiLnRpZu2cX2zcyHnAh6K61BXqUjqj7Sq3Z8o4IFsUKSzfFtUuIpt2L7hLiuD83odE dwaspzZ2FqhkWCdSp8JKAUHr6z1UQmWzL0VfE9zDNahzy40M7RVQl328oqmXyl61CBpU3GPjJSua 0/mG5C73n/ZPHPd80Qfw45D8fppvvhl+nCHX/sY3fh+xVxFCC/E/RX93h6nv8a+LCD0tOstP+d42 HeWnV3vbdJTPvmPMoN7CdADVnhRIO3hV7Qmhsd+02kG+ADsblCuBLoEy6UV6XAHltHLY9MAnoDqD NVDtIMYN0DMsgepd41MEFVDPtMYSqMFAL6oKqL7BwfuxvcYSqMFqHKaNzxs4dHCeUVRD9+NAoPtL goO30eV/3JKZmCBDNZ1tBxNqMzfNyl4hRvVMTJ03+NzJrg4YVXph6Bv52Y/VZ5+snmkb6YXnKAPQ J+7QCfn5GABDgMqw4NNIVsOAw9SojgtBomL/qUT3o/4x98SAXVw0RtvBcJZjf9ACYh12rogftINc Y8hhEZQGymwcd5uStbUxBNLjbqBCG39CcLpOAkOgCKoEakCQGpZADQaeNF+VcJu01tg5OBJuk0ZU SX/hphrpcT81UsMSqBDoDTkJt0moH6lhCdSAIL1aAtWPq08NVEANGBx6tQSqtTu8Lm6WE/pRBNW3 q32DJ7gqguoGasOC2WHBtnlOaxu7jRwe8tE8apHJy35BwIeIJfs20KVgm0yqfkHCFfQSYuc61NhI uN5t1a+r4ahSwxKoYfpxsAHgJSN6tQTqadRIr/czyEugnsZY7Zo6Orp6TI9FUP3cj9SwBKoV7NvV 48bxMKAI6pfrx75zzjDBORkM+dzXIAeQNscSBwcNOLSVk8FOrlaUJpBvjWrXNlY0rHPVOsj1HRxN wwbfABc6gp3aqMGVBlgowxUHP5bR/LRI0hPPS+oErFvZ6qxgIZiYYWPUAw0u1MZwloNl7vhITKYH 7Pen6Z6A/xrxQd4DLZL9hDL+CfoKCY56CVw78l1dp65WiSoHrlaKQhBVA4l+cLyoiqC84HD0WMeN NirlHZ7UJVDwktjUHXXQvZ2BwSXuh0EjxQcjh8ZutwPoxJLEpCwWQ6BoLVE36pJvgFIAWjGOtCZ/ aTwMurE6CG3Hqw1QJNs6gPbfZvFx7pNLeasOEnSs/vaXDlsKeq4nycZS8N8VbF2KxfPmzQAkf9qp g//LBWCVgkwAWhMiNuZY9B+1+SAhg09iANL2/RUUzBxcHQ9AZ0bE5tQ6ejn/raBGG4dljWzbUDAE MIdXIa+UyJ3lTjD4M+Z9xHwSxTVohisdhzkLnF6tg5aMvRrX3a/vY0O/e1OWkWCuUtAMg9S8ARpj EnYBPOP8rIj1T9HSHTTP6ZmJJRLTShMINTZchRFIwaT6s32sj0/NnI8nPti1X50RW8DjfACaFJRF jNMadl8l9wQBEYrGuQ+2rdk/IqAWBqmbnqt8GERoYkJS5S0Zvaye+6H94XkCKmHOqvej76pAg+Mw o8xfi/m9ix8jRkXb6vcXRHcFDLxEhv3xcg9KphIC3ZuIWRdX9y7uI1VGu++mVKEVJBsfAhmiJ8FV Jr8uPiTJQP9j9J+1D1NnzrsrdLhpv/BA6FRutQGy5C9OkSjEXlFTUnH8a+g6ih9wf/Mi96FfY1YN wBxOhNoINW4TODa5iXBx/A8Ql0Rvv0GyDgElCm7QHbbJsE3cq4MW6Ue8SlydQNGvSZ9+ZfTFxdkx FLmyl+T8h44miHQPPZ7wUlqwSG2SkRuvjDed4EQPtBpgfxKAIJzc3U6OkBnpPz9EC/jBJekjsA6B 2cbIsSA40I9o/quI3GRX1MjIa/PsQ5UTgwdrCPQzgID94HAAqikkOat/tisXOMTI3LtCAzSPAtDL AAqArODXeHmGk5782zSr7nLxFOLs+qP8/qy6J/jgvXqNBoCzAI4gTnK2EHsHoXiKZVJ1UJ4t3pfC oEXBwNURbj4iOSQ6fArF0IUbM3VX1dniG6IPrjZAViFpCGok03fsXP/m/F5KZZNLN1QAadLCZvGa 4oM0k9tZoAHcJiArM1FsRb5pqGgrubWE0N1lgc8bjsjj6sN3v+2Du3XQeUugg9xlR17YxLZ8dh6h MXYEyeiTZZHftR2Jx8bBruCDNJlYcOROi76rKL5BQB4GwcTImHw/F4xVHJIGiCPYA0dR7ALpVRW9 cPdtCM9Dwb1FbbMBRB+0UPAeOt7NSmqMcEkyclAkfddIkbF+mXOXpSYQKgqBnA9OcByLnZHI9BxZ PMVXi8lZd1mEa6U6yIdBl/VBUtcCds8c3oij8YN/2VUXP2wFjWYwGYA3Li+QfK7P8J/F3jpYlzNt NTaD2AdxdASRC2sWgnmOyu3c4Py8Ggaz5Qbou4rHuMhVKMgl6zx57MRfTbQkZGwJTdMVPziYEQ7p Wbnk4n0R/9YsTx4BrgCndJcaOQJOdJiusDkPvCMcYVXEqzPE1YpToKDnFpFKE6h+B8C1i4hTsVqN xOEbBCbZfFyq2HSU73mPLS5naXqnbDMBiszsZtD4nStbqDwimaYJs5QiBR1WsQR9F4wgPX6dEcf4 /+Zhxp5agL97l0/j/ah0/GCXzAEIqEo+aDE5LHRoI8ZbFHyw8D5Wv4yPP2JdySIgZuQ36YPSdjpP Ao/wuwkoflRZwwcGeagR0AFwFxfpHz5uGeQBuIZ36Xj/iD+C6ZclJYmhSacPRekk8D1/Tp4DvEYu wrPDNuHeKNL3PTbYdwC3AxBjby6XJaBVYFWW9COAlt0ZXA2D4KFLQDcKXa/T1YfDdAbXwqCMoghB myhYpSfpuOsAVsKgCkMBwEIw2Hzp2I+hBUuZtMvL5P2DOVA1aCUF1wcF8QkLz85gSKTWEyeuWE+W /mrsIL8KsFQ3yuF2OQHUWkybptdad9BsBo+bwWw3cO0n+VXDeAtzi2uF9QeTVb1qmPiRoAjKSSCk iZ28rN+47EYSzNpaCunqW3rGiUcjLEdtLb6MjxbNibEr4SR3+YrMT+2UN16/sOcmuPh2Nr13/fXM YcZ5Z/+6uUhBgy51p5uTI3Nc3ZeYndrm1WTZZbNzjJIuXn7zNqlxefyxSdMRdjh4dtQ6tJHZMR9d TZKU74PabTXjOAT0XG1/oReAF2mNzsoiNyfk0sWr2m0t49g/f2xKHti1Hye/V955I/npypcTsfdJ jde1TJGA+4fXZk8CSTJi1IP7ekaXIhlmjdQ4r91SbztWtOZHtXuN6+XqI6N2gDcxW8CQbJ4c0Puy pvQAGyKGD9yFoNTN1YaI4QMceNoH2EV+FfdjDtQwySoH6tmD9O7tBIYmSCKovsFn7+qwYNdkhXu4 2uWdFT3OgeoGdnxn5Y/VHKgurrpQYw47tfzCoiKSxzaZsMsIxURJwqUY4qpkUkTOPm4DjYTeyG6Q 7M5Gydof3XLJE5EsczmT1OiMsu01WolDst6HT7uvtLeRHneL6tDBGbo7nqfb6vMHNtrY9CT/QrXx KYClJu45crXnbdUN7Jys+nC1ZwZogLU+wT9ZEYjx/8DPlOeLBJSaOIurkER1Tq5nuij8Mk/4ANMk ef67skxWvWM6gKVmMFEGcwrC144xSbtgSZ6rxyLowFUXN8vQWa5/MNcM9n8jS83c5zDLPUcJ+Tl6 6AwG2vQ4B+oL28beoNkzy3UBy8NmALP5TWCNgke46uJf2Cr7zrkgh7WByYSO+pFW0O0XbK2QuKqH r98lG1P9DLztISbfy6KbKD0tTuX/SWDYet8ZoiLouITJ6r9ASjmr3Zp+KFmDcWDBxxZrhli7owIp bo4RvJqHb8Zn4WyL0E8zDAcMfN6xpikIN9fGFYWA+y+R43hSbAPpd6uJBFHGNoDX6+D+gQIvb9Ok uDPbDoI1Nq4RpUPRSADIULAMoA3gdgfwHqgfZ4hSAazC7yJc1KixDOBWB1dpjXcWA9C+A+A0BfMA Fs4AeEZqA2kbIxAcnQYHbnZ3FKK8PyZAxCCqSreo0rc7Tr07cJQguDgukn7MQz/6SalJvH5UQNMB cLvd5FSeijzRkr2NWgW6fqww2dOuVegHulgh3dOwVZybRMUrg4P0G8jctVs9DVuFgpdeW+pp2CqW nSMgsnsatoplKwSMDQMSJQ4BOlVXxGK6Qx7tIU5mS8DijwYHXW5bIdOPwUEMoOD9rmkwyRMwOwxY JeBwMjQ4pfQ0OZVTOZVTOZVTOZVT+RzIEwyvnUDDOxqbvqeRmk1qroQtib50Og7OKRSpeMs/ACsd wMcrEjYECrZ8KNI8UPNBrQU8BNB7IeSB4BZ9L0ZAx11Z4S3LPjp+ZK63/JjoUBKDn5uYOFerHBQK a4/OvmzgtTVrzlhKpXhj5lbF3jSzL7WAHIBsXuOMmbMcu6rusuzO+EVdYgpWvJyejGXLiXTF3jC1 lmVMkRWJq8xqkYBxjp96WEjyO3++XMRpzdwpxIwpraKnK85fmlrLMqaYAfDCveKi+YP7rCBnDxll 59Ky5i5rpqNtzZzxwHOm1rJ+PiRgVWPWipJpbrIiUg5Z5X7UBwv3z5ha5R9+WHEutNUIoLnHHBSl srlxTYwph2JO2VsurlBXv/ree1o5me4MSgS89Y/E1fc3ymJqv5AUdvbmHkpTmhHXU7EYRPXIzZiF VldZCVfvnPteMWGc2SCuqmVW2Im+rGNWs+b0pdScYHVeox1GyACI0qgmNzgR5cvruUfCxSouYEc6 xt3FdMmSSsru4uyT9s8hp/LrIf4/+SIjQKYFqe1bbBexOLojuUmWoCD2C9qFHOwIuAn5QRP7Bisi 0aWfH2PlAubX1zndOiv0YKjYh7yxdJaTdbw543LMOqPeiAs9KQxtFPRUlEUqlm+6C2ltqpjZ0npj 8Ls5sZLez5DbXrZdidHSm8lP+nppb2FRT+9X59TXsraDCajMftwXaGNRTe+bcw93Fdt101r6/ux2 bwpTsEDAVBET8LsELGZ2+mqjjQU1XYTgKJY7whTS/UbVxlk9XYTuUCzMM5V3DqxviT0pDE/UUpU8 Tvvy7lS+IPL6lxAKtimE0LfJ/u//ECEeuWi0/n8FIcYrf0wU45ffJmqEYWkZNjZUjoTKUWbE+3kC 2SYJC/9CvfYmQi+GbH47VP4d/+//Bdl+17f/L2L/JeY36PkXyPaSX54k2+/5LOu7+n9QSwECMgsU AAAACABygnEjOWY8Y3oqAADxvQAACwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtoEAAAAAQSZaRmlnNS50aWZQSwECMgsU AAAACACYgnEjV6mwBRAPAAC9TwAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtoGjKgAAQSZaRmlnNmIudGlmUEsFBgAA AAACAAIAcwAAAN05AAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_01BCF37A.A91C5FE0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:37:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27877; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:31:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:31:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:31:11 -0800 Message-Id: <199711172231.OAA28655 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"SDvqy2.0.Vp6.7NCSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12903 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 10:14 AM 11/17/97, Martin Sevior wrote: >>On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 Tstolper aol.com wrote: >>> >>> A question for Martin Sevior or Michael Schaffer (or any other physicist who >>> might be reading Vortex-L): what happens when the proton of hydrogen >>> captures the electron? I've heard that this capture occurs from time to >>> time, since there's a finite, non-zero probability for the event. >>> >>If you mean: >> >>e- + p => n + neutrino >> >>This reaction does not occur in free space because it is endothermic. >> >>It occurs inside Supernovae after all the nuclear fuel has been exhasted and >>if Gravitational energy is sufficient to drive the reaction. >> In "free space" there are energetic electrons and other particles due to the presence of cosmic rays. Thus, even in free space this process will occur from time to time. But it is due to the nucleus , ie the proton, being bombarded by an energetic particle. An energetic electron could blast into the nucleus, blast out a neutrino and form a neutron, at which point the other electron if in the valence would fly away due to a lack of positive charge nearby, or if you had a free proton ion, then you would now have a free neutron. This process can manifest in accelerators, and no doubt occurs all the time in our atmosphere. Though the numbers of reactions are fairly low I would guess, we still are able to detect lots of reactions from cosmic rays via the particles such as muons that are emitted, or via Cerenkov radiation from relativistic particles coming into the atmosphere where c is slower than out in free space. This is how high energy astrophysics gets a substantial amount of information, using ground telescopes to monitor the particles and or the Cerenkov light emissions. As for what is going on, IMO, it is very simple. What we call particles are soliton like standing wave structures locked to spacetime which is an acoustic resonant manifold of standing waves in aether. For simplicity I have described the manifold of spacetime as being like a dual black and white checkerboard, and have been gathering evidence for the past three years trying to see if only particles could be made with quadrature, or whether spacetime itself was a quadrature acoustic structure. I am now convinced that spacetime itself is a quadrature structure and am laying out the geometry of those motions, or vortices as they are often called. This allows soliton structures to phase synchronize to spacetime at 0, 90, 180, or 270 degree resonant orientations to an arbitrary spacetime 0 reference. I have selected what we today call, "positive" charge to be that zero degree reference phase angle. Thus, electrons resonate at 180 degrees phase angle and the neutrinos at 90 and 270 degrees. Phase like resonances repulse, phase opposite "attract" as was established by Thomson and Bjerknes in the 1870's. The difference here is that neutrinos are identical in structure to electrons with the sole exception that they are coupled to spacetime at phase angles orthogonal to the electron and positron resonances. Orthogonal resonances neither attract nor repulse one another (again established in the 1870's), and so in our thinking we say they are "neutral". This neutral notion misses an extremely important point, though. It misses the ability of neutrinos to attract and repulse other neutrinos, and thus their ability to annihilate one another just like electron positron annihilation. Therefore, we should see an excess of gamma ray energy coming from every direction in which neutrinos should be interacting, and that is about every direction on the sky, with an excess toward the center of the galaxy. And what do we see? A lot of gamma radiation in every direction. Normally, you don't learn about this because when they make their images, they back out the "background" and are only interested in strong identifiable sources. This eliminates noise issues etc., but it also eliminates any disperse signals. Toward the galactic core and in a fountain above the core, recent images show too much of an excess to be accounted for and so they have now declared that there is a fountain of e-e+ annihilation gammas coming from above the galactic pole. The model I am working on would allow those to exist if the BH core were breaching or had recently breached confinement shooting out through the low pressure tornados at the poles. But that is another story. The neutrino gammas are not currently anticipated because neutrinos are not thought to be massive. But if matter consists of soliton structures, then they must be identical in mass to the electron family of e, muon, and tauon. the electron family of solitons are simply three different sizes of resonances timed to the same phase angle and with the same spherical geometry for their standing wave structures which are simply distortions to the spacetime structure. You can look into the solar neutrino deficit mystery for annihilation from neutrinos produced in the sun (inside the sun prior to their expanding as they head out, so don't look for a lot of neutrino gammas to appear in the direction of the sun since any emitted inside will be scattered to lower energies prior to exit. And you can look into the latest gamma ray observations that are turning up ghostly halo's of gamma rays all around the Milky Way which are not accounted for and are coming from disperse, unknown sources. And then look into the dark matter problem for yet more information as to the effect of that mass on our local gravitational behaviors. As for the structure of the proton, it is composed of 9 muon resonances, 2 at each of the above phase angles with an extra resonance at 0 degrees to give the proton its net surplus of one positive charge. (all of the other 8 muon resonances cancel out if you are far out away from the proton, but if you are in close, then the structure of the standing wave energy becomes more important. This is similar to the notion of a proton seeming to be neutral from afar when it has an electron in a valence, despite the fact that in close there is a definite dipole.) What I am saying is that the interferogram of the 9 muon resonances leads to 18 regions around the nucleus when you are in close, each region being wave energy timed to one of the 4 possible phase angles. And so when you have a neutrino blast into or out of the nucleus, what you really have is as simple as an electron at a different phase angle of resonance. So when you have a neutrino blast in or out of a nucleus, all you are doing is throwing one clump of standing wave energy at a certain phase angle and blasting out a different clump of similar energy. We call those, particles. and solitons are indeed, like particles in the sense that they have a spherical field of waves around them, they have a central convergence point about which the soliton motions move, or precess. And so what you do is by sending in an electron resonance and blasting out a neutrino resonance you are bumping one of the internal muon resonances over 90 degrees in phase angle when you have a proton "capture" an electron. And the net is that you shift the third 0 degree resonance over to either 90 or 270 degrees phase angle and the proton is magically now a neutron. But it doesn't have a "neutral" charge in the sense that we think today. ie, today, we know that neutrally charged particles do not interact with other charged particles. But what I am saying is that "neutral" particles must attract other "neutral" particles if they are their opposite phase angle kin. today we would call these neutrons and anti neutrons so that we get the annihilation property from the wierd concept anti matter. But when you work with this structure, it will become clear to you that if neutrons have charge, that their charge would lead you to expect to find approximately balanced numbers of 90 and 270 degree neutrons in nuclei. And indeed, when you go check it out for yourself, you will find that the table of the isotopes is replete with a much greater number of nuclei with even numbers of neutrons than with odd numbers of neutrons. Why? Simple, the nuclei with odd numbers of neutrons have in addition to the net positive charge, a net "neutral" charge at either 90 or 270 degrees phase angle and will thus attract other neutrons to balance out that charge. Normally, an electron is not going to get near the nucleus because of all of the pockets of excess positive charge wave energy surrounding the nucleus. Those pockets form in a holographic manner analogous to the way phased array radar beams form constructive and destructive nodes along a line selected by the beam geometry. For the nucleus, the nodal structure is more like a true hologram with pockets of the various wave energies here and there forming into balloon like regions we call valences today. Close in to the nucleus, these regions splinter off from the 9 muons into 18 sectors. For an electron to penetrate in closer to the nucleus without getting stuck in outer valence regions requires greater and greater energies. And finally, when the electron soliton blasts into the interior of the nucleus, it can blast one of the muon resonances to an adjacent phase orientation, thus changing the net phase angle of the proton or nucleon resonance. Well, enough for today. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:50:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04031; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:45:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:45:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:44:15 -0800 Message-Id: <199711172244.OAA30151 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: ZPE Resent-Message-ID: <"3dEaF2.0.s-.oZCSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12904 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The idea was to have ZPE induced Casimir >force to compressionally discharge the piezos and use the elastomeric to >cyclically reset the system to generate a current. > >Either the device suffers from terminal inventor's disease or it doesn't work. > Never heard anything more about it. I want to say the idea was presented at a >past conference and was a multi-layered device to amplify the effect. Does >this ring any bells with anyone? Did anyone ever follow up on the idea? I've never heard of a device that worked or failed (ie was constructed to test the idea). I worked the idea over really hard a long while back and after studying the equations of the force curve and the phenomena based on my ideas and on others ideas. I concluded that the casimir effect would never prove to be a practical device and that I found no manner to get it to even potentially work. One method I had considered, and which showed potentially the best promise, was a sort of breath stroke approach. Allow the two plates to approach one another and give off work in the process, then slide the plates along a parallel plane apart from one another, then increase the interplanar separation distance, then slide in co-planar direction again so that the plates are once again above one another, then allow the plates to approach one another again and derive work from them a second time. Presumably, but taking work out while the plates are facing each other the Casimir effect will apply, but sliding the plates horizontally would do not work since d wasn't changing, and then increasing d when the plates were not facing one another should require no work. The problem was that it appears that sliding the plates horizontally will require work due to the geometries of the atoms and wave reflections other than perfectly normal to the mirrors. thus, it was concluded that the path integral led to the expectation that no net work could be removed from such a device. No one ever tried it to my knowledge, and the practical limitations are huge. To get any appreciable force you need to get really close, and then the distance you can apply that work over is really tiny. Though as a consolation prize, I recall the force parameter was a fourth power factor, so precision is paid back well. That said, and being the owner of a machine shop and engineering company, precision comes with a price tag and generally with an increase in frictional losses. So, I concluded that whether or not ZPE could in theory be tapped (and it appeared not), that no net work would be attained from any real practical device due to other losses, and, that any such attempt would require lapping and tremendous precesion in fabrication. Such is accompanied by high costs, so even attempting it was not practical. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 14:55:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA32633; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:53:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:53:11 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117175000.006ae0a8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:50:00 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Response to Jed Rothwell's false statements - part I In-Reply-To: <199711171644_MC2-2887-1699 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"GtsGF2.0.jz7.LhCSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12905 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:40 PM 11/17/97 -0500, Jed wrote: >Mitchell Swartz writes: > > I presented a method to improve the possible calibration and accuracy of > VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRY. Mr. Rothwell will hear nothing of it. > >I have heard quite a bit about it. I do not understand the theory. The claim >posted here by Swartz is that it might produce a spurious 1-watt signal in a >McKubre style flow calorimeter, or a false kilowatt signal in the type of >calorimeter operated by CETI. I do not think so. I think the calibrations >performed with these calorimeter prove that is incorrect. > No. The vertical calorimetry amplifies the result AND can give a spurious signal. One power calibration is the ability to heat a beaker of water (i.e. static calorimetry). It does NOT work in that mode, confirming the amplification effect. ====================================================================== > The calibrations and null runs with Pt, Fe and the like do not show this effect. >The excess heat is only seen with Ni or Pd cathodes. Therefore I do not think >it can be caused by faulty calorimetry. I do not see how changing the metal in >the cathode can produce such a dramatic change in buoyancy. The effect is due to Bernard instability, and results from the vertical mass transfer from differential density f(temperature). ====================================================================== > Milliwatt-watt signals become "kilowatts". > >I think that is impossible, and so do all of the scientists I have asked. > Really? Has Dr. Miley seen kilowatts, or does he report milliwatts-watts? Excuse me, but Mr. Rothwell STILL hasnt explained WHY it decreases or goes away from the "kilowatt" levels in HORIZONTAL systems. ====================================================================== >I wrote that experts like Bockris and McKubre say Swartz is wrong. He >responds: > > This is not true. Dr. McKubre did NOT confirm this to me when I spoke > with him. > >Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Perhaps we asked McKubre different >questions. Swartz should ask McKubre whether he believes there could be an >undetected 1-watt error in McKubre's calorimeter because of "Buoyancy >Transport Corrections." That is what I asked him. He answered no, >emphatically. There was inaccuracy by Mr. Rothwell, both before AND after apparently. There is an amplification factor, NOT an increment. ====================================================================== >He said the same thing I say here: there can't be; it would >show up during calibration. There is an amplification factor, not an increment. It could NOT show up if there is no excess heat. Simple mathematics, even if the Bernard continuum electromechanics is not. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 15:08:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07395; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:04:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:04:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117170217.0073ccc0 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:02:17 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: 50% reliability!!! In-Reply-To: <199711171644_MC2-2887-1697 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"TVSMI3.0.Tp1.2sCSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12906 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 16:40 11/17/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Scott seems to believe that anything he cannot do, cannot be done. and >If Storms gets 90% of his cells to work Scott Little will revise his standards >again to demand that 95% work. Jed, you've got this so wrong it's ludicrous. All I said was that my own failure to observe it has contributed to my concern over the validity of the CF excess heat effect. That's it. Period. I know it's a concern you don't share. I promise not to rant and rave about your beliefs. Please drop your ridiculous extrapolations of mine. >Storms and Pons get easily detected heat more often than not, ~50 to 80% of >the time. Now you've really got my attention! In Jan of this year, I met with Ed Storms and he told me that, even after his selection process, only about 1 out of 20 cathodes showed any sign of excess heat. Has something changed recently? I further got the impression that these events were so few and far between that Ed's instrumentation was rarely set up the same way for two successive excess heat events. In such a situation one must be especially wary of systematic errors. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 15:15:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07594; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:05:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:05:40 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711142138.QAA28764 relay1.smtp.psi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:57:58 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"B-a1S2.0.as1.0tCSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12907 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: George Holtz mentions another experiment, > Also in the section Experiments and Validation / Detail on Technology >etc. > - PART 3 / Example 10 an isothermal calorimeter was used maintaining >external reaction vessel wall temperatures at 280C and avoiding the >problem with the water bath calorimeter technique. The >vessel was maintained at a constant temperature by a cartridge heater. >The required heater power was reduced as required to compensate >for increased energy coming from the cell. Excess power of 49 watts >was observed , 41 watts to the filament maintained 280C vs 90 watts > required by the cartridge heater to attain this temperature with the >filament off. This experiment was done at BLP so it, of course, is not an independent validation. The results are impressive and there are no obvious problems with the calorimetry. The two questions I have are: Why are there not independent replications as good as this, and why has not the device been operated in the self-run mode? The Carnot Cycle efficiency at these higher temperatures is high enough so that the heat energy can be converted to electrical energy with some excess electrical power left over after powering the filament input. The self-run test is all important, and the only acceptable excuse for not doing it is that the device does not function as claimed. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 15:22:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06414; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:18:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:18:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3470DCE7.6CCB aeneas.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:10:15 -0600 From: Mark Mansfield Reply-To: mmans aeneas.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Arthur Clark Invention? References: <19971115225508588.AAA174 default> <346E48EF.6ADD@keelynet.com> <346F7EB9.7D99@itl.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lIK0D.0.3a1.t2DSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12908 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Nick, Is the Potapov Cavitation Tube info available on the web anywhere? Thanks, Mark From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 16:01:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16223; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:57:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:57:05 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:56:24 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3473cfd9.6587810 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971117080512.006b0338 world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971117080512.006b0338 world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"csSyy.0.Oz3.GdDSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12911 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:05:12 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > Cold fusion came out in 1989 with about 10 watts/cm3 power density >and is now two orders of magnitude greater in power density >with nuclear ash demonstrated as helium-4 (mainly), and much lesser >amounts of helium-3, tritium, and very low level ~10 keV radiation. [snip] Hi Mitchell, I wonder if you could expand a little on the "~10 keV radiation". References to most journals is useless in my case, as it appears our local university libraries go out of their way to avoid carrying any journals with CF papers (mainstream physics journals excepted). E.g. Fusion Technology is AFAIK only available at 1 (one) university in Australia (in Sydney; I live a plane trip away in Melbourne - equates roughly to the distance between LA and Fr'isco). 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 16:02:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17007; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:57:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:57:33 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:56:21 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3471cbcc.5551143 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <01bcf307$0d826020$LocalHost default> In-Reply-To: <01bcf307$0d826020$LocalHost default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"j2MDi3.0.c94.gdDSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12909 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:15:27 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >the electrons with the release of 256 Kev. Uptake of negative Light Leptons >by the protons-deuterons could release as much >as 35 Mev as EUV plus gammas. Hi Fred, I wonder if you could run that 35 MeV calculation past us. (Sorry if I missed it previously). 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 16:02:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17018; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:56:22 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3472ccbb.5789375 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <01bcf339$b2779c80$LocalHost default> In-Reply-To: <01bcf339$b2779c80$LocalHost default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RpipZ.0.q94.hdDSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12910 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:17:58 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >If you take a reaction path: > >2 KNO3 + C + 3 H2 ----> K2CO3 + N2 + 3H2O you >will get about 4,773 Joule of energy exotherm >for each gram of KNO3 reated with each 0.06 gram of carbon and 0.03 gram of >hydrogen. > >With 15 cc of material(KNO3) at 2.0 grams/cc >that's 30*4,773 = 143,190 Joule of energy released beyond whatever >electrical energy was >put into the experiment. Ok, that's a nice calculation that shows the maximum amount of chemical energy that went in...... > >At about 0.75 ft-lbs/joule the 1.05E5 ft-lbs released could raise a 175 >pound human cannonball 600 feet into the air. :-) ...but you neglect to compare it with what came out?? [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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 16:08:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18458; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:06:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:06:18 -0800 Message-Id: <3470D5FD.D0ABC65F verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:40:45 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: About the T.T.Brown Electrokinetic References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0LTAf3.0.EW4.ulDSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12912 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > From you AVI and the descriptions, it appears that the device moves in the > direction of the positively charged wire. A few questions: Hi Rick, What I am seeing ionizing wires are at front of the panels respect to rotating direction. Device is symmetrical to polarities. There will ne no change when polarities swaps. I wrote a long detailed letter about Q&A posting of Naudin including summaries of previous important questions and suggestion to better understand the effect. But did not posted, because I have doubt that they will be considered scientifically. All these efforts, experiments, pictures, animations, dialogs are nice and appears fruitful, but weak scientific methods does not allow to put an other brick on our knowledge. Disappointed. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 16:31:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21331; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:22:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:22:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3470FC4F.5572 keelynet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:24:15 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE References: <971117133853_-691810601 mrin54.mail.aol.com> <971117131333.ZM15667@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"J7qz73.0.DD5.R_DSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12913 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi John! The device you mention, two plates separated by an elastic medium are the cells that Win Lambertsen stacks together to increase the overall power output...had a chance to examine one of these and it looked like crystals were imbedded in the elastic medium...Win said he could not provide more information because he was working on his patent apps... Lambertsen is located in Florida and said he originally used incandescent lights 100W bulbs...but the ZPE has fluctations which cause serious power variations....this would pop the tungsten elements in the bulbs.... To overcome this, Lambertsen went to using sodium lamps which produced a plasma and could easily absorb the variations. I think this observation that others have also noted when trying to tap ZPE directly, rather than through a capacitor/battery network to serve as a power fluctuation filter......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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 16:37:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24594; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:31:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:31:33 -0800 Message-ID: <3470FE93.6C88 keelynet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:33:55 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Arthur Clark Invention? References: <19971115225508588.AAA174 default> <346E48EF.6ADD@keelynet.com> <346F7EB9.7D99@itl.net> <3470DCE7.6CCB@aeneas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RBQjA.0.406.Z7ESq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12914 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Mark! Try Potapov info at Patrick Baileys INE site; http://www.padrak.com/~ine -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 17:22:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00600; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:18:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:18:49 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:44:35 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf3bb$24c5ada0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"FEWmA1.0.H9.tpESq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12915 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Mills' catalyst >On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:17:58 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>If you take a reaction path: >> >>2 KNO3 + C + 3 H2 ----> K2CO3 + N2 + 3H2O you >>will get about 4,773 Joule of energy exotherm >>for each gram of KNO3 reated with each 0.06 gram of carbon and 0.03 gram of >>hydrogen. >> >>With 15 cc of material(KNO3) at 2.0 grams/cc >>that's 30*4,773 = 143,190 Joule of energy released beyond whatever >>electrical energy was >>put into the experiment. > >Ok, that's a nice calculation that shows the maximum amount of >chemical energy that went in...... >> >>At about 0.75 ft-lbs/joule the 1.05E5 ft-lbs released could raise a 175 >>pound human cannonball 600 feet into the air. :-) > >...but you neglect to compare it with what came out?? True, Robin. I don't have a handle on what came out, or how it was measured-calculated. I was only showing how many reaction artifacts were possible with an oxidizer and carbon-hydrogen as well as reaction with the tungsten heater. Regards, Frederick >[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! >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 17:31:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02803; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:28:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:28:50 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:15:36 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf3bf$79b5ec40$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Me-Ma.0.jh.HzESq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12916 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter >On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:15:27 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>the electrons with the release of 256 Kev. Uptake of negative Light Leptons >>by the protons-deuterons could release as much >>as 35 Mev as EUV plus gammas. >Hi Fred, > >I wonder if you could run that 35 MeV calculation past us. (Sorry if I >missed it previously). I think you can calculate the potential energy from W = k*q^2/r. Since one of the"quarks" in a proton has a rest mass of about 312 Mev it's radius r is k*q^2/w = 4.61E-18 meters. Then by a leap of faith since a 13.6 ev electron "orbits" at 5.29E-11 meters the magic number 137^3 (1/alpha^3)times 13.6 ev gives an energy of 35 Mev and a "coupling radius" of 4.11E-17 meters. The binding energy of 35 Mev for a 312 Mev "quark" in a proton seems about right. In other words a "swallowed" Light Lepton or electron will have a relativistic mass of: Mrel = Mo[(q*V/Mo*c^2)+1] = 6.31E-29 Kg. Equating Fc = Mrel*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/R^2 Fc = 5.682E-12/4.11E-17 = 1.38E5 nt. Fes = 2.3E-28/4.11E-17 = 1.36E5 nt Close enough for a stable hydrino or WIMP? :-) Regards, Frederick > >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! >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 17:35:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03061; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:31:55 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3470EFD9.6412 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:31:05 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 50% reliability!!! References: <3.0.1.32.19971117170217.0073ccc0 mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dO7_A.0.jl.80FSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12917 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > At 16:40 11/17/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >Scott seems to believe that anything he cannot do, cannot be done. > just to reiterate, for the 10^9th time, we all acknowledge that there are many technological artifacts that we as individuals could never hope to duplicate on our own, during ourlifetime. Soemthing as simply as a commercial quality ballpoint pen could easily occupy me for the rest of my life if I had to start from scratch. However, the converse is that there are few---if any---basic scientific principles that cannot be demostrated with simple equipment that an individual could put together for a few thousand dollars and a few hundred hours of effort. For example, I can' make the pen, but I can demonstrate capillary action, lubrication and the formation of inks and dyes pretty easily. Moreover, in cold fusion it is not an issue of starting from scratch, as certain individuals are supposed to have it mastered and can therefore guide us and provide us with the primary ingredeients, were they so inclined.... -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 17 18:43:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13750; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:40:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:40:14 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:34:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: A little help ...Re: ZPE In-Reply-To: <3470FC4F.5572 keelynet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KB6i41.0.hM3.C0GSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12918 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Jerry and Vo., How long has W. Lambertsen been doing the work? Do you know where in Florida he is? John On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Jerry wrote: > Hi John! > > The device you mention, two plates separated by an elastic medium are the > cells that Win Lambertsen stacks together to increase the overall power > output...had a chance to examine one of these and it looked like crystals > were imbedded in the elastic medium...Win said he could not provide more > information because he was working on his patent apps... > > Lambertsen is located in Florida and said he originally used incandescent > lights 100W bulbs...but the ZPE has fluctations which cause serious power > variations....this would pop the tungsten elements in the bulbs.... > > To overcome this, Lambertsen went to using sodium lamps which produced > a plasma and could easily absorb the variations. > > I think this observation that others have also noted when trying to tap > ZPE directly, rather than through a capacitor/battery network to serve as > a power fluctuation filter......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 > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 00:21:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA03534; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:15:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:15:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:14:37 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971117135454.006af67c world.std.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"XEU6C2.0.7t.PwKSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12919 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Zero point energy is generally regarded as the half point vibrational > energy in matter in conventional science. > > > BTW, let us separate the two for a gendanken moment. > > ZPE(conventional, half vibrational state) = ZPEc > > ZPE(vacuum) = ZPEv > Mitch, you appear to know about Solid State Physics but some aspects of Quantum Mechanics appear to have missed you. The effects of zero point energy in the Vaccuum have been extremely well measured and there is absolutely no question that it has real measurable effects. The Casimir force attraction between two dielectics has been well measured originally in the 1950's. The Lamb shift of energy levels in the Hydrogen Atom due to the efffects of zero point energy of the vacuum was originally measured in 1946 and led directly to the development of Quantum ElectroDynamics. Finally the general topic of Quantum Field Theory has a very complex vacuum structure that has many direct and measurable consequnences. In fact the effect of Zero Point Energy effects on the value of the magnetic moment of the electron has been measured to well over 8 significant figures. On the question of extraction of large scale energy from the vacuum, conventional science is rather skeptical, but there is no doubt that zero point energy in the vacuum is absolutely main stream. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 00:54:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA07681; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:49:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:49:12 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118034601.006b3d44 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:46:01 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971117135454.006af67c world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"TJn043.0.xt1.7QLSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12920 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE A digest of physics news items prepared by Phillip F. Schewe, AIP Public Information Number 159 January 6, 1994 NEW LAMB SHIFT MEASUREMENTS DISAGREE WITH QED, the theory of quantum electrodynamics. Ironically, QED was devised in the 1950s to explain the Lamb shift (named after Willis Lamb), the slight shift in the energy of an electron bound to a nucleus due to energy fluctuations in the vacuum, which can create electron-positron pairs or virtual photons seemingly out of nothing. Researchers at the Max Planck Institut for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany have determined experimentally that the Lamb effect should cause the energy of an electron in the lowest energy state, the 1S state, to be shifted upward by 8172.86 Mhz for the hydrogen atom and 8184.00 MHz in the deuterium atom, values which disagree with QED's predictions of 8173.12 MHz for hydrogen and 8184.13 MHz for deuterium, even when the uncertainties are taken into account. In what they have called "the most stringent test of QED for a bound atom to date," the researchers employed the latest advances in laser and optical spectroscopy to make the measurements of the 1S Lamb shift, which can be measured to greater precision than the 2S and 2P Lamb shifts traditionally studied. However, the researchers do not particularly suspect that any "new physics" is at work here; they believe that a new, unpublished theoretical calculation taking into account previously ignored effects in QED should bring the results into agreement with theory. (M. Weitz et al., Physical Review Letters, 17 January 1994; contact Martin Weitz at Stanford University, 415-723-4666). PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 242 September 28, 1995 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein NEW TESTS OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORY IN PHYSICS show the need for improved information on the proton. Stringently verified for five decades now, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the modern theory of the atom. QED was initially developed to explain the "Lamb shift" in the hydrogen atom, in which an electron orbiting a proton experiences a slight energy shift due to the interaction between the electron and the teeming virtual particles residing in the surrounding vacuum. Modern experimental measurements have become so precise that theoretical calculations of the Lamb shift can no longer consider the proton as a pointlike charge but must instead view it as a sphere in which positive charge is spread out. In the energy states commonly studied in the Lamb shift, the electron actually has a probability of spending some time inside the proton, whose size, unfortunately, is not known to better than about 8%. Using high-resolution laser spectroscopy, Yale researchers (contact Malcolm Boshier, 203-432-3828) have measured the hydrogen Lamb shift to a new record accuracy of six parts per million. Their value (8,172,827 kHz, expressed in units of frequency) agrees with QED providing they incorporate a relatively large proton radius, such as the one measured in Mainz (Germany), 0.862 x 10**-15 m. However, a significant discrepancy between QED and the new Lamb shift result cannot be ruled out until the proton size is pinpointed to within 1 or 2 percent. According to Boshier, "It is...far from clear that everything is okay with QED," particularly when one considers that experimental measurements of another Lamb shift, that for the He+ ion, violently disagree with the theory. "The motivation for Lamb shift measurements is the search for new physics," he adds. (D.J. Berkeland, E.A. Hinds, and M.G. Boshier, Physical Review Letters, 25 September 1995.) At 09:14 AM 11/18/97 +0100, you wrote: > > >On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> >> Zero point energy is generally regarded as the half point vibrational >> energy in matter in conventional science. >> >> >> BTW, let us separate the two for a gendanken moment. >> >> ZPE(conventional, half vibrational state) = ZPEc >> >> ZPE(vacuum) = ZPEv >> > >Mitch, > you appear to know about Solid State Physics but some aspects of >Quantum Mechanics appear to have missed you. The effects of zero point energy >in the Vaccuum have been extremely well measured and there is absolutely no >question that it has real measurable effects. The Casimir force attraction >between two dielectics has been well measured originally in the 1950's. > >The Lamb shift of energy levels in the Hydrogen Atom due to the efffects of >zero point energy of the vacuum was originally measured in 1946 and led >directly to the development of Quantum ElectroDynamics. Finally the general >topic of Quantum Field Theory has a very complex vacuum structure that has many >direct and measurable consequnences. In fact the effect of Zero Point Energy >effects on the value of the magnetic moment of the electron has been measured >to well over 8 significant figures. > >On the question of extraction of large scale energy from the vacuum, >conventional science is rather skeptical, but there is no doubt that zero point >energy in the vacuum is absolutely main stream. > >Martin Sevior > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 01:24:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA25024; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:21:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:21:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:20:33 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971118034601.006b3d44 world.std.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"2gHSV.0.v66.huLSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12921 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE Published in 1994 [snip] > shifted > upward by 8172.86 Mhz for the hydrogen atom and 8184.00 MHz in the > deuterium atom, values which disagree with QED's predictions of 8173.12 MHz > for > hydrogen and 8184.13 MHz for deuterium, even when the uncertainties are > taken into account. In what they have called "the most stringent test of > QED for a > bound atom to date," the researchers employed the latest advances in laser > and optical spectroscopy to make the measurements of the 1S Lamb shift, which > can be measured to greater precision than the 2S and 2P Lamb shifts > traditionally studied. Firstly Mitch you will note the level of discrepency. Measured 8172.86 Mhz, predicted: 8173.12 Mhz. Without Zero Point Energy effects the shifts would be 0 Mhz. That is DRAMATIC evidence ZPE in the vacuum. Secondly, as noted in another thread here, the finite size of the proton affects the QED calculation since it spreads the +ve charge over a finite volume. As such, the theoretical calculation depends on MEASURING the size of the proton. This is actually quite difficult to do to high precision. The best test of QED comes from the measuring the Gyromagnetic ratio of the electron and muon. Both these particles are point like to the best of our measuring ability and the calculations have no size abiguities. Actually, one motive to continually improve these measurements is to try to detect of finite size for these particles via a descrepency with QED predictions. > However, the researchers do not particularly suspect > that any "new > physics" is at work here; they believe that a new, unpublished theoretical > calculation taking into account previously ignored effects in QED should > bring the > results into agreement with theory. (M. Weitz et al., Physical Review > Letters, 17 January 1994; contact Martin Weitz at Stanford University, > 415-723-4666). > As I stated above. > > > PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE > The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News > Number 242 September 28, 1995 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein > > NEW TESTS OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORY IN > PHYSICS show the need for improved information on the proton. [snip] > out. In the energy states commonly studied in the Lamb shift, the > electron actually has a probability of spending some time inside the > proton, whose size, unfortunately, is not known to better than about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 8%. ^^^^^ As noted above. > Using high-resolution laser spectroscopy, Yale researchers > (contact Malcolm Boshier, 203-432-3828) have measured the > hydrogen Lamb shift to a new record accuracy of six parts per > million. Their value (8,172,827 kHz, expressed in units of > frequency) agrees with QED providing they incorporate a relatively ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > large proton radius, such as the one measured in Mainz (Germany), > 0.862 x 10**-15 m. However, a significant discrepancy between QED > and the new Lamb shift result cannot be ruled out until the proton > size is pinpointed to within 1 or 2 percent. This is the justification in a new measurement of the proton radius. No doubt such a measurement will be difficult and expensive. > According to Boshier, "It > is...far from clear that everything is okay with QED," particularly > when one considers that experimental measurements of another Lamb > shift, that for the He+ ion, violently disagree with the theory. "The > motivation for Lamb shift measurements is the search for new > physics," he adds. (D.J. Berkeland, E.A. Hinds, and M.G. Boshier, > Physical Review Letters, 25 September 1995.) > This is typical Science Politics. They're justifying their research by over- stating the importance of their result. It happens all the time. You should be well aware of such behaviour Mitch. (Sigh) In any case I'm sure you will still think that ZPE in the vacuum is not main stream. I know you well enough to know you will never change your mind once it is set. Frankly your blinkered approach to Science makes me very skeptical of any result you claim. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 03:37:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA06744; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:34:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:34:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 06:30:33 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Takahashi scooter Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711180633_MC2-289E-6698 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"-armb.0.Ff1.SrNSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12922 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael, >> Sorry to hear of Takahashi's illness. The last conversation I had with Takahashi's UK representative Mr. Sawai back in Dec. 1995, he said that they were already building a manufacturing plant to make the supermagnets. The plant output was booked for at least 5 years. The initial market applications were for putting the magnetic material in strips for the back of credit cards. I asked when they would put the supermagnets for ou motors and Mr. Sawai said it would not occur for at least several years. It seemed there was outside little interest for funding such a venture. << I've just had a very interesting talk with Mr Sawai about Takahashi. First - he is well and has not been sick, and he is back in Japan. Second - he apparently has been defrauding investors all over the place. Third - his magnificent magnets have been tested by an independent authority and found to be 48.3 NOT 140. Fourth - Sawai has seen, but not measured, Takahashi's motor in Japan and confirms that it continues to run after switching off the battery. He was not allowed to examine it or measure any function. The electric scooter was tested in San Francisco and its range on one charge was 50Km. Apparently the original tests on his magnets were falsified by the test operator by reducing a critical dimension by 1mm. Sawai is in contact with several 'inventors' all trying to build Adams type motors, most without any deep insight into the theory of magnetism and end up with laughable string and sealing-wax type structures. I understand that one of Mr Sawai's Engineers is a subscriber to this list, and I am most grateful to Mr Sawai for his frankness and friendly discussion. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 04:03:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28167; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:59:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:59:33 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118195909.0069a8c4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:59:09 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"iC2Gy2.0.1u6.aCOSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12923 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jim Ostrowski wrote: > > Lunar Gravitation > > My earlier article entitled "Luna" examined the early NASA and Soviet > programs to land unmanned spacecraft on the moon . All of the early > attempts were characterized by failures of one sort or another , most > of these being of the nature of what appeared to be position/velocity > discrepancies between theory and practice. > > It is interesting that of the "Ranger" series of spacecraft that > finally did successfully hit the moon and send back pictures on the way > down , the pictures appear to be successive frames taken of the same > area that it ultimately crashed into. > > Since the interval between each of these successive frames was known , > the change in apparent size of the feature being photographed would > enable NASA scientists to determine the rate of increase in the > spacecraft's velocity as time passed. > > If the theory of gravitation as described by Isaac Newton applied > specifically to landing a spacecraft on the moon in an exact way , the > information provided by these successive photos timed at precision > intervals would be derivable from theory , and it would have therefore > been unnecessary to have gone to the expense of doing these missions in > this way. Other , different types of missions could have been > undertaken in order to derive data that could not otherwise be > determined from theory. > > However , the previous experience of both the United States and Soviet > Union proved that even hitting the moon by means of predicting from > extant theory the proper trajectory , was indeed problematic. > > This article will attempt to detail the discrepancies that simplistic > derivations from Newton's theory of gravitation might produce when > applied to landing spacecraft on a body that may very possibly be > hollow. > > I would like to thank John Winterflood for his continuing interest in > this subject and his review of and corrections to my understanding of > hollow body gravitation . This is not to say that he agrees with my > conclusions necessarily , in fact quite the opposite ,possibly , for > reasons which I would invite his further comment on in this forum. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Problem presented by the Hollow Body > > Newton's First Law of Gravitation surmises that a massive body's > gravitational attractive force varies inversely with the square of the > distance to the geometric center of the gravitating body. Only if the gravitating body is a homogenous sphere or set of homogenous spherical shell(s). > If taken literally for all cases however, this principle would not > hold up in practice , for example , when the net force on an object > within the spherical radius of the gravitating body has to be derived > (ie the object is placed at the bottom of a shaft drilled into the > surface). I think that it holds up in all cases provided you look at it correctly. > This is because that if an object is placed at the bottom of a > theoretical hole drilled into the surface , some of the gravitating > body's mass lies in the direction to the outer surface rather than in > the direction to the center. In such a case the _net_ force in the > direction to the center WOULD NOT be the inverse of the square of the > distance to the point at the geometric center , as Newton stated > (above), but would go from 1g at the surface and to zero at the center > according to perhaps g=R where R is the the distance of the object to > the center as a percentage of the gravitating body's radius. You can consider the gravitating body's mass to be composed of two parts. 1) A solid spherical part with the same geometric centre as the undrilled body extending out to a radius which reaches the bottom of the hole. This part is still "ahead" or "below" the space ship or test mass. 2) The thin or thick spherical shell through which the theoretical hole has been drilled. Part (1) ahead of the buried space space ship still attracts it exactly in accordance with Newton's 1/r^2 from the geometric centre. Part (2) exerts no net gravitational effect on the buried space ship since the space ship is inside this spherical shell. >From this you can conclude that the gravitational attraction as you go down the hole is directly proportional to radius - since mass ahead falls off with r^3 and gravitational attraction to the mass ahead increases as 1/r^2 the net force falls off exactly as r. This is how come you get simple harmonic motion if you drop a stone down a hole drilled through such a gravitating body (assuming homogenity etc). (mentioned in a previous email to Jim). > This effect would have consequences for cases where the gravitating > body is hollow. If the size of the central void in the hollowed out > sphere is unknown , then it becomes very problematic to determine the > spatial distribution of gravitational energy relative to an arbitrary > unknown thickness of the "shell" . The reasons for this are as follows : > > For a homogenous mass of rock , we can reasonably determine that the > point of maximum velocity for an object dropped down a hole drilled > into the spherical mass would coincide with the point at the geometric > center. However , for a hollow body this point of maximum velocity > would be shifted (spatially) to the INSIDE SURFACE of the "shell". > Although this may seem counterintuitive to some , I have been assured > that this is so by John W. - who took great pains to correct my > understanding of this particular point. I'm sure the guy in the spaceship doesn't care what maximum velocity he WOULD achieve IF he could continue down a bore hole - since there isn't one. As far as he is concerned his maximum velocity occurs at the surface a split second before death and the velocity will be identical for a solid sphere or for a thin shell. It is impossible for him to pick the difference between a very thin shell of lead, or a solid sphere of aerogel if they have the same total mass and radius so long as he stays above the surface. If he could bore on through like a neutrino, then sure, he would soon find out what mass concentrations he was passing through from his continuing acceleration and if you like maximum speed. If the body was hollow then he would stop accelerating as soon as he passed through the shell. If the body was solid, then he would continue accelerating until he passed the centre and his maximum velocity in this second case would be considerably greater. So what? At the moment he reaches the surface on the other side his velocity would be back down to the same value as when he entered the surface but he would have got there quicker. If he is going to fire off his retro-rockets in order to land on the surface, the calculations and results are identical, whether the sphere is hollow or solid. He only needs to know its total mass, its radius, and his distance from the center (or from the surface since he knows the radius). > A spatial void of undetermined size in the center of a gravitating > body such as the moon would result then in a spatial redistribution of > gravitational energy with respect to the location of the surface that > would vary in extent according to the (unknown) size of the void. > > This does not mean that the force of gravity on the postulated hollow > moon would be any different as experienced by an object resting on it's > surface. It simply means that an astronaut who calculates that his > maximum velocity would be reached (disregarding the presence of rocks > and other material located at the surface) at the geometric center , > rather than at a point closer to the surface will underestimate his > expected velocity at the surface , and therefore would probably fail > to apply sufficient braking thrust to land safely. > > This is very probably the explanation for why NASA needed the Ranger > series of spacecrafts to determine where the surface was with respect > to the graph of a falling object's increasing velocity as it approached > the point of maximum velocity , which probably does NOT lie 1050 miles > away from the surface AT THE GEOMETRIC CENTER, but rather is much > closer to the surface. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > With the above I conclude my argument that the moon is perhaps hollow, > ... In the light of my above comments I would have to conclude that the reason for lunar crashes could not be due to the differences between the gravitational field above the surface of a hollow moon as compared with that of a solid moon - because there are no differences! Sorry Jim! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 04:05:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA28391; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:30 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118200018.0069a8c4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:00:18 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re:Hollow Body Gravitation In-Reply-To: <346F9E3A.5510864B verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ZiWbN1.0.Qx6.TDOSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12924 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: >From Jim Ostrowski's letter: >> >> The Problem presented by the Hollow Body >> >>Newton's First Law of Gravitation surmises that a massive body's >>gravitational attractive force varies inversely with the square of the >>distance to the geometric center of the gravitating body. >> >>If taken literally for all cases however, this principle would not >>hold up in practice , for example ...<< > >The above law hold when tidal effects are omitted. The above law holds exactly (mathematically) if stated correctly for homogenous spherical shells / solids regardless of tidal effects. The tidal effect is that one side of the sphere (the closest) is attracted more than the other side of the sphere. But if you average the attraction out over the whole volume then it turns out to be exactly right at the geometric centre of the shell or sphere. >I just figure >out it's incorrectness at college on physics class just the Newton >law is being postulated. A simple one dimensional model is enough >to show it. No need to 3D objects. I know it is a very basic issue >and everybody knows but I want to sketch it again in expense of >the bandwidth. > >When a rule is vertically held, lower part is more attracted by >the Earth than its upper part. So if one try to rotate the rule >around its geometrical center, gravity will oppose the movement. >Only a bit lower point will balance the gravitational forces >applied to the rule. As summary, center of gravity of a body is >close to the attracting body. Other name of this effect is tide >or tidal effect. Quite correct, but then a rule is not a sphere is it! >Now, if a body is hollow, the separation between center of upper >and lower parts will increase. This will cause more tide. I don't quite understand what you mean by this. The net force acting on the entire spherical shell is exactly the same as if the equivalent mass was concentrated in a point at the geometric centre, or as if there was a sphere of the same mass there instead of a shell. Your ruler held above the surface of a shell will not be able to pick the difference between a shell and a solid sphere. The gravitational field and hence tidal effect above the surface is identical. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 04:30:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12552; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:26:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:26:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3471F99D.2810 itl.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:25:01 -0800 From: Nick Palmer X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: John - FoE and CF References: <971117094306_1805124078 mrin53.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZGXX81.0._33.UbOSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12925 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sorry to post this here, Vorts but I have tried to email John privately and his server bounces back all attempts... Dear John, Vortex is an offshoot from the freenrg list. It was set up to discuss devices like those invented by Potapov and aspects of sonoluminescence and cavitation. It has mutated to discuss those OU devices which might have something to them. That is why I am here - it would indeed be a shame if, as you put it, the Greens were behind the time in their involvement. Even the CETI device is nowhere near being a useful source of energy for replacing anything else. If we take their claims at face value, then, if they run it at high output (the notorious 1.3kw at PowerGen) then the beads destroy themselves. If they run them at low power (as in the recent Good Morning America demo) then they are only claiming a 20% energy increase on the amount of electricity needed to run the cell. This is effectively useless for our goal of averting global warming. Randell Mills has attracted large commercial sponsorship - so what? This has been done before by many OU energy device inventors - it only came to fraud, self-delusion or ambiguity, in the past. Similarly Patterson has attracted some official support - I suspect this is rather more that these people are monitoring the situation "just in case" (as I am). The Director of FoE UK has followed the history of Cold Fusion since the beginning. I have presented a seminar on various aspects of New Energy at a recent FoE Conference (1996). I think I am the main "Green" monitoring the situation and when I see something interesting and unequivocal I will inform FoE HQ and Greenpeace international. It must be said that the Green position on unlimited energy is somewhat less than obvious. For instance, even if "ordinary" nuclear power was completely benign (no radiation, no waste whatsoever) there would be still be environmental/sustainability arguments against using it to solve global warming. NP From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 05:19:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17655; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:16:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:16:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:14:10 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: John - FoE and CF In-Reply-To: <3471F99D.2810 itl.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"QHZPN2.0.nJ4.-KPSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12926 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer wrote: Lots of good things that are basically my attitude from another perspective. (If they're my opinions they must be right!) Then this: > unequivocal I will inform FoE HQ and Greenpeace international. It must > be said that the Green position on unlimited energy is somewhat less than > obvious. For instance, even if "ordinary" nuclear power was completely > benign (no radiation, no waste whatsoever) there would be still be > environmental/sustainability arguments against using it to solve global > warming. > I find this rather disturbing. If these issues are resolved there is more than enough Uranium and Thorium to supply the Earth's energy needs for thousands of years. Surely finding a solution suitable for many generations is a reasonable objective. Why be held prisoner to a Polical Manfesto that has outlived its usefulness? Why do you have to subscribe to a "Green" position at all? Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 05:38:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04824; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:32:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:32:43 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118082933.006c3f80 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:29:33 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971118034601.006b3d44 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"4LOLb2.0.IB1.wZPSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12927 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:20 AM 11/18/97 +0100, Martin Sevior wrote: > >> shifted >> upward by 8172.86 Mhz for the hydrogen atom and 8184.00 MHz in the >> deuterium atom, values which disagree with QED's predictions of 8173.12 MHz >> for >> hydrogen and 8184.13 MHz for deuterium, even when the uncertainties are >> taken into account. In what they have called "the most stringent test of >> QED for a >> bound atom to date," the researchers employed the latest advances in laser >> and optical spectroscopy to make the measurements of the 1S Lamb shift, which >> can be measured to greater precision than the 2S and 2P Lamb shifts >> traditionally studied. > >Firstly Mitch you will note the level of discrepency. Measured 8172.86 Mhz, >predicted: 8173.12 Mhz. Without Zero Point Energy effects the shifts would be >0 Mhz. That is DRAMATIC evidence ZPE in the vacuum. Martin, your reading further will note that the calculation does NOT work on other atoms with that accuracy. The presence of the shift does NOT imply a shirft from ZPE from vacuum, BUT may arise form pair production cause by classical electrodynamics. Cosmic rays do create pairs but that requires conservation of energy. ============================================================== > >(Sigh) In any case I'm sure you will still think that ZPE in the vacuum >is not main stream. I know you well enough to know you will never change your >mind once it is set. > >Frankly your blinkered approach to Science makes me very skeptical of any >result you claim. > >Martin Sevior > > =============================================================== Martin, Pair production (requiring an interaction of an electromagnetic photon of greater than about two rest energies, and triplet production (conservation of energy and momentrum from a collision with an electron) DO exist. These are mainstream and well known to radiation physics. Conservation of energy and momentum is involved. Matter appearing from pure vacuum has no basis, because the of no conservation of energy and momentum. This does not include vacuum through which is passing cosmic rays, or other EM radiation where as stated above there can be significant mass creation. BTW I have used this mass creation to measure blood flow in tumors using time-of-flight measurements with synchronous detection of the synchronously emitted gammas at 179.5 degrees separation. We have given oxygen-15 to animals and people afflicted with cancer, and the positron emitted has a diffusion radiation of about a few millimeters, before the gammas are given off. This is positron emission tomography, and although often used of brain imaging, is exceptional for select human tumors (sarcomata). The papers have been published, see for example: "PET imaging in Oncology: The MGH Experience", G. Brownell, A-E. Kairento, M. Swartz, Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 15, 201-209, April (1985) "PET imaging in Oncology: The MGH Experience", G. Brownell, A-E. Kairento, M. Swartz, Arch. Nucl Medicine May (1985) "Comparative Measurement of Regional Blood Flow, oxygen and glucose utilisation in soft tissue tumour of rabbit with positron imaging" A-E. Kairento, G. Brownell, D. Elmaleh, M. Swartz, Br. J. of Radiology, 58, 637-643, (1985) Martin, sorry that my requirement for conservation of energy stands (until proven otherwise), but that is the belief of mainstream science. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 05:51:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06996; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:48:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:48:22 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:47:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971118084747_-1941332674 mrin42.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"izeaq.0.9j1.aoPSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12928 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry, In your initial proposal for what is now the Order of the Tortoise, you cced Dieter Britz and Steve Jones. Are they co-founders? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 05:51:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA07047; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:48:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:48:34 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:47:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971118084757_1593472062 mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Murray on Ni-H2O wreckage Resent-Message-ID: <"7jUhW.0._j1.noPSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12929 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks to Rich Murray for reposting, a couple of weeks ago, in email form, his critique of November 1, "Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin." I find it hard to follow nuclear chemistry arguments, but it looks as if Rich has done a pretty good job of demolishing various transmutation claims, especially those of the CG. He continued that line of criticism on November 1, and I have no quarrel with it. However, I think that Rich was way off base in his criticisms of the excess heat work of Mills and in his evaluation of the bearing that the articles by Shkedi, et al., and Jones, et al., have on that work. Rich keeps citing the article by Shkedi, et al., "Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells," FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 28, No. 4 (November 1995), pp. 1720-1731. Rich called it a powerful criticism. Hardly. Shkedi, et al., cited only the earliest of Mills' articles on excess heat, namely, Mills & Kneizys 1991, which reported only low-power experiments, for the analysis of which recombination was indeed an issue. Shkedi, et al., failed to cite Mills, Good & Shaubach, FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 25 (January 1994), pp. 103-119. Shekedi and his team failed to deal with the much more robust results reported by Mills, Good & Shaubach in their 1994 article, most of which were beyond even 100% recombination. The article by Shkedi, et al., was received by FUSION TECHNOLOGY on May 31, 1994, so the January 1994 article by Mills, Good & Shaubach should have been available to Shkedi and his team. According to Good's comments in FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 30 (September 1996), p. 132, Shkedi, et al., failed to contact Good or his colleagues, though according to Shkedi himself, he and his team consulted many others (Shkedi's letter in FUSION FACTS, Vol. 7, No. 6 (December 1995), pp. 20-21). The highest recombination rate claimed by Shkedi, et al., was only about 34% (see their Table IV). A typical recombination rate was about 25% using nickel Fibrex for the cathode and about 20% using nickel coil. The 1995 Shkedi article was rendered even more obsolete by an ironical coincidence: it was published in the very same issue as an article by Mills & Good on "Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen," pp. 1697-1719, which contained sections (on pages 1698-1701) reporting exceptionally robust results from a long-running experiment, using a wire-mesh cathode, that produced excess heat far beyond even 100% recombination. To sum up, the 1995 Shkedi article was already obsolete by the time of publication, and it's now hopelessly out-of-date, though it retains historical interest. Rich also likes to cite another 1995 article to the effect that the excess heat from Mills-type electrolytic cells is an artifact caused by recombination: Jonathan Jones, Lee Hansen, Steven E. Jones, et al., "Faradaic Efficiencies Less Than 100% during Electrolysis of Water Can Account For Reports of Excess Heat in 'Cold Fusion' Cells," JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY, Vol. 99, No. 18, pp. 6973-6979. It would be an understatement to say that Rich and I interpret this article differently. I think that Jonathan Jones is a good experimenter, and I like his style, so I interpret his article with Lee Hansen and Steven E. Jones (no relation), et al., as follows: Jonathan Jones, being a good experimenter, may have been able to produce the light water excess heat effect. His bosses were determined to stop the effect, which was easy to do. One way was to bubble N2 through the cell, another way to bubble O2, another way to put a glass tube around the cathode. The best method was just to assume the effect away. The paper blithely assumed that a 50% recombination rate was typical of Ni-H2O cells (p. 6977 col. 2). The paper cited a private communication from Oriani that he found the recombination rate to be from 22% to 50%, and the worst number was picked. But the worst recombination rate that Shkedi, et al., reported in the tables in their 1995 article was only about 34% (Faradaic efficiency of 66%). A typical recombination rate for the nickel Fibrex cathodes that Shkedi, et al., used was about 25% (Faradaic efficiency of 75%). For their nickel coil cathodes, a typical recombination rate was about 20% (Faradaic efficiency of 80%). John Logajan didn't find the recombination rate in his experiments to go any higher than about 25%. J. Jones, Lee Hansen, Steven E. Jones, et al., said (6973 col. 2) that in order to rule out recombination as the source of excess heat, the heat and the recombination rate (100% minus Faradaic efficiency) had to be measured simultaneously. One could just as well set the same requirement for attempts to rule in recombination as the cause of "apparent" excess heat. But I don't see such simultaneous data presented for their own experiments. For that matter, I don't see any measured recombination rate given for their own cells, except for the experiment where they bubbled O2 through the cell, thus bringing the recombination rate to over 95% (Faradaic efficiency of less than 5%). It looks as if Lee Hansen was the group leader (he was listed as the corresponding author). The theme of the article that he wrote with Steven E. Jones, et al., was that recombination explained apparent excess heat. By their own standard, they failed to show that. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 07:09:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18715; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:05:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:05:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3471A0C8.4E1E earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:06:00 -0600 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: barry math.ucla.edu, vortex-L@eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, rbrtbass pahrump.com Subject: Order of the Tortoise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZElyo3.0.Ka4.cwQSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12930 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 1960-1964 M.I.T, B.S. Science and Humanities, physics and history double major. 1965-7 Boston U. Graduate School, M.A. Psychology. Maintained overview of science by reviewing all issues of Scientific American, Science, Physics Today, and The Skeptical Inquirer. Since 1967, personal explorations into subtle realities of awareness. Developed a unique approach, Communion Process, a method for joint subjective inquiry, in which subtle states are experienced during dialog with open eyes, often looking into a mirror together. Sept., 1996 Attended Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference, College Station, Texas. Since then, has served as networker and composer of detailed critiques of well-known cold fusion papers. Has technical competence to replicate simple cold fusion experiments, such as the titanium electrolysis work of John Dash, if sufficient replications by others give some assurance that the effort will probably succeed. Reviewing old experiments in the 1920s to see if optical spectra indicate possible transmutations in arcs, glow discharges, and exploding wires. If I can replicate a simple experiment, I will market it as a low-cost kit. Focussing on common artifacts in cold fusion experiments and the processes by which teams become overly attached to mistaken interpretations. Have totally open mind, and will be glad to be convinced by experiments that are widely replicated. Every time I start my car and computer, it is a replication of much of present science-technology. Past reports of cold fusion results can continue to have veridical meaning only if many groups presently are operating successful devices. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 07:12:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19873; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:10:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:10:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:06:40 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: 50% reliability!!! Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711181009_MC2-28A2-BD0A compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"yn4Wt1.0.Js4.d_QSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12931 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little asks: Now you've really got my attention! In Jan of this year, I met with Ed Storms and he told me that, even after his selection process, only about 1 out of 20 cathodes showed any sign of excess heat. Has something changed recently? I don't think so. I'll ask him next time I get a chance. During conferences last year and many times thereafter, he said that after the winnowing process he gets about half to work. Perhaps this sentence from his paper "How to Produce . . ." sheds some light on it: "Excess power levels below 20% are routine while values above 100% are still rare." Maybe when he talked to you he was referring to the big bang reactions. As I understand it, with reasonably good palladium, 1 out 20 samples passes the triage tests, and of that winnowed-out sample, about half work. But, in any case, suppose it was only 1 in 20 (5%)? Would that be any less convincing from a scientific point of view? It seems to me if he can make it work 10 times with dramatic success, that should convince anyone, even if he has to try 100 or 1000 or a million times to get those 10 positive runs. How many particle collisions does it take to produce a top quark? Their success rate is much lower than 5%. It makes no sense to count the collisions that did not produce a quark. In 1943 at Los Alamos they conducted hundreds of implosion experiments. They all failed until the last dozen, and the very last one with plutonium. Do we count failed versus good ones and conclude that statistically they never figured out how to perform a controlled implosion? I think that one dramatic success outweighs any number of dud runs. When transistors were first manufactured in the 1950s, they cost $16 each, which was much more than vacuum tubes. The actual devices cost pennies, but fewer than 1 in a 100 worked. The rest were scrapped. Was that any basis to conclude that transistors do not exist? The answer, to skeptics back then, was "yes." Many people tried to produce them, failed, and declared that the transistor effect must be an experimental error and the people at Bell Labs and Sony must be deluded. I further got the impression that these events were so few and far between that Ed's instrumentation was rarely set up the same way for two successive excess heat events. In such a situation one must be especially wary of systematic errors. On the contrary, if he changes the configuration for each run, that eliminates the possibility of systematic errors. It is a new system every time. A "systematic error" is one that is built into the calorimeter design itself. Ed has run with static, flow, and combination static-and-flow calorimeters. He has used thermistors and thermocouples. He has used glass cells and cells made of other materials. All of these variations eliminate any chance that the instruments or the setup itself is generating a false signal. In point of fact, he has not changed his calorimeter every time between every run. The runs shown in the article in I.E. are all with the same setup, I believe. If you are looking for rock-solid proof that the CF effect does exist, from someone who did not change his calorimeter for years, check out Miles or McKubre. Storms is not the only person who has seen dozens of positive runs. How many runs should it take, anyway? If 10 or 20 or 30 isn't enough, how many would satisfy you? I do not understand. I cannot see why the ratio of success to failure means anything in cold fusion, when it plays no role in other areas of science. Of course it is vital to commercial development of a practical source of energy. Last week I asked Ed how much he thought it would cost to improve our understanding of the material science of CF significantly. He outlined an R&D program that would cost $5 million the first year and $2 or 3 million for several years following that. That's a modest budget. It is in line with what I expected, given the kinds of tasks needed to crack the problem. The reasons reproducibility remains poor are well know, and the path to solving these problems is clear. I do not understand why you act as if irreproducibility is some kind of black hole that swallows up all results and casts doubts upon high-sigma data. It doesn't! It is normal at this stage of development. Development is measured dollars and manpower, not time. If CF had one-tenth or even one-hundredth of the money similar complex catalytic processes have had, it would have made as much progress as they made. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop other surface catalysis processes for industry. They all started out highly irreproducible. They all continue to be terribly difficult to reproduce and control, but they do get done, because our industrial civilization would disappear in a month if they failed. Why should cold fusion be any different? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 07:18:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29927; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:11:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:11:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:06:26 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: More on sideways hypothesis Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711181009_MC2-28A2-BD08 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"5rcH03.0.RJ7.J0RSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12932 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: No. The vertical calorimetry amplifies the result AND can give a spurious signal. But it doesn't! When you put 1 watt into McKubre's calorimeter, with a 60 ml flow rate, the water temperature goes up exactly the predicted amount: 0.24 deg C. When you put in 2 watts, it goes up 0.48. No amplification is observed. Really? Has Dr. Miley seen kilowatts, or does he report milliwatts-watts? Miley used a mass of beads 40 times smaller than Cravens at a much lower operating temperature, with lower proportional input. Miley's maximum output was ~4 watts. With a 40 ml sample of beads at that temperature Miley's beads would produce ~160 watts, within an order of magnitude of the best results. Excuse me, but Mr. Rothwell STILL hasnt explained WHY it decreases or goes away from the "kilowatt" levels in HORIZONTAL systems. It doesn't! Huge outputs have been observed in static and thermoelectric calorimeters as well. There is an amplification factor, not an increment. It could NOT show up if there is no excess heat. Simple mathematics, even if the Bernard continuum electromechanics is not. During calibration, when you increase joule heater output from 1 watt to 2 watts, the Delta T temperature goes up exactly the predicted amount; no more, no less. But, if I understand Swartz correctly here, when you put in 1 watt of electrolysis and 1 watt of CF excess heat is produced, the flow calorimeter "amplifies" the extra watt to make it look like 2 or 3. How on earth can the calorimeter know? Why does it choose to amplify excess heat from CF but not excess heat from the stepped up joule heater during calibration? For that matter, when CF excess heat is produced and a heat pulse is added with the joule heater (on-the-fly recalibration), how does the calorimeter know to amplify the excess heat from CF but to leave the heat pulse intact? The heat sources in the cell are right next to one another; how can it know which one to amplify and which to leave alone? One more question: McKubre's cell is equipped with a compensation heater. When excess heat turns on, the compensation heater automatically turns down, so the total energy produced in the cell never changes. How does the amplification factor begin amplifying the excess heat when the total heat flux from the inside of the cell has not changed by even 5 mW? I don't get it. Neither does Mike McKubre, Martin Fleischmann, or anyone else I have asked about this hypothesis. I took this hypothesis seriously when Swartz first proposed it. I asked the right questions to the right people, and tried to find out how, where and under what circumstances this artifact might reveal itself. The answer, as far as anyone can make out, is that if this effect could produce a 1-watt error in a McKubre-style calorimeter, or a 1000-watt error in a Cravens calorimeter, it would do so during calibration or on-the-fly recalibration as readily as it does during excess heat production, because calorimeters are blind to the source of energy they measure. Since the effect is never seen during calibration, I must conclude it does not exist. A minor point. Swartz titled his message: "Response to Jed Rothwell's false statements - part I." Let me repeat that I am reporting on the work of Dennis Cravens. I did not build, operate or calibrate the large calorimeter; these are not my claims. Swartz should say: "Response to Dennis Cravens' false statements." That puts it in a different perspective. As Martin Fleischmann says, Cravens is a genius, one of the best scientists he (Martin) has ever seen. I think so too! I do not like to be the target of Swartz's vituperation when I am merely relaying statements from people like Cravens and McKubre. He should challenge the real experts, not me. Better yet, he should perform an experiment to prove his claims. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 07:50:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26187; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:42:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:42:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3471B755.28B4 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:42:13 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation References: <3.0.1.32.19971118195909.0069a8c4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yvL-51.0.uO6.OTRSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12933 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Winterflood wrote: > (snip) > In the light of my above comments I would have to conclude that the > reason for lunar crashes could not be due to the differences between > the gravitational field above the surface of a hollow moon as > compared with that of a solid moon - because there are no > differences! Sorry Jim! Sounds good to me, John! (Get back to ball lightning, Jim!) Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 07:58:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29899; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:56:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:56:40 -0800 Message-Id: <3471B5AD.2E2D916 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:35:09 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hollow Body Gravitation References: <3.0.1.32.19971118200018.0069a8c4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PCFlJ3.0.0J7.sgRSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12934 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Winterflood wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > >From Jim Ostrowski's letter: > >> > >> The Problem presented by the Hollow Body > >> > >>Newton's First Law of Gravitation surmises that a massive body's > >>gravitational attractive force varies inversely with the square of the > >>distance to the geometric center of the gravitating body. > >> > >>If taken literally for all cases however, this principle would not > >>hold up in practice , for example ...<< > > > >The above law hold when tidal effects are omitted. > > The above law holds exactly (mathematically) if stated correctly > for homogenous spherical shells / solids regardless of tidal > effects. The tidal effect is that one side of the sphere (the > closest) is attracted more than the other side of the sphere. > But if you average the attraction out over the whole volume > then it turns out to be exactly right at the geometric centre > of the shell or sphere. I still think this is unlikely. As the upper part lower part of the sphere experience different forces (also nonlinear by the distance) how the center of mass remain on the geometric center? Yes, any homogenous circular body could rotate freely around its axis regarding the kind and strange the forces are present. Because the symmetry, on each angle circular will experience the same force and could freely rotate. But this not means the total forces acting on the body can be summarize of it center. The rule and the above case, can be modelled as a point-like of mass acting on a non-point mass. I am saying if you place a non-point mass in place of a point-mass (or a smaller radius object) having same inertia, they will experience different gravitatio nal forces. It hard to expect a specific form of the sphere could cause an exception. Last night I tried to reformulate the gravitational force of a homogenous solid sphere to a point mass at distance d. I used Mathcad use did integration for each point of sphere but obtained formula seem me not correct. Do you know how to proof the rule to allow a sphere be equivalent to point of mass (gravitationally) interacting a point of mass out of the sphere? [snip] > >When a rule is vertically held, lower part is more attracted by > >the Earth than its upper part. So if one try to rotate the rule > >around its geometrical center, gravity will oppose the movement. > >Only a bit lower point will balance the gravitational forces > >applied to the rule. As summary, center of gravity of a body is > >close to the attracting body. Other name of this effect is tide > >or tidal effect. > > Quite correct, but then a rule is not a sphere is it! > > >Now, if a body is hollow, the separation between center of upper > >and lower parts will increase. This will cause more tide. > > I don't quite understand what you mean by this. I means the rule. hollow rule means all it mass is concentrated on the edges. In this case the distance between upper and lower center of gravity of the rule it full length. On solid case, I did an approximation as distanced to half length. > The net force > acting on the entire spherical shell is exactly the same as > if the equivalent mass was concentrated in a point at the > geometric centre, or as if there was a sphere of the same > mass there instead of a shell. Your ruler held above the > surface of a shell will not be able to pick the difference > between a shell and a solid sphere. The gravitational field > and hence tidal effect above the surface is identical. Yes, It is not clear until calculation whether solid and hollow spheres cause a difference on this criteria. I will try to calculate. (If you have difficulties on reading or quoting my postings due unwrapped lines, please inform me and I will switch to forced CR lines.) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 08:31:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11652; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:24:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:24:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118112109.0069e6d4 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:21:09 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Response to Jed Rothwell's false statements - part II In-Reply-To: <199711181009_MC2-28A2-BD08 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"SU7rw3.0.-r2.L5SSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12935 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:06 AM 11/18/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Mitchell Swartz writes: > No. The vertical calorimetry amplifies the result AND can give a > spurious signal. > >But it doesn't! When you put 1 watt into McKubre's calorimeter, with a 60 ml >flow rate, the water temperature goes up exactly the predicted amount: 0.24 >deg C. When you put in 2 watts, it goes up 0.48. No amplification is observed. Yes it does. What you state is not inconsistent with what I said. Read the papers, work out the math for yourself. ================================================================ > Really? Has Dr. Miley seen kilowatts, or does he report > milliwatts-watts? > >Miley used a mass of beads 40 times smaller than Cravens at a much lower >operating temperature, with lower proportional input. Miley's maximum output >was ~4 watts. With a 40 ml sample of beads at that temperature Miley's beads >would produce ~160 watts, within an order of magnitude of the best results. 4 Watts is watts. So Jed agrees with me, after all. ================================================================ > Excuse me, but Mr. Rothwell STILL hasnt explained WHY it decreases or > goes away from the "kilowatt" levels in HORIZONTAL systems. > >It doesn't! Huge outputs have been observed in static and thermoelectric >calorimeters as well. Please show the data of kilowatts in a static OR thermoelectric calorimeter with the beads and the CETI system, Jed. If I am wrong, my apology, but the data is not salient. Please provide it with a serious preheating baseline. ================================================================ > There is an amplification factor, not an increment. It could NOT show up > if there is no excess heat. Simple mathematics, even if the Bernard > continuum electromechanics is not. > >During calibration, when you increase joule heater output from 1 watt to 2 >watts, the Delta T temperature goes up exactly the predicted amount; no more, >no less. But, if I understand Swartz correctly here, when you put in 1 watt of >electrolysis and 1 watt of CF excess heat is produced, the flow calorimeter >"amplifies" the extra watt to make it look like 2 or 3. How on earth can the >calorimeter know? Why does it choose to amplify excess heat from CF but not >excess heat from the stepped up joule heater during calibration? For that >matter, when CF excess heat is produced and a heat pulse is added with the >joule heater (on-the-fly recalibration), how does the calorimeter know to >amplify the excess heat from CF but to leave the heat pulse intact? The heat >sources in the cell are right next to one another; how can it know which one >to amplify and which to leave alone? Better questions. Suggest Jed, or those actually interest, read the article and attempt to derive the numbers themself, then look closely at the calibration actually used, and the heat and mass flow numbers, which appear to be consistent qualitatively with the amplification effect. ================================================================ >I don't get it. Neither does Mike McKubre, Martin Fleischmann, or anyone else >I have asked about this hypothesis. I took this hypothesis seriously when >Swartz first proposed it. I asked the right questions to the right people, and >tried to find out how, where and under what circumstances this artifact might >reveal itself. The answer, as far as anyone can make out, is that if this >effect could produce a 1-watt error in a McKubre-style calorimeter, or a >1000-watt error in a Cravens calorimeter, it would do so during calibration or >on-the-fly recalibration as readily as it does during excess heat production, >because calorimeters are blind to the source of energy they measure. Since the >effect is never seen during calibration, I must conclude it does not exist. When Jed Rothwell misinterprets the math, and then misquotes, it is no surprise that confusion follows. Garbage in, garbage out. It is interesting that neither Martin nor Michael have mentioned their problem regarding this to me. BTW, the mathematics and continuum electromechanics used to derived this effect (which does not always occur as discussed in the article) are consistent with conventional physics. ================================================================ >A minor point. Swartz titled his message: "Response to Jed Rothwell's false >statements - part I." Let me repeat that I am reporting on the work of Dennis >Cravens. I did not build, operate or calibrate the large calorimeter; these >are not my claims. Swartz should say: "Response to Dennis Cravens' false >statements." That puts it in a different perspective. Actually I spoke with Dennis Cravens both week before, and after, the invention of the VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRY. The same system mounted in the VFCalorimeter gave increased readings. Watts -> kilowatts. It is that sudden change in the observed "XSH" overnight for the same setup that has led to examining this closer. Why should the measurement system INCREASE the output of the device? We can think of ways it can DECREASE the output {by removing phonons (as heat)}, but not an INCREASE. If anyone has an alternative explanation, as always, all are awaiting its exposition. ================================================================ All we have done is suggest a scientific approach, which seems hard enough given Murphy's law, lack of funding, and the difficulty of the physics/metallurgy/chemistry/engineering. Like other cf researchers, do not like to be Jed Rothwell's target de jour merely for suggesting an improvement in a calibration, or other, system, but that appears to be par for this course. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 08:32:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02453; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:24:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:24:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:24:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711181624.IAA27497 sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Takahashi scooter Resent-Message-ID: <"7iWZU2.0.5c.J5SSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12936 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Norman wrote: >I've just had a very interesting talk with Mr Sawai about Takahashi. Thanks for the update. Well it looks like Takahashi is out of the race in developing an over-unity motor. Did Sawai know of Teruo Kawai's (5,436,518) 318% ou magnetic motor? It has been assigned to Nihon Riken Co., Japan. In this design there is no need for super magnets. Michael From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 09:16:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA19114; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:12:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:12:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:03:33 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Merriman on reproducing technology Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711181207_MC2-28A4-430A compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"syUm42.0.Zg4.WnSSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12937 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:barry julia.math.ucla.edu Barry Merriman writes: . . . just to reiterate, for the 10^9th time, we all acknowledge that there are many technological artifacts that we as individuals could never hope to duplicate on our own, during our lifetime. Something as simply as a commercial quality ballpoint pen could easily occupy me for the rest of my life if I had to start from scratch. An interesting point. Actually, if you define "from scratch" carefully, you could not reproduce any artifact of civilization. Not even a lump of iron. If I handed you a pile of rocks, clay, sticks and ore you could not build a ancient African-style furnace and smelt the metal. Even if you had blueprints it would take you years. A group of anthropologists and metallurgists tried doing that. They found, to no one's surprise, that it is much more difficult than it looks. Getting down to brass tacks, 99.9999% of the difficulty of doing CF is fabricating the cathode. So if you can master a large chunk of the know-how the knowledge Johnson-Matthey has gathered over the last 200 years, bingo! -- you are home free. Ed Storms thinks he could do it for a modest $10 million. Once he does that he can put the answers in a textbook and Merriman could probably replicate from that textbook in 6 months to 6 years of hard work, starting from scratch. That's about what it would take to make a ball point pen, I suppose. On a scale ranging from the lump of iron to a Tokamak reactor, the difficulty of making a CF device is somewhat higher than iron, somewhere well above a ball point pen, but nowhere near as high as the Pentium chip or the tokamak. So what? However, the converse is that there are few---if any---basic scientific principles that cannot be demonstrated with simple equipment that an individual could put together for a few thousand dollars and a few hundred hours of effort. That is utterly incorrect. For decades, Merriman and his colleagues have been attempting to replicate the most common and basic reaction in the universe: self-sustaining controlled nuclear fusion. What the sun and stars do. They have spent billions, but they have failed. Yes, I realize you can produce a tiny level of fusion with simple materials, but not the self-sustaining variety. It is even harder than smelting iron with rocks and sticks. Merriman could not do the Michelson-Morley test, yet the invariance of the speed of light is supposed to be one of the most basic principles in science. He could not demonstrate a fission chain reaction with "simple equipment and a few thousand dollars." Saddam Hussein can't do that with billions. (I hope he can't!) He could not construct the diamond point microscope gadget IBM used to rearranged individual atoms. It is not, in principle, very complicated. It relies upon fundamental principles like piezoelectricity, and simple techniques like smashing a diamond with an ordinary hammer to get a shard with one atom at the end. The principle is easy, the devil is in the details. The same can be said for cold fusion and many other electrochemical and catalytic processes. If, by some chance, it turns out that alchemy really does work, and Barry is able to replicate the experiments in his own lab, he will surely agree that they take considerable skill and practice. Alchemical transmutation, if it exists, must be based on fundamental scientific principles. But that does not make it easy to perform, or easy to verify. Barry has found that it is isn't even easy to unverify! You cannot even disprove it without months of work -- nothing like "a few hundred hours" (one month sustained effort.) It is a can of worms. As I said, in the Bockris textbooks on advanced electrochemistry Merriman will find hundreds of experiments illustrating basic principles of electrochemistry that he is incapable of replicating. He could not produce high octane gasoline, which is one of the most common and important chemical on earth. He could not fabricate a Diesel engine. If he tried to make gasoline or a Diesel he would probably blow himself up: Diesel and the people who invented cat cracking almost killed themselves several times. Diesel engines depend upon compression heating (Boyle's law), a principle which anyone can demonstrate with a $10 bicycle pump. But, to push the compression to levels high enough to prove that it can actually ignite fuel in a cylinder, you have to build a cylinder that is incredibly strong, and heavy yet capable of shedding waste heat. In the 1890s this was nearly impossible. Demonstrating the principle did not convince anyone. You can demonstrate the principle of high loading in palladium too, but unless you reach critical levels nothing will happen, just as nothing happens in a Diesel engine with insufficient compression. For example, I can' make the pen, but I can demonstrate capillary action, lubrication and the formation of inks and dyes pretty easily. Yes, but could not begin to make the special formula non-clogging ink required for ink jet printers. If no such printers existed, and you claimed you could you could make a printer or formulate the ink, no industrialist or venture capitalist would believe you, because you do not have the expert skills. They might say that in *in principle* such a device might work, but in practice it is impossible. That is what they said about the Diesel engine, and they were correct. It took years and many near-fatal mistakes. It took Japanese industrial corporations many millions to formulate ink jet ink. This was much harder than the invention of the ball point pen, which was accomplished by George and Ladislao Biro in 1938, working on their own. (But it wasn't much use until Seech invented improved ink in 1945.) There is an obvious difference. In principle, nobody knows how CF should work. In practice we have found it does. Moreover, in cold fusion it is not an issue of starting from scratch, as certain individuals are supposed to have it mastered and can therefore guide us and provide us with the primary ingredients, were they so inclined.... They can and they have. Read Storms! Read Cravens, Bockris, or the CETI patents. A great deal of information is out there. I myself am incapable of doing the experiments as described in this literature. I know my limitations. I cannot do the other experiments shown in electrochemical textbooks either. But I do not deny the information exists and the experiments work. Barry Merriman and Scott Little have apparently never read Storms, or they have some hidden reason to believe the information in his papers is wrong, and he has not "mastered" the techniques he claims he has. I do not understand what they think. Do they claim the papers I refer to do not exist? Do they think that techniques like the OCV (open circuit voltage), annealing, testing of expansion, elimination of carbon and all the rest are figments of my imagination? How do they know these techniques do not work? Neither of them has ever tried even *one* of the recommended techniques as far as I know. They remind me of the French engineers who claimed they replicated the Wrights back in 1908. Based on the photos of their machines, I think that those Frenchmen: 1. Did not use chambered wings; 2. Did not use wing warping; 3. Never saw the 1906 patent, or never paid any attention to it. They based their "replications" on hearsay and muddled, third-hand reports of talks given by Octave Chanute. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 10:19:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22516; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:14:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:14:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:09:20 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Takahashi scooter Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711181313_MC2-28A7-9CB9 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"E9vDQ1.0.XV5.1iTSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12939 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Norman Horwood has done us a valuable service by contacting Sawai. If the statements about Takahashi are true he is a scoundrel and a fraud. We need to expose such people. It isn't fair, but people associate their work with CF and other legitimate science. Norman relays Sawai's report: First - he is well and has not been sick, and he is back in Japan. Takahashi may be recovered now, but reliable people who met with him a few years ago told me he was suffering from a serious illness. He had a portable oxygen bottle and he was pale and listless. It would hard to fake that, and I can't imagine why anyone would fake it. It wouldn't help a scam or a real inventor. It does not inspire confidence in investors. If Sawai has been with Takahashi for years and he says Takahashi was never sick, that is a serious discrepancy. I do not know what to make of it. Perhaps Sawai is not telling the truth? Second - he apparently has been defrauding investors all over the place. . . . Third - his magnificent magnets have been tested by an independent authority and found to be 48.3 NOT 140. . . . Fourth - Sawai has seen, but not measured, Takahashi's motor . . . None of this surprises me. I would not necessarily take Sawai's word for it. On the other hand, Takahashi has acted squirrely from the start. He does not allow proper testing, he hides, he evades, he makes excuses. He walks and talks and quacks like a scam, so I suppose he must be one. The other magnetic motor inventors I know of have also acted like this to one degree or another. Even Greg Watson with his SMOT machines has been less than forthcoming. I like Greg. I detest people like Takahashi and Meyer. I think they are all fakers. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 10:24:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27857; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:09:08 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: A profound communications gap Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711181311_MC2-28A7-9C8B compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ZiWq52.0.7p6.EhTSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12938 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz sometimes reminds me of Martin Fleischmann. With all due respect, they talk in riddles like the Delphic Oracle. I cannot make head or tail of the following exchange. I wonder if anyone with a scientific background can. MS: Has Dr. Miley seen kilowatts, or does he report milliwatts-watts? Me: Miley used a mass of beads 40 times smaller than Cravens at a much lower operating temperature, with lower proportional input. [Roughly ~10 times lower, as a matter of fact.] Miley's maximum output was ~4 watts. With a 40 ml sample of beads at that temperature Miley's beads would produce ~160 watts, within an order of magnitude of the best results. MS: 4 Watts is watts. So Jed agrees with me, after all. Did I not clearly state that I *do not* agree? Did I not make it clear that I believe that Cravens' device was scaled up? It has more mass, more electricity, and a much higher operating temperature, so I think it produces more heat, in proportion. The heat is not an artifact. It does not go away or lessen when you use a different calorimeter design. I say it has nothing to do with "Bernard Instabilities." Yes, 4 watts is watts, but I said 4 watts * 40 ml * 10 x electricity = 1600 watts, so we do not agree. I don't mind when Swartz disagrees, but when he claims "Jed agrees with me, after all" when I manifestly do not -- as anyone can see, I hope . . . well, I find that disconcerting, weird, and obnoxious. Isn't it enough to say: "Jed and Dennis Cravens are wrong." Why should anyone claim we mean the opposite of what we say? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 11:02:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01700; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:58:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:58:31 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711171257_MC2-287C-271C compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:57:38 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Jed Rothwell and scientific data Resent-Message-ID: <"sd1-W.0.QQ.LLUSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12940 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell assesses the existence of scientific data when he states: > I believe Wharton and >Swartz have not got a scrap of scientific data to prove their hypotheses, but >they are, at least, attempting to come to grips with the data. We can debate >with them. We can show calibration data and other data which, in my opinion, >proves they are wrong. My theory of higher order entropy transport is based on standard accepted equation of fluid dynamics. In fact the entropy conservation equation is extraneous as the conservation equations of mass, momentum, and heat provide a complete description in themselves. These conservation equations may be taken directly and applied to give the effects in my theory. The most important effect is that of negative viscosity. When the condition of a large force or a low density exists such that the density scale height is on the order of the particle mean free path the viscosity becomes negative. Of course negative viscosity is in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. One may plug in to the entropy conservation formula and get a negative entropy production. Instead of slowing down fluid flow, like in the case of positive viscosity, negative viscosity speeds it up. Probably few experts in fluid dynamics would believe in negative viscosity. Faced with the prospect that standard fluid dynamics predicts this, all such experts would most likely agree with the approach of B.C. Eu in which he attempts to modify the standard equations so that this effect is not allowed. I most likely would not believe in negative viscosity if I did not have scientific data that clearly confirmed it. In fact, I did not believe in it for a long time even though I did have this data. The data comes from measurements of neutral temperature and winds taken from NASA satellites Atmosphere Explorer C, D, and E and Dynamics Explorer 1 and 2 . The first anomaly was found in AE-E temperature measurements. Here is was found that around midnight and near the equator the temperature would sometimes increase and sometimes it would actually get hotter than in the day time. This was very strange as the sun was the only known source of enough energy to cause so much heating and there was no sun at midnight. This was reported in: "The Midnight Temperature Maximum in the Earth's Equatorial Thermosphere," N. W. Spencer, G. R. Carignan, H. G. Mayr, H. B. Niemann, R. F. Theis and L. E. Wharton, Geophys. Res. Lett., 6, 444, 1979. There never was an acceptable explanation for this anomaly. So, in fact, NASA was the first to discover excess heat. There certainly was heating going on there and there was no known source of energy to account for this heat. The second anomaly I found from DE-2 data. The normal wind patterns has the winds flowing from the hot dayside to the colder nightside. This worked out as expected and I reported on some averaged winds in: "The Earth's Thermospheric Superrotation from Dynamics Explorer 2," L. E. Wharton, N. W. Spencer and H. G. Mayr, Geophys. Res. Lett., 11, 531, 1984. There was a problem though. I found that at high enough altitudes the winds would increase as the altitude increased. This seemed totally unbelievable. Viscosity to a very good approximation would have no dependence on density. Thus as the altitude increased the density would decrease exponentially but the viscosity would stay the same. So the viscous force per particle, the kinematic viscosity, would increase exponentially. All models of this region has a vanishing velocity shear as the altitude increases, as the high kinematic viscosity would not allow any significant shear. My result seemed bogus, everyone told me that it was and I myself though it was bogus. So I never published this altitude dependence result, thinking it was wrong. Then later I found that the accepted form for higher order fluid dynamics actually predicted this strange result through negative viscosity. The strange heating at midnight then also made sense. As the winds flowed from the dayside to the nightside they would actually speed up through negative viscosity effects. As they converged on the nightside there would be a great clash as the winds, all heading for the same region and all speeding up, smashed together at night. An analogy would be a train track circling the globe at the equator. Then we start two trains in motion at opposite directions at noon. At first the wind from the solar heating would start to push them. Of course the friction of the train wheels would slow them down and there would be a balance between the wind force and the friction force. Now lets suppose that the friction actually had the reverse effect and instead of slowing down the trains, it accelerated them. Then they would keep on accelerating until they crashed at night and the crash could generate a large amount of heat. So NASA discovered excess heat in 1979 and the data that clearly showed the mechanism for the excess heat was obtained in 1984 but never published because it was thought to be bogus. This mechanism was in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics but in full agreement with existing equations of fluid dynamics. It was the prevailing view of the second law that was wrong. There are many experts on the second law. People with little knowledge of physics, like Jed Rothwell, see themselves as great experts on this law and are certain it is always valid. Only about 1% or less of physicists would have the knowledge of fluid dynamics to understand the effects in my theory but near 100% of physicists see themselves as experts on the second law and can state with total certainty that it is never violated. Even among the very few physicists that know what is going on, the majority view is that the accepted equations of fluid dynamics should be changed so that the second law remains valid. Of course these actual experts do not know about the only data that contradicts the second law, with the exception of one other person at NASA who knows about my DE winds analysis and who is an expert in the field, and he agrees with me. So I guess it is time to get going on this subject. It has been 13 years since the essential scientific data on this subject has been available but never published. I have been able to understand what is going on and there is now a realization in the field that there is a problem with the second law. Some may have a problem with essential data that was obtained at great expense to the taxpayers and never published. The 5 AE and DE satellites cost about $50 million each so that is about $250 million in money at the time. With inflation and adding mission support and data analysis costs the figure would be something like $500 million in current dollars. Of course the many great experts on the second law, like Jed Rothwell, know with absolute certainty that no energy may be produced in violation of this law and they would say that is not important that I did not publish critical data. Just as Jed says that Gregg Watson is not responsible for millions of deaths for not shipping out his SMOT devices because it would not work, he should say that my delay problem has no deaths associated with it because it is impossible for my theory to work. Still my situation is a potential prime candidate for Jed's millions of deaths on your hands scenario with problems of long delays and large amounts of taxpayer dollars involved. At the time I was doing this research there were many of my colleges that were upset with me for doing bogus work. There were problems of official disapproval, colleges walking out of seminars I gave when I got to the section where I showed the violation of the second law, and cases of my being removed from research projects in response to my bogus work. Now from colleges that know that my work is fully consistent with standard accepted fluid dynamics, I get the reaction that everything is all my fault. They say that I should have published my data analysis without regard to prevailing theories that may have disagreed with it. To hear them tell it is as if they were encouraging me at the time to go ahead with my work. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 11:13:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04826; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:08:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:08:32 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:07:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971118140749_-1776421976 mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"jLAsj.0.IB1.lUUSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12941 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 11/18/97 7:27:06 AM, Mitchell made the distinction: <> ZPE(vacuum) is conventional also. As in what you call the vibrational (matter) state, it is the (1/2)h-bar X omega energy associated with a given normal mode of the vacuum EM field, which in second quantization is treated as as an oscillator just as the vibrational matter modes you reference. With regard to the ratio of the ZPE energy density in matter and vacuum in a material, simply calculate the normal EM modes supported by the material parameters, assign (1/2) h-bar X omega energy to them and integrate, and do same for the mechanical vibrational modes of interest. It will depend on the particular material parameters. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 11:40:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13338; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:37:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:37:43 -0800 (PST) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971118133611.ZM27461 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:36:11 -0600 In-Reply-To: Larry Wharton "Jed Rothwell and scientific data" (Nov 18, 1:00pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Negative Viscosity Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"cfCtY1.0.GG3.4wUSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12942 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 18, 1:00pm, Larry Wharton wrote: > My theory of higher order entropy transport is based on standard accepted > equation of fluid dynamics. In fact the entropy conservation equation is > extraneous as the conservation equations of mass, momentum, and heat > provide a complete description in themselves. These conservation equations > may be taken directly and applied to give the effects in my theory. The > most important effect is that of negative viscosity. When the condition of > a large force or a low density exists such that the density scale height is > on the order of the particle mean free path the viscosity becomes negative. > Of course negative viscosity is in contradiction to the second law of > thermodynamics. One may plug in to the entropy conservation formula and > get a negative entropy production. Instead of slowing down fluid flow, > like in the case of positive viscosity, negative viscosity speeds it up. I am very interested reading more of your theory if you are willing to put up with the expected grief. It is a shame situations did not allow you the latitude to follow up on it. Times change. The implications of achieving negative viscosity are thought provoking. As not to have the discussion degrade in to debating 2nd law issues, I would suggest detractors suspend belief before launching the fire bombs. I am interested in the CONCEPT, not in it's conclusive PROOF. Just a thought : In your polar wind example, did you/they take into account possible ionic heating by the huge amounts of solar wind energy drawn into the atmosphere at the magnetic poles from space? We see auroras as witness to the influx, is it possible there is an unknown/unquantified thermodynamic expression as well? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 13:32:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA19710; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:16:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:16:38 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:17:55 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"C-hGC1.0.up4.qMWSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12943 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: One reason bound electron capture rates are small is the fact that the probability that electrons occupy the nucleus is small. This is due primarily to the mechanics of the atom. After all, if it were't for the mechanics the electrons would simply fall into the nucleus and all matter would collapse. Typically the net translational force between the nucleus and the electron cloud is zero. The nucleus occupies a neutral position in the electron cloud, called the center of charge of the cloud. This center of charge can be displaced, however. This displacement can be accomplished by applying an electric field, for example. In that case the nucleus and center of charge find a new equilibrium point, where the force of external electric field is balanced with the force from the center of charge. If a sufficient force can be exerted on the nucleus relative to the electron cloud, the center of charge can also be made to displace from the nucleus. In this case an electric field is generated by the atom. Such a displacement can be generated by gravitational or inertial forces. Electrostatic fields can be generated by use of centrifuges using this principle, for example. The main thought of this post is that when the center of charge is displced, the nucleus should then occupy a volume of the electron probability distribution, psi^2, that is much larger than the neutral zone. If this is the case, then the probablility of electron capture should be measureably higher. There are the basic practical methods of displacing the nucleus on a continual basis in order to affect the rate of electron capture: (1) Apply a strong electrostatic force (2) Use centrifugal force by placing sample in a centrifuge or rotating it (3) Rattle the sample with ultrasonics (4) Rattle the sample with electostatics (5) Rattle the sample with electromagnetics (6) A hybriod of the above Note that (1) may be a clue as to why the Barker experiment may work. For (6), one approach may be to get the nucleus to slide around inside the cloud like a piece of ice inside a basketball, thus generating centrifugal force to displace the nucleus relative to the cloud. Heres a design: o--------o---------------------- HV AC | --- | | | | ------ \/\/\/ | | | T1 ====== | -----| Sample |--- /\/\/\ | | | | | | | | | ------ | | --|----- | | | | | | | | | | o---------|------o-------------- | | | ------------------------------ Note that T1 may be air core or replaced with other circuitry which can maintain the horizontal and vertical plates 90 degrees out of phase. The main objective is to create a rotating electrostatic field (that possibly initially increases in frequency) that drags the nuclei along around in circles inside their atoms. One interresting facit of this approach is that there appears to be no resonant frequency involved, except secondarily. If the nucleus did not slide around the cloud uniformly, due to heat effects for example, then the rotational energy could be diverted into the nucleus rattling around bouncing off the walls, an effect which would inititally have its own resonant frequency, depending on the atom, and eventually result in heat. Placing the atom in a strong magnetic field would at least tend to divert such rattling around into a plane perpendicular to the magnetic field, and provide a chance for the nucleus to come back into synch. Combining these thoughts, such a device might best operate at the resonant frequency for the atom, with a strong magnetic field coming out of the page in the drawing above. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 13:46:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26469; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:44:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:44:32 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:43:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3473f604.16360104 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Kc4a23.0.UT6.-mWSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12946 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:32 +0100 (MET), Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >It also occurs in some nuclei where the arrangement of neutrons and protons >is more energetically favourable by changing a proton to a neutron. In both >cases there there is no specific energy signature from the neutrino. It depends >on the particulars of the specific interaction. > >Martin Sevior > > I'm still trying to find out if the energy associated with e.c. (where this is positive), is carried away by the resultant neutrino, or by gamma radiation. Can anyone tell me? 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 13:47:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03016; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:41:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:41:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:35:21 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: From a magnetic point of view 48 MGO Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"b9Htg3.0.zk.zjWSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12944 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From a magnetic point of view a Gauss Oersted product of 48 meg is not too bad. J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 13:50:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26457; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:44:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:44:30 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Note on Rydberg Orbitals and Hydrino Formation Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:43:51 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3472eb31.13589053 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <199711171304.HAA27452 natasha.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199711171304.HAA27452 natasha.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bN6yG2.0.DT6.ymWSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12945 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:04:38 -0600 (CST), Scott Little wrote: >At 11:30 PM 11/16/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >>There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation accuracy, >>on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by Mills and Kneizys. >>Such a formation is quantized, true? > >I'm not so sure. From the Bohr model of the atom it's easy to see why the >n=integer states of the atom exist and why they are precisely quantized. >The electron wave function fits with an integer number of wavelengths into >those orbits. But what about the hypothesized n=1/integer states? If we're >going to throw away the requirement that the wave function "fit" into the >orbital, then why bother making it misfit by some precise amount? I don't think this requirement is thrown away according to Mills. Instead he postulates a "trapped" photon within the spherical electron cavity, which results in an incremental charge being added to the nucleus, so that to all intents and purposes, the Hydrino 1/2 hydrino behaves as He+. I.e. the single electron of the hydrino "senses" a double charge on the nucleus. This results in a stronger potential energy gradient, and consequently a smaller "orbital". IOW the wave function still "fits", completely analogous to the ground state of He+. [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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 13:51:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26485; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:44:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:44:35 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Response to Jed Rothwell's false statements - part I Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:43:55 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3474fa39.17437300 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971117175000.006ae0a8 world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971117175000.006ae0a8 world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"S1x4d3.0.iT6.1nWSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12947 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:50:00 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] >>He said the same thing I say here: there can't be; it would >>show up during calibration. > > There is an amplification factor, not an increment. >It could NOT show up if there is no excess heat. This point is critical, and deserves a response. [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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 14:43:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01686; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:29:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:29:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:27:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199711182227.PAA25764 freenet.uchsc.EDU> From: bx196 freenet.uchsc.EDU (Mike W. McClure) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: JED - Back to Basics Reply-To: bx196 freenet.uchsc.EDU Resent-Message-ID: <"PSH4G1.0.7Q.lQXSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12948 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, Barry, I'm really confused now, did we go back too far (can't make anything anymore?) Are we not allowed current knowledge for these tasks Jed? Barry, sure you could do it! -snip- Barry wrote: > never hope to duplicate on our own, during our lifetime. Something as > simply as a commercial quality ballpoint pen could easily occupy me for > the rest of my life if I had to start from scratch. > Jed replies: >An interesting point. Actually, if you define "from scratch" carefully, you >could not reproduce any artifact of civilization. Not even a lump of iron. If >I handed you a pile of rocks, clay, sticks and ore you could not build a >ancient African-style furnace and smelt the metal. Even if you had blueprints >it would take you years. A group of anthropologists and metallurgists tried >doing that. They found, to no one's surprise, that it is much more difficult >than it looks. -snip- Jed continues: > You cannot even > disprove it without months of work -- nothing like "a few hundred hours" >(one month sustained effort.) It is a can of worms. > Jed, is one allowed to 'know' todays knowledge in doing this TASK? If so, I think I could extract the ore with a compartmented blast furnace. Using the two chambered design with a-knock-off mud plug to spill down the dirt groove to my 'artifact' of design. Probably a fish hook :) for me! Would some of your 'rock/ore' be coal, or would I have to count the time it takes to go get it. (as, coal would be my preferred rock/stick?) Would you restrict me to only blowing on the fire, or could I have a bellows made from local mammal skins - hand stitched over a frame work of ANY SIZE.. hot,hot,hot! Giving me the above, I think 10-30 days is well within operational/pourable range. Barry wrote: > For example, I can' make the pen, but I can demonstrate capillary > action, lubrication and the formation of inks and dyes pretty easily. > >Yes, but could not begin to make the special formula non-clogging ink required >for ink jet printers. If no such printers existed, and you claimed you could >you could make a printer or formulate the ink, no industrialist or venture >capitalist would believe you, because you do not have the expert skills. They >might say that in *in principle* such a device might work, but in practice it >is impossible. That is what they said about the Diesel engine, and they were >correct. It took years and many near-fatal mistakes. It took Japanese >industrial corporations many millions to formulate ink jet ink. This was much >harder than the invention of the ball point pen, which was accomplished by >George and Ladislao Biro in 1938, working on their own. (But it wasn't much >use until Seech invented improved ink in 1945.) -snip- Jed continues: >There is an obvious difference. In principle, nobody knows how CF should work. >In practice we have found it does. NOW, Here lies the disagreement I believe between you and Barry. Jed, you said "Nobody knows how CF should work!" Good Point to you BOTH! In my above smelter, assuming I'm allowed any knowledge of today, It would seem your claiming that Barry cannot know about a BOW & DRAW String Fire Starter as he hasn't read ALL the REPORTS about it. But, Barry is sticking:) by his Friction of spinning-stick to start or make his FIRE. Either way, the FIRE is lit. I would think a refining of product at this point is in order, not, "IT HAS TO THIS WAY - BECAUSE xxx". A refining of product through shared results in data and experience. This is the fastest way to get to that ball-point pin problem. -------- Barry, take the above design bellows (not a *BIC PEN*, but noone said it had to be) reduce the to a cookie-cutter pastery size. Spend a day or two walking the river bank to find a nicely round rock -larger than the little bellows end opening- Fill the bellow cavity with coal carbon, add water?, mud, blood or Beer(*), viscuse melted animal fat or whatever. Some Pens will of course *Work Longer than Other Design*. Point is: It Should WRITE. The beginning stages or all artifacts are always more crude than a todays product. I would also predict, that tomorrows product will be so improved. with my new hook Off to fishing mike -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 14:45:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03129; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:35:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:35:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:37:10 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"wIUpJ1.0.om.xWXSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12949 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Of further interst may be the fact that at the interface, the layer at the surface of an electrode in an electrolysis cell, enormous electrostatic field gradients occur, even though the total voltage differential is small. However, there are means for greatly increasing the voltage differential and field gradient, so maybe these should be explored further with the aim of creating electron capture and energy production or transmutation effects. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 15:01:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07730; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:57:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:57:00 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:58:28 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Wharton's theory of higher order entropy transport Resent-Message-ID: <"N5yIg2.0.hu1.wqXSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12950 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts Larry! Your theory of higher order entropy transport sounds really interesting, and promising in scale. Also sounds like material that shoud be published post haste! Are you risking your job bringing all this to the fore? This sounds like work that should receive, at minimum SBIR funding, especially from DOD or NASA! Do you have any concepts for building a device using negative viscosity? If so it certainly would fall under the prerequistite "enigmatic energy devices" called for under the DOD SBIR Advanced Propulsion Topic. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 15:36:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21512; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:29:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:29:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:28:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199711182328.PAA27795 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"eX2AA2.0.2G5.3JYSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12951 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:32 +0100 (MET), Martin Sevior wrote: >[snip] >>It also occurs in some nuclei where the arrangement of neutrons and protons >>is more energetically favourable by changing a proton to a neutron. In both >>cases there there is no specific energy signature from the neutrino. It depends >>on the particulars of the specific interaction. >> >>Martin Sevior >> >> >I'm still trying to find out if the energy associated with e.c. (where >this is positive), is carried away by the resultant neutrino, or by >gamma radiation. Can anyone tell me? > Interesting, the table of the isotopes in my CRC doesn't show the "before" mass of the elements. There is an energy associated with the capture. The energy must appear part in the neutrino emitted, and part in the recoil of the nucleus. Split the KE the normal way I would imagine. But there would have to have been some energetic photon or something to cause the capture in the first place, so that could add an assymetry to the emitted energy if you analyzed it without accounting for that incident energy to get the event to manifest in the first place. As that incident energy is today washed over by saying that the electron's wave function is "inside of the nucleus" part of the time, they will not think in terms of blasting an electron soliton into the nucleus, and blasting the neutrino soliton back out of the nucleus. QM tells you about the probabilities of the events happening. but it is a mess as far as telling you what really happened. All you are supposed to consider are the before and after particles and energies, and not the interaction itself. that is why a lot of people are discussing the electron wave being inside of the nucleus part of the time. solitons are all inside of one another all of the time because they are all resonances in the one and only ocean of aether. But that doesn't mean their centers of convergence are coincident. It is like saying that we are inside of a tornado when we are ten miles away because we are inside of the air motions making up the storm front that is converging into and driving the tornado. We may be inside of the volume of air that is part of the tornado, but there is a huge difference between being in the same ocean and being in the center of convergence. The same is true for electrons and nuclei. Any way, according to today's thinking, as best I can figure you have the energy being shared between the neutrino and the nucleus as they recoil away from one another, and you will need to consider the momentum of the electron that was blasted into the nucleus too so it is a sort of multi body collision. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 15:43:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16743; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:38:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:38:29 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118173833.007413a8 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:38:33 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Scientific American Frontiers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"FrbWQ1.0.Q54.qRYSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12952 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tomorrow night (Wed) on PBS, the Scientific American Frontiers eposide entitled "Beyond Science?" will feature a short segment on Puthoff/Little/EarthTech sandwiched in between debunking of dowsing, handwriting analysis and alien landings. Tune in and find out what they say about us...are we the debunkers or the debunked? (we really have no idea how it's going to go!) Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 15:50:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24019; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:46:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:46:12 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34722894.872 math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:45:24 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society References: <971118084747_-1941332674 mrin42.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mnhB_.0.Dt5.1ZYSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12953 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > Barry, > > In your initial proposal for what is now the Order of the Tortoise, you cced > Dieter Britz and Steve Jones. Are they co-founders? > No, but in a perfect world they would be. :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 17:29:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07860; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:20:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:20:46 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:19:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971118201932_1114347746 mrin44.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: 1/2 h bar Resent-Message-ID: <"WVOTx.0.gw1.ixZSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12954 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Zero point energy is generally regarded as the half point vibrational > energy in matter in conventional science. > ............................................................. Very Very good comment Mr Swartz. It order to tap ZP energy angular momentum must be supplied. All energy photons have an angular momentum of h. That's what I have said before and I'm glad to see that some of us are now getting to the core of the problem. The process of converting ZPE into photonic energy does not conserve angular momentum! Now I hope we all come around to the next thing needed; the emission of a spin 2 negative energy gravitaton. In this scenario a huge background flux of ZP energy is not needed. How can we emitt gravity? By exploiting the force/gravity symmetry. It would work sort of like a radio transmitter that works with force and gravity rather than E and M. gravity = G(dp/dt)/ccr Recipe: Add angular momentum. Exploit the forces in the system to induce gravity. And we will have a new source of energy. That's what I am actively trying to do. ..................... Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 17:42:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA10358; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: JED - Back to Basics Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:30:35 -0500 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: <19971119013639224.AAA178 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"cWOdx2.0.lX2.F8aSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12955 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I can add a couple of drops of ink to the discussion, since inkjet printers were mentioned. The idea is surprisingly old. I remember seeing very high speed ink jet teletype printers in the 50's. These actually had a set of 80 jets on .1" centers, each with a set of wires to deflect the electrically charged ink drops raster-fashion to create the crude capital letters. RCA worked with ink jet printers for decades with the hope of making a home radio-fax-newspaper device. The HP ink jet printer and its descendants are the result of a very long line of R&D. It all looks so easy, but that ink isn't, nor is the matrix of tiny resistors that generated the heat bursts to eject the inks. Nor, for that matter, is the heat sensitive paper used in receipt printers. Here's a thought experiment. You can collect N people of your choice and T tons of equipment, but you will then be transported to a new planet with reasonably benign local fauna and flora, but no human or high civilization. There is no return, nor any support. What are the values of N and T such that a stable, growing civilization can develop, without returning to hunting-gathering and legends of a golden age within Y years? All the high tech stuff will fail, probably in less than a century, and you will be too busy feeding yourselves to find new resources, and no time to educate the kids. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 18:03:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14084; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:58:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:58:04 -0800 (PST) From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:56:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971118205650_-1441416347 mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"TQFd63.0.-R3.gUaSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12956 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-18 04:38:21 EST, you write: << Subj: Re: BLP calorimetry Date: 97-11-18 04:38:21 EST From: wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) >> If we accept the theory given in the study then there still are >> major problems. If going from the conduction dominated region to the >> radiation dominated region requires a change in the filament/boat >> temperature then the amount of heat involved is the specific heat of the >> filament/boat times the temperature change. Larry, In the writeups, I see no mention that the power input to the filiment is changed. I believe they hold the power input constant. Yes, agreed, the filiment/boat temperature will change as helium is admitted (convection cooling) which will show up as lower total heat out, but why does this invalidate anything? When hydrogen is admitted the total heat out goes up.(Some kind of reaction occurs which does not occur with the admission of helium or pumping to a high vacuum) That, to me, is the bottom line here. >If that change in the amount of heat causes a large >distortion in the calorimeter reading, as in Figure 2b, >with the level still not back to the baseline after 1 hour, >then the experiment is useless. > The implication is that the alleged heat produced >is on the order of the variation of heat contained in >the filament/boat structure as it makes a transition >from radiation to conduction as the main >mode of heat transfer. That is a joke. >The alleged heat produced is on the order of the >variations in heat contained in the reacting mass >in the interior of the calorimeter. > And there should be some explination of the >negative readings in Figure 2b. I interpret this >to mean that heat is flowing from the oven to the >filament/boat structure as we go from the conduction >to the radiation region. Larry, Agreed, the oven tries to keep the reactor at a constant temperature, and if there is no reaction going on within the reactor chamber (helium or vacuum) I would expect to see exactly that. >+++++++++++++++++++++QUOTE FROM BLP+++++++++++++ > >>"The instrument used to measure the heat of reaction >>comprises a cylindrical heat flux calorimeter (International >>Thermal Instrument Co., Model CA-100-1). The cylindrical >>calorimeter walls contain a thermopile structure composed of >>two sets of thermoelectric junctions....... > This quote is not contained in the final report on the BLP home page. It >may have appeared in an earlier report but it is not there now and I have >never seen it. Sure, the experiment is much clearer with this description, >but it is still invalid. It is just more clear that it is invalid. Larry, The above quote is not on the home page. It is located in the experimental writups, in PDF file format. It is still there as I downloaded it the day of my reply to you. > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Respectfully, Vince Cockeram Las Vegas Nevada ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from relay27.mail.aol.com (relay27.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.27]) by air07.mail.aol.com (v36.0) with SMTP; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:38:21 -0500 Received: from mx2.eskimo.com (mx2.eskimo.com [204.122.16.49]) by relay27.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA03323; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:42:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24871; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:40:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:40:34 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <971115012444_1536545653 mrin41.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:39:26 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"V_IYs.0.X46.FdBSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12895 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 18:17:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14528; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:11:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:11:31 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971118210806.006b65a4 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:08:06 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <971118140749_-1776421976 mrin43.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"vOL-o3.0.gY3.HhaSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12957 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:07 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Hal continued the discussion on ZPEc/ZPEv: > >In a message dated 11/18/97 7:27:06 AM, Mitchell made the distinction: > >< > ZPE(vacuum) = ZPEv>> > >ZPE(vacuum) is conventional also. As in what you call the vibrational >(matter) state, it is the (1/2)h-bar X omega energy associated with a given >normal mode of the vacuum EM field, which in second quantization is treated >as as an oscillator just as the vibrational matter modes you reference. > >With regard to the ratio of the ZPE energy density in matter and vacuum in a >material, simply calculate the normal EM modes supported by the material >parameters, assign (1/2) h-bar X omega energy to them and integrate, and do >same for the mechanical vibrational modes of interest. It will depend on the >particular material parameters. > >Hal Puthoff Hal Puthoff is correct for the ZPE(conventional) because there is actually matter in the cm3 of our gendanken cm3. But where is the energy to fill the TEM and other modes in a true vacuum? ZPE(v) seems to rely on the unlikely assumption that every possible mode in a resonator 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm is filled in some hidden way? It also seems to assume there is more matter in every cm3 of vacuum then exists in the known universe. Furthermore, when Hal says vacuum, does he mean a true vacuum, or what constitutes our near-Earth space with its ions, cosmic rays, etc.? If the latter, than it is known to be teeming with extrinsic very high energy radiation and particles, but that would seem to not be a true vacuum. In summary, still begs the answer to the question: What is ZPEc/ZPEv for 1 cm3 of matter and 1 cm3 of true vacuum? Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 18:35:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA18312; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:24:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:24:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:25:21 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"YlePb.0.1U4.VtaSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12958 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:43 PM 11/18/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:32 +0100 (MET), Martin Sevior wrote: >[snip] >>It also occurs in some nuclei where the arrangement of neutrons and protons >>is more energetically favourable by changing a proton to a neutron. In both >>cases there there is no specific energy signature from the neutrino. It >>depends >>on the particulars of the specific interaction. >> >>Martin Sevior >> >> >I'm still trying to find out if the energy associated with e.c. (where >this is positive), is carried away by the resultant neutrino, or by >gamma radiation. Can anyone tell me? > > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Looking at the table of isotopes in the 93-94 edition of the CRC Handbook, the Decay Mode/Energy column, the first electron capture (E.C.) entry is for 7Be, at 0.862 MeV and half life of only 53.28 days. To the far right of the page is a column for gamma ray intensity. The entry for our example 7Be shows 0.4776/10.4, meaning 0.4776 MeV of the 0.862 MeV from the 7Be decay is carried away by gammas in 10.4 percent of the decays. I would assume that in the other 89.6 percent of the decays 100 percent of the enrgy is carried away by the kinetic energy of the nucleus and the neutrino in standard kinetic reaction proportions. Since the neutrino is light, it will carry away the vast portion of the energy when there is no gamma. However, on the bright side, the collapse of the atomic shells resulting from the suddenly missing inner electron is "free" energy in the sense it is stolen from the universe in the form of entropy. Did I get all that right? Happy hunting for the E.C. of choice. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 20:29:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09153; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:26:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:26:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347239C6.3FC5 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:25:57 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"19GGJ1.0.wE2.kfcSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12959 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > (snip) > Note that T1 may be air core or replaced with other circuitry which can > maintain the horizontal and vertical plates 90 degrees out of phase. The > main objective is to create a rotating electrostatic field (that possibly > initially increases in frequency) that drags the nuclei along around in > circles inside their atoms. OK, Horace, I vote to drive the rotating-field device from 90 electrical degree taps on a waveguide using a microwave oven magnetron. I guess the waveguide needs to be loaded at the far end with its characteristic impedance so we get a nice traveling wave down the guide. Lets see, at 2400 MHz I think we get 144,000,000,000 rpm. Is that fast enough? Sorry, I can't think of an easy way to vary the frequency. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 20:44:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA10225; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:41:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:41:30 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:40:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971118234016_-1273331002 mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu Subject: the study of physics Resent-Message-ID: <"raj-s1.0.hV2.utcSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12960 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I like many of you have always had an interest in physics. I have some math and science background from my Electrical Engineering Degree and over the years have read many books. When my position was eliminated at GPU I decided to take a break from work and to return to college to learn some physics. First I got some video tapes reviewed my calc on my own (from the tapes) and then returned to college. Now I will relate this experience to you. I took Nuclear which was a graduate and undergraduate survey course. The instructor Dr. Mathos said, "It took me years to figure out how to teach a multi-level course to students with varied backgrounds" Sometimes he went on about the Lagrange and the Hamotonian and he lost me, however, he always got to an understandable conclusion. We worked the Batemann equations, decay constants and such. I did the homework learned something. I passed the tests and got an A in spite of the fact that didn't understand everything all the time. I also took optics. I'll never use the stuff, however, the instructor Jayne is real cute. I like her. She likes me to and I got a B. You never know I might not have been a waste of time perhaps someday I will grind myself a pair of glasses. I'm now in Modern Physics. I recommend to all Vortichans, if you like Physics take this one. I already knew most of the material up to the Schrodinger Equation stuff. The course gets harder here. The instructor, Dr. Roberts, slowed down when we got to finding solutions to the Schrodinger equation and the book is real good. My grade is standing at an A. Dr. Roberts is Dept head. He tells jokes and stories relating to the material. I feel good when I leave this one. I have learned a lot. Believing that I was doing quite well I signed up for thero physics. I thought, "This has got to be a watered down version of thermodynamics. Just what I need!" On the first minute of the first day the instructor started writing down equations. He goes on with this as fast as I can copy them into my note book. We take the partial derivative, stick it into the Taylor series expansion. Write some more stuff with dot...dot...dot n. and do it again. It never stops. I write real fast and I am not learning crap. I try to read the book. Its the only book I've ever seen with more equations than text. I can't understand it either. The other day the topic was Hemholtz Free Energy. I thought, "I've heard of that and perhaps now I will finally learn what it is." Well you know the routine..partial derivatives all over the board..dot...dot....dot..this was going on for thirty minutes or so. I put up my hand and asked, "What is Hemholtz Free Energy" can you give me some physical insight?" I thought, there has got to be a way to explain this in words. He answered my question by writing some partial dif e q 's on the board. I knew it, I should not have asked. Do the molecules really know how to solve these things? Last week he went on for a while talking about the number of photons per state. I thought, "What is a state..is it associated with volume, molecules, atoms, electrons or the whole universe." I still have no clue and didn't ask. He took this equation and came up with one for involving volume which he called the Stefan Boltzman law. I thought, "I saw this before is this not the equation for radiation and is not radiation associated with surface area." I put up my hand and asked, "How can radiation that's associated with surface area depend on volume?" He couldn't answer my question...wrong question I guess...who knows! I still don't know. I guess the energy percolates from the center with a dot..dot.. dot..n. I can do all the math, read all the text, but I'll never make sense of this stuff. And I thought I was going be fun going back to school. If Dr. Berry Merryman understands all of that sort of BS .... I give him credit. It doesn't mean beans to me. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 20:54:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11119; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:51:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:51:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34726FEA.C82B609C microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:19:46 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Back On-Line Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rq_tJ1.0.Xj2.v0dSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12961 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, Back on line (at last). Sorry for the offline period. Major hardware upgrade and a few cross linked directories to sort out. The video I found on my door step was from a friend's son. I have received 4 of the final SMOT Mk4 bases. They look GOOD. The rest will start arriving Monday 24th Nov. I should have all 50 by 28th Nov. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 21:32:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA17400; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:28:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:28:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:21:48 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu Subject: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics In-Reply-To: <971118234016_-1273331002 mrin41.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VOuJ01.0.hF4.hZdSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12962 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: We were in class and the teacher was expresing in dynes. A student asked "What's a dyne?" The teacher said ".... so many ergs" ... then the student asked "What's an erg?" and was given a classical answer. Then the student said "Give me some example of an erg... something I can wrap my hands around." The teacher said "An erg is approximately the energy given off by a medium sized slow-flying mosquito impacting a vertical wall." The student said "Oh!" "Now I get ... not very much." I stayed for every class. John From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 22:24:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA29698; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:21:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:21:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:23:01 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"MkxwT2.0.wF7.hLeSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12963 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:25 PM 11/18/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >(snip) > >> Note that T1 may be air core or replaced with other circuitry which can >> maintain the horizontal and vertical plates 90 degrees out of phase. The >> main objective is to create a rotating electrostatic field (that possibly >> initially increases in frequency) that drags the nuclei along around in >> circles inside their atoms. > >OK, Horace, I vote to drive the rotating-field device from 90 electrical >degree taps on a waveguide using a microwave oven magnetron. I guess >the waveguide needs to be loaded at the far end with its characteristic >impedance so we get a nice traveling wave down the guide. Lets see, >at 2400 MHz I think we get 144,000,000,000 rpm. Is that fast enough? >Sorry, I can't think of an easy way to vary the frequency. > >Frank Stenger Makes *my* head spin! Yes, without some way to spin up, would the nuclei ever catch up? Then there is the problem of heat. Would all that "rattling around" cause too much heat? If the nuclei are atoms in an insulator, like quartz, then at least the microwaves shouldn't heat them up too much. If "rattling around" does not cause much heat loss, then this could possibly be an energy storage device? One complexity of interest is that the whole matrix would vibrate in synch, though the amplitude would be small and the frequency very fast. Possibly suspend the sample between two fibers, one up and one down? Ohter possible problems are radiation, and resistance heating, due to the electrons sloshing back and forth. It does seem that the E.C. rate should go up measureably though, even if the sample is only shaken accoustically, or placed in a strong gradient. The combination of the two should be even better. So, if that can work, it seems like spinning at 144,000,000,000 rpm should work miracles, if that's not a miracle in itself! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 23:50:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA07809; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:46:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:46:28 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:43:07 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Takahashi scooter Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711190245_MC2-28B8-D5C0 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"5WTbx.0.sv1.JbfSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12964 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael, >> Did Sawai know of Teruo Kawai's (5,436,518) 318% ou magnetic motor? It has been assigned to Nihon Riken Co., Japan. In this design there is no need for super magnets. << He didn't mention that one. It might be useful if his Engineer on this list could give us the low-down on that one, rather than me constantly getting Sawai on the phone - well every 2 years or so. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 18 23:53:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA01296; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:47:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:47:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:43:08 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Takahashi scooter Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711190245_MC2-28B8-D5C1 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"24Coh.0.AK.vbfSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12965 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed, >> but reliable people who met with him a few years ago told me he was suffering from a serious illness. He had a portable oxygen bottle and he was pale and listless. << I felt that Sawai was genuine and somewhat apologetic for having to relay such adverse information, having been scammed himself by Takahashi. Aparently there is more direct evidence of Tak's fraudulent activities in recent times since his return to Japan, involving Sawai in a commercial context, so Tak is very much alive and kicking. There may be related developments in the magnet design field by others, but as yet nothing like the intensity reported by Tak. although having much improved temperature characteristics. I get the impression that Tak has not done anything illegal, merely collected cash for his development companies and then gone belly-up - the usual scam. It certainly has a parallel with Meyer's modus operandi. Regards, Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 00:28:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA12329; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:23:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:23:34 -0800 Message-ID: <3472BEB0.3FD9 keelynet.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:25:52 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Phillipine PPM References: <199711190245_MC2-28B8-D5C1 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xgCVZ3.0.X03.58gSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12966 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts John Schnurer, et.al... John, I put all the info together that I had on that Phillipine Bicycle Wheel PPM and posted it. That's all I have and you can see why I did not want to post it since there just isn't a lot to work with. If you are still interested, its listed as; http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/curtis.htm and there are other items of like interest at http://www.keelynet.com/index0.htm particularly the file on using your stimulated superconductor to produce a reduced weight zone and how that could drive a heavy wheel; http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/scwheel.htm I'll update the Phillipine file if I can get more info from Henry. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 01:07:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA07269; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:02:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:02:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3472AAD5.CDECB8BF microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:31:09 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hello Greg???? References: <19971111182347.18582.qmail hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"n6EgN1.0.Vn1.PigSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12967 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter Aldo wrote: > > Greg, > I'm still waiting for your reply. I sent you a picture of my generator > and test results showing its anti- Lenzian behavior. Are you still going > to put it on your web site? Did you not get my last two messages? > > Peter Aldo Hi Peter, Yes, I will put the data up in a day or so. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 01:34:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA08955; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:30:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:30:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:29:02 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. In-Reply-To: <3473f604.16360104 mail.eisa.net.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"PUAFf.0.qB2.e6hSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12968 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:32 +0100 (MET), Martin Sevior wrote: > [snip] > >It also occurs in some nuclei where the arrangement of neutrons and protons > >is more energetically favourable by changing a proton to a neutron. In both > >cases there there is no specific energy signature from the neutrino. It depends > >on the particulars of the specific interaction. > > > >Martin Sevior > > > > > I'm still trying to find out if the energy associated with e.c. (where > this is positive), is carried away by the resultant neutrino, or by > gamma radiation. Can anyone tell me? > Hi Robin, Like everything to do with Nuclear Physics the answer is "it depends". Sometimes the electron capture process leaves the resultant nucleus in an excited state, in which case the energy of the transition from the excited to ground state is carried by a gamma. Often this is not the case and most of the energy is carried by the neutrino. In all cases there is a cascade of X-rays due to electrons from higher orbitals falling into the hole left when the electron was captured by the nucleus. For Horace, free Hydrogen atoms cannot do the reaction: p + e => n + neutrino Because the final state (neutron plus neutrino) has more energy than the initial state. Initial energy (proton + electron) = 938.28 + 0.511 MeV = 938.791 MeV Final Energy (neutron + neutron) = 939.57 + 0 MeV = 939.57 + neutrino MeV. Conservation of energy therefore forbids this reaction. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 01:57:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA10065; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:52:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:52:08 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <3472A6BF.467AC755 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:43:43 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cavendish & heat References: <199711121233.GAA24096 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------54E18B8A371B40C45600503B" Resent-Message-ID: <"D7_T73.0.BT2.6RhSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12969 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------54E18B8A371B40C45600503B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott Little wrote: "At 04:03 AM 11/12/97 -0500, Taylor J. Smith wrote: "With regard to evidence that heat causes attraction, this was discovered by Henry Cavendish and presented in his 1798 paper "Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth", Philosophical Transactions, Vol. 88, 1798, p.266). When Cavendish heated the larger of the weights on his torsion balance the attraction between the weights increased." Shocking indeed! What does HC say about the magnitude of this increase? Scott Little" Hi Scott, I just finished reading the nice article about you and Hal in the December "Scientific American" (starting on p. 82). "... orbiting electron lose energy through radiation; what keeps the electron zipping around the nucleus is, to Puthoff, zero- point energy that the electron continuously absorbs." (p. 84). This sounds like "emission/fusion" to me. I'm attaching Henry Cavendish's own words describing the effects of heating the lead balls. He gives lip service to air currents, but I get the impression that he thought something more was going on. "Tomorrow night (Wed) on PBS, the Scientific American Frontiers eposide entitled "Beyond Science?" will feature a short segment on Puthoff/Little/EarthTech sandwiched in between debunking of dowsing, handwriting analysis and alien landings. Tune in and find out what they say about us...are we the debunkers or the debunked? (we really have no idea how it's going to go!)" I will certainly watch this program. Jack Smith --------------54E18B8A371B40C45600503B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="cav" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="cav" p. 263 The next thing which suggested Itself to me was, that possibly the effect might be owing to a difference of temperature between the weights and the case; for it is evident, that if the weights were much warmer than the case, they would warm that side which was next to them, and produce a current of air, which would make the balls approach nearer to the weights. Though I thought it not likely that there should be sufficient difference, between the heat of the weight and case, to have any sensible effect, and though it seemed improbable that in all the foregoing experiments, the weights should happen to be warmer than the case, I resolved to examine into it, and for this purpose removed the apparatus used in the last experiments, and supported the weights by the copper rods, as before; and, having placed them in the midway position, I put a lamp under each, and placed a thermometer with its ball close to the outside of the case, near that part which one of the weights approached to in its positive position, and in such manner that I could distingush the divisions by the telescope. Having done this, I shut the door, and some time after moved the weights to the positive position. At first, the arm was drawn aside only in its usual manner; but, in half an hour, the effect was so much increased, that the arm was drawn 14 divisons aside, instead of about three as it would otherwise have been, and the thermometer raised near 1 1/2 degrees; namely, from 61 degrees to 62 1/2 degrees. On opening the door, the weights were found to be no more heated, than just to prevent their feeling cool to my fingers p. 264 As the effect of a difference of temperature appeared to be so great, I bored a small hole in one of the weights, about three-quarters of an inch deep, and inserted the ball of a small thermometer, and then covered up the opening with cement. Another small thermometer was placed with its ball close to the case, and as near to that part to which the weight was approached as could be done with safety; the thermometers being so placed, that when the weights were in the negative position, both could be seen though one of the telescopes, by means of light reflected concave mirror. [Experiment VI, data table not included here] [Experiment VII, data table not included here] [Experiment VIII, data table not included here] p. 266 In these three experiments, the effect of the weight appeared to increase from two to five tenths of a divison, on standing an hour; and the thermometers shewed, that the weight were three or five tenths of a degree warmer than the air close to the case. In the two last experiments, I put a lamp into the room, over night, in hopes of making the air warmer than the weights, but without effect, as the weights exceeded that of the air more in these two experiments than in the former. On the evening of October 17, the weights being placed in the midway position, lamps were put under them, in order to warm them; the doors was then shut,and the lamps suffered to burn out. The next morning it was found, on moving the weights to the negative position, that they were 7 1/2 degrees warmer than the air near the case. After they continued an hour in that position, they were found to have cooled 1 1/2 degrees so as to be only 6 degrees warmer than the air. They were then moved to the positive position; and in both positions the arm was drawn aside about four divisions more, after the weights had remained an hour in that position than it was at first. May 22, 1798. The experiment was repeated in the same manner, except that the lamps were made so as to burn only a short time, and only two hours were suffered to elapse before the weights were moved. The weights were now found to be scarcely 2 degrees warmer than the case; and the arm was drawn aside about two divisions more, after the weights had remained an hour in the position they were moved to than it was at first. On May 23, the experiment was tried in the in the same manner, except that the weights were cooled by laying ice on them; the ice being confined in its place by tin plates, which, on moveing the weights, fell to the ground, so as not to be in the way. On moving the weights to the negative position, they were found to be about 8 degrees colder than the air, and their effect on the arm seemed now to diminish on standing, instead of increasing, as it did before: as the arm was drawn aside about 2 1/2 divisons less, at the end of an hour after the motion of the weights, than it was at first. It seems suffiently proved,therefor, that the effect in question is produced, as above explained, by the difference of temperature beteen the weights and case; for, in the 6th, 8th, 9th experiments in which the weights were not much warmer than the case, their effect increased but little on standing; whereas, it increased much, when they were much were much warmer than the case, and decreased much when they were much cooler. p. 267 It must be observed, that in this apparatus, the box in which the the balls play is pretty deep, and the balls hang near the bottom of it which makes the effect of the current of the air more sensible than it would otherwise be, and is a defect which I intend to rectify in some future experiments. [Experiment IX, data table not included here] p. 283 >From this table it appears, that though the experiments agree pretty well together, yet the difference between them, both in the quantity of motion of the arm and in the time of vibration, is greater than can proceed merely from the error observation. As to the difference in the motion of the arm, it may very well be accounted for, from the current of produced by the difference of temperature; but, whether this can account for the difference in the time of vibration, is doubtful. If the current of air was regular, and of the same swiftness in all parts of the vibration of the ball, I think it could not; but as there will most likely be much irregularity in the current, it may very likely be sufficient to account for the difference. p. 284 By a mean of experiments made with the wire first used, the density of the earth comes out 5.48 times greater than that of water; and by a mean of those made with the latter wire, it comes out the same; and the extreme difference of the result of the 23 observations made with this wire, is only .75; so that the extreme results do not differ from the mean by more than .38, or 1/14 of the whole, and therfore the density should seem to be determined hereby, to great exactness. It, indeed, may be objected, that as the result appears to be influnenced by the current of air, or some other cause, the laws of which we are not well acquainted with, this cause may perhaps act always, or commonly, in the same direction and thereby make a considerble error in the result. .... --------------54E18B8A371B40C45600503B-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 02:04:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA20208; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:00:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:00:50 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:00:06 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971118082933.006c3f80 world.std.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"SNK2F.0.gx4.HZhSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12970 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > At 10:20 AM 11/18/97 +0100, Martin Sevior wrote: > > > >> shifted > >> upward by 8172.86 Mhz for the hydrogen atom and 8184.00 MHz in the > >> deuterium atom, values which disagree with QED's predictions of 8173.12 MHz > >> for > >> hydrogen and 8184.13 MHz for deuterium, even when the uncertainties are > >> taken into account. In what they have called "the most stringent test of > >> QED for a > >> bound atom to date," the researchers employed the latest advances in laser > >> and optical spectroscopy to make the measurements of the 1S Lamb shift, > which > >> can be measured to greater precision than the 2S and 2P Lamb shifts > >> traditionally studied. > > > >Firstly Mitch you will note the level of discrepency. Measured 8172.86 Mhz, > >predicted: 8173.12 Mhz. Without Zero Point Energy effects the shifts would > be > >0 Mhz. That is DRAMATIC evidence ZPE in the vacuum. > > Martin, your reading further will note that the calculation does > NOT work on other atoms with that accuracy. > You snipped a large part of my answer that described why QED is widely accepted. To answer this specific point, I did not respond because there no numbers to compare "what a serious discrepency" means. If you took the time to read and try to understand my answer you would appeciate that calculating the Lamb shift for a 4He+ ion is much harder than for a proton. One needs to know the size of the helium nucleus very precisely. Something that is hard from Hydrogen is hard^2 for Helium. I suspect the "serious descrepency" for Helium involves a discrepency in the 3rd digit rather the 4th. I repeat what I said earlier, without ZPE of the Vacuum there would be a 0 Mhz shift. > The presence of the shift does NOT imply > a shirft from ZPE from vacuum, BUT may arise form pair production > cause by classical electrodynamics. This is rediculus. Classical Electrodynamics certainly does not predict pair production. Positrons were the specific great prediction of Dirac in 1928 in his formulation of Relativisitic Quantum Mechanics. This was later expanded into QED by Feynman, Schwinger and Tommonaga for which they were awarded the Nobel prize. Amongst other things, QED calculations show that the Lamb shift occurs. QED is in no danger of being over-turned. It is absolutely mainstream and is widely taught in Graduate Courses in Universities throughout the world. Cosmic rays do create pairs but > that requires conservation of energy. > > ============================================================== > > > >(Sigh) In any case I'm sure you will still think that ZPE in the vacuum > >is not main stream. I know you well enough to know you will never change your > >mind once it is set. > > > >Frankly your blinkered approach to Science makes me very skeptical of any > >result you claim. > > > >Martin Sevior > > > > > =============================================================== > > Martin, > > Pair production (requiring an interaction of an electromagnetic > photon of greater than about two rest energies, and triplet production > (conservation of energy and momentrum from a collision with an > electron) DO exist. These are mainstream and well known to > radiation physics. Conservation of energy and momentum is involved. > > Matter appearing from pure vacuum has no basis, because the of > no conservation of energy and momentum. But this is just what Quantum Field Theory says happens. The effect is real, as measured by the Lamb shift, the Casimir attraction and in the precisely predicted value of the magnetic moments of the electron and muon. > This does not include > vacuum through which is passing cosmic rays, or other EM radiation > where as stated above there can be significant mass creation. > > BTW I have used this mass creation to measure blood flow > in tumors using time-of-flight measurements with synchronous > detection of the synchronously emitted gammas at 179.5 degrees > separation. We have given oxygen-15 to animals and people > afflicted with cancer, and the positron emitted has a diffusion > radiation of about a few millimeters, before the gammas are > given off. This is positron emission tomography, and although > often used of brain imaging, is exceptional for select human > tumors (sarcomata). > > The papers have been published, see for example: > > "PET imaging in Oncology: The MGH Experience", > G. Brownell, A-E. Kairento, M. Swartz, > Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 15, 201-209, April (1985) > > "PET imaging in Oncology: The MGH Experience", > G. Brownell, A-E. Kairento, M. Swartz, > Arch. Nucl Medicine May (1985) > > "Comparative Measurement of Regional Blood Flow, > oxygen and glucose utilisation in soft tissue tumour > of rabbit with positron imaging" A-E. Kairento, G. Brownell, > D. Elmaleh, M. Swartz, Br. J. of Radiology, 58, 637-643, (1985) > > > Martin, sorry that my requirement for conservation of energy > stands (until proven otherwise), but that is the > belief of mainstream science. > You are wrong. Read on. > Hope that helps. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > Mitch don't teach Grandma to suck eggs. This is absolutely my field. If I walk out of office and ask a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists who spend time here at CERN, do think there is Zero Point Energy in the Vacuum? 99% of them will say "yes". After I explain Hal Putoff's example of the plates colliding due to Casimir forces, 90% of the last 1% will agree. That to me shows that ZPE in the Vacuum is mainstream in the correct meaning of the word. I suggest you try to understand what I have written. You may learn something. However I am certain you will not and instead say those 5000 Physicists are wrong. I hope you learn something from this exchange. Think a bit, do some more study. There are whole beautiful fields of Physics that you have not explored. Instead you stay shut in your isolated mind. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 02:44:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA11740; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:40:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:40:15 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:36:42 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf4d7$073cc3a0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"xt1sg1.0.Mt2.E8iSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12971 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 11:23 PM Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation >At 11:25 PM 11/18/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >>Horace Heffner wrote: >>> >>(snip) >> >>> Note that T1 may be air core or replaced with other circuitry which can >>> maintain the horizontal and vertical plates 90 degrees out of phase. The >>> main objective is to create a rotating electrostatic field (that possibly >>> initially increases in frequency) that drags the nuclei along around in >>> circles inside their atoms. >> >>OK, Horace, I vote to drive the rotating-field device from 90 electrical >>degree taps on a waveguide using a microwave oven magnetron. I guess >>the waveguide needs to be loaded at the far end with its characteristic >>impedance so we get a nice traveling wave down the guide. Lets see, >>at 2400 MHz I think we get 144,000,000,000 rpm. Is that fast enough? You've got a ways to go to catch up to the 3.952E17 RPM of the orbiting ground state hydrogen electron,or it's internal "wave rotation frequency" of 7.38E21 RPM. :-) On the bright side you can "orbit" electrons in a simple cylindrical magnetron with an equilibrium radius of 0.1 meters. Only problem is they have to be going at five times the speed of light, which creates a bit of a chore. :-) Regards, Frederick Regards, Frederick >>Sorry, I can't think of an easy way to vary the frequency. >> >>Frank Stenger > > >Makes *my* head spin! Yes, without some way to spin up, would the nuclei >ever catch up? Then there is the problem of heat. Would all that >"rattling around" cause too much heat? If the nuclei are atoms in an >insulator, like quartz, then at least the microwaves shouldn't heat them up >too much. If "rattling around" does not cause much heat loss, then this >could possibly be an energy storage device? > >One complexity of interest is that the whole matrix would vibrate in synch, >though the amplitude would be small and the frequency very fast. Possibly >suspend the sample between two fibers, one up and one down? > >Ohter possible problems are radiation, and resistance heating, due to the >electrons sloshing back and forth. > >It does seem that the E.C. rate should go up measureably though, even if >the sample is only shaken accoustically, or placed in a strong gradient. >The combination of the two should be even better. So, if that can work, it >seems like spinning at 144,000,000,000 rpm should work miracles, if that's >not a miracle in itself! > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 03:05:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA24291; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:02:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:02:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199711191102.FAA23469 dsm7.dsmnet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: , Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:02:14 (-050 Subject: Re: JED - Back to Basics Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19971119013639224.AAA178 default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"4ZGq51.0.Ox5.nSiSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12972 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Mike, > From: "Mike Carrell" > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:30:35 -0500 > Here's a thought experiment. You can collect N people of your choice and T > tons of equipment, but you will then be transported to a new planet with > reasonably benign local fauna and flora, but no human or high civilization. > There is no return, nor any support. What are the values of N and T such > that a stable, growing civilization can develop, without returning to > hunting-gathering and legends of a golden age within Y years? All the high > tech stuff will fail, probably in less than a century, and you will be too > busy feeding yourselves to find new resources, and no time to educate the > kids. According to quite a variety of psychic predictions, we're going to have a chance to find out exactly what it takes in a year or two. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 03:40:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA14449; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:36:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:36:58 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3472CF30.6812 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:36:16 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZFD-D.0.hX3.PziSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12973 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > The teacher said "An erg is approximately the energy > given off by a medium sized slow-flying mosquito impacting a > vertical wall." > > Wow, I would hate to gitten bitten by a misquito where that teacher lives! (his misquotos weigh ~ 1 gram!) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 04:13:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA30596; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:05:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:05:50 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:03:39 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf4e3$2c266ac0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"tLT392.0.uT7.SOjSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12974 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 4:38 AM Subject: Re: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics >John Schnurer wrote: >> > >> The teacher said "An erg is approximately the energy >> given off by a medium sized slow-flying mosquito impacting a >> vertical wall." >> >> > >Wow, I would hate to gitten bitten by a misquito where >that teacher lives! > >(his misquotos weigh ~ 1 gram!) Having been born and raised in Pennsylvania I haven't ever seen a misquito let alone being bitten by a misquoto. The mosquitos are pretty fierce though. :-) Regards, Frederick > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 04:53:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02795; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:49:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:49:49 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119074632.006d01bc world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:46:32 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971118082933.006c3f80 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xv3BP1.0.ah.h1kSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12975 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:00 AM 11/19/97 +0100, Martin Sevior wrote: >Amongst other things, QED calculations show that the Lamb shift >occurs. QED is in no danger of being over-turned. It is absolutely >mainstream and is widely taught in Graduate Courses in Universities throughout >the world. > EXPERIMENT shows that the Lamb shift occurs. QED, and other hypotheses, attempt to offer an explanation. ==================================== >> >(Sigh) In any case I'm sure you will still think that ZPE in the vacuum >> >is not main stream. It is not that virtual mass production does not occur, it is is that it does not probably occur at a RATE sufficient to explain the XSH (excess heat) of cold fusion, and is quantitatively (IMO) much smaller than is claimed by some of the calculations put forth re: ZPE(vacuum) ==================================== >But this is just what Quantum Field Theory says happens. The effect is real, as >measured by the Lamb shift, the Casimir attraction and in the precisely >predicted value of the magnetic moments of the electron and muon. The problem is NOT with QED, or QFT. The problem is in the claimed rate, the violation of energy, the violation of the four-vector, and the lack of physical basis for the claims that ZPE is a HUGE energy base, based upon more matter secretly existing in each cm3 than exists in the entire universe. That in itself might suggest an alternative hypothesis. ==================================== >> Martin, sorry that my requirement for conservation of energy >> stands (until proven otherwise), but that is the >> belief of mainstream science. >> > >You are wrong. Read on. (zip) >Mitch don't teach Grandma to suck eggs. This is absolutely my field. If I walk >out of office and ask a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists who >spend time here at CERN, do think there is Zero Point Energy in the Vacuum? 99% >of them will say "yes". After I explain Hal Putoff's example of the plates >colliding due to Casimir forces, 90% of the last 1% will agree. > The issue is 1) conservation of energy. Are you claiming that "a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists" will back you up that there is NO conservation of energy? Doubt it. The issue is 2) the magnitude of ZPE(vacuum) as compared with the well-known and real zero point energy of the lattice. Are you claiming that "a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists" will back you up that there is watts to kilowatts available in each cm3 of vacuum based upon the virtual presence of more than 10^95 atoms? Though my mind remains upon on this, the basis of your claim that there is violation of the conservation of energy appears to not be proved. Not to the levels of either the "germ theory" of infection, or superconductivity, or cold fusion. Have examined the writings in this field, and will continue to do so with an open mind. It is true I have a bias for conservation of energy, but then for it to be overturned willl take more than handwaving. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 05:01:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA20613; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:54:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:54:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19971119125328.5179.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [206.150.170.107] From: "Peter Aldo" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hello Greg???? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:53:27 PST Resent-Message-ID: <"cB09y3.0.-15.F6kSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12976 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Greg, Thanks. Pete >From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 01:05:57 1997 >Received: (from smartlst localhost) > by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA07269; > Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:02:19 -0800 (PST) >Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:02:19 -0800 (PST) >Message-ID: <3472AAD5.CDECB8BF microtronics.com.au> >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:31:09 +1030 >From: Greg Watson >Organization: Greg Watson Consulting >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Hello Greg???? >References: <19971111182347.18582.qmail hotmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Resent-Message-ID: <"n6EgN1.0.Vn1.PigSq" mx2> >Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12967 >X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > >Peter Aldo wrote: >> >> Greg, >> I'm still waiting for your reply. I sent you a picture of my generator >> and test results showing its anti- Lenzian behavior. Are you still going >> to put it on your web site? Did you not get my last two messages? >> >> Peter Aldo > >Hi Peter, > >Yes, I will put the data up in a day or so. > >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 05:09:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04884; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:07:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:07:13 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Supersonic Mosquitos and Cherenkov Radiation Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:04:14 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf4eb$a29818e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"qKcB_3.0.EC1.0IkSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12977 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The Merriman-Frank Z-John Schnurer exchange on the kinetic energy of a mosquito in flight,poses the possibility of sonoluminescene caused by the mosquitoes going supersonic and creating the sonic equivalent of Cherenkov Radiation. Does this mean that the light from the ones coming toward you will be blue-shifted and those going away red-shifted? All this time I thought they were fire-flies. :-) On the other hand, collisions of water molecules under agitation could create some supersonic molecules which in turn could produce IR radiation similar to Cherenkov, and subsequently produce Light Lepton pairs and then hydrinos-electrinos. These could explain the cavitation pitting of propellers and the high temperatures and the rapid growth-collapse of the sonoluminescent bubbles as they heated-cooled. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 05:34:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06887; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:26:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:26:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:25:59 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971119074632.006d01bc world.std.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tGJ1Z.0.Rh1.HakSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12978 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >> > > > >You are wrong. Read on. (zip) > >Mitch don't teach Grandma to suck eggs. This is absolutely my field. If I > walk > >out of office and ask a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists who > >spend time here at CERN, do think there is Zero Point Energy in the > Vacuum? 99% > >of them will say "yes". After I explain Hal Putoff's example of the plates > >colliding due to Casimir forces, 90% of the last 1% will agree. > > > > The issue is 1) conservation of energy. > > Are you claiming that "a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists" > will back you up that there is NO conservation of energy? Doubt it. > > The issue is 2) the magnitude of ZPE(vacuum) as compared with the > well-known and real zero point energy of the lattice. > > Are you claiming that "a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists" > will back you up that there is watts to kilowatts available in each cm3 > of vacuum based upon the virtual presence of more than 10^95 atoms? > Why do you write this? I wrote to you what I would ask and the answer I would get. You even quoted me back! > > Though my mind remains upon on this, the basis of your claim that there > is violation of the conservation of energy appears > to not be proved. Not to the levels of either the "germ theory" of > infection, or superconductivity, or cold fusion. Have examined > the writings in this field, and will continue to do so with an open > mind. It is true I have a bias for conservation of energy, but > then for it to be overturned willl take more than handwaving. > Why don't you understand? The explanation of the colliding plates through the Casimir attraction has been observed in experiments. There is no contradiction with consveration of energy. QED and Quantum Field Theory both work and provide measurable consequences which have been verified by experiment. I work with their consequences every working day of my life. That is not to say that someday we may find their limitations as happenned with Newtonian Physics. Many Physicists are working actively to attempt to find their limitations. None has succeeded yet. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 05:39:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA24934; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:35:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:35:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711191335.IAA03243 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Anti grav test at NASA? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 08:42:58 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"o3wCd2.0.W56.TikSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12979 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I got this report from a friend. Gene Mallove ****** >From CNI News, Nov. 16, 1997 NASA REPORTED READY TO TEST ANTI-GRAVITY DEVICE The current (December 1997) issue of Popular Mechanics magazine reports that NASA is preparing to test a possible anti-gravity device at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The Popular Mechanics article by Jim Wilson says that NASA's experiment is based largely on work previously conducted by Dr. Eugene Podkletnov at Tampere University of Technology in Finland. In September, 1996, the prestigious British Institute of Physics announced that it would publish a paper by Podkletnov and his colleagues detailing what appeared to be an astonishing breakthrough toward genuine anti-gravity technology. However, Podkletnov himself withdrew the paper prior to publication, when one of his named co-authors disclaimed any part in the work. The controversy cast suspicion on the whole story. But NASA remained interested. According to Popular Mechanics, sometime during the next several weeks, NASA will test a device which uses a superconductor disc chilled to -400 F and rotates suspended over a powerful magnetic field. If their hopes are realized, the disc will show an apparent loss of weight in the range of 0.5% to 2.0% due to an anti-gravity effect. The experiment is to be done at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The device is based on numerous conversations between NASA scientists and Dr. Podkletnov. Critics say the loss of weight, if any, will be an effect of the powerful magnetic field, not any kind of anti-gravity phenomenon. Some familiar with the experiment say they do not expect to see any effect whatsoever. Podkletnov himself said that the effect was discovered by accident, and critics of his paper noted that he did not seem to have a theory for why the effect occurs. None of this, however, seems to deter the NASA scientists working on the new device. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:00:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10367; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:54:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:54:39 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:56:12 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"CmUsq3.0.uX2.U-kSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12980 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:29 AM 11/19/97, Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >For Horace, > free Hydrogen atoms cannot do the reaction: > >p + e => n + neutrino > >Because the final state (neutron plus neutrino) has more energy than the >initial state. > >Initial energy (proton + electron) = 938.28 + 0.511 MeV = 938.791 MeV >Final Energy (neutron + neutron) = 939.57 + 0 MeV = 939.57 + neutrino MeV. I assume the above is (neutron + neutrino) = 939.57 + 0 MeV > >Conservation of energy therefore forbids this reaction. > >Martin Sevior OK, my mistake, no reaction on bound H. After all, it's not in the CRC! 8^) However, if the p + e are in free space, i.e. unbound, their mutual kinetic energy can overcome the C of E requirement, it's just that at the required energies they can't hang around each other long enough to make the weak force reaction likely to have beeen experimentally observed, true? It does appear possible to observe some free space reactions, if they occur, due to the gamma signature, so if the current is high enough, as with some superconducting electron accellerators, maybe it is possible to observe experimentally? On the other hand, positron decay of p is not out of the question, but the half life is much longer than we have to discuss the possibility. 8^) When I said "However, I think electron capture from conduction band electrons has been observed," I was clearly not talking about H, as the term "conduction band" then has no meaning. I would also like to make a small joke. A physicist would look at your equations of mass (energy) balance and say the reaction was denied. A mathematician might look at your equations and say the resulting neutrino clearly must have negative mass. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:03:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA27446; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:55:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:55:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:56:15 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"7rFyT.0.li6.8_kSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12981 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "... one approach may be to get the nucleus to slide around inside the cloud like a piece of ice inside a basketball, thus generating centrifugal force to displace the nucleus relative to the cloud. Heres a design:" o--------o---------------------- HV AC | --- | | | | ------ \/\/\/ | | | T1 ====== | -----| Sample |--- /\/\/\ | | | | | | | | | ------ | | --|----- | | | | | | | | | | o---------|------o-------------- | | | ------------------------------ However, since the nuclei are 1000 times heavier, assuming the idea can work at all, the electron cages are, for the most part, going to move around the nuclei as a single lattice unit. Thus the amount of mass involved in motion is small, which is good for creating higher speed action. The hard part, it seems, is keeping the lattice electron motion uniform throughout the sample, thus avoiding heat loss. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:04:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28728; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:01:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:01:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:02:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics Resent-Message-ID: <"z1Tju1.0.k07.85lSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12982 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >John Schnurer wrote: >> > >> The teacher said "An erg is approximately the energy >> given off by a medium sized slow-flying mosquito impacting a >> vertical wall." >> >> > >Wow, I would hate to gitten bitten by a misquito where >that teacher lives! > >(his misquotos weigh ~ 1 gram!) > >-- >Barry Merriman Maybe it's Alaska, where the state bird is a mosquito! 8^) Don't swing at the mosquitos here or you might hurt your hand. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:30:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01269; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:24:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:24:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:19:53 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Back to Basics Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711190922_MC2-28BC-27DF compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SV_JN3.0.kJ.HQlSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12983 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Carrell raises a fascinating question. How many people would it take to maintain civilization in isolation? This is a perennial topic in science fiction. See, for example, Clarke's "Songs of Distant Earth." I have thought about this. Here are some ideas that have occurred to me. Your chances of success would be enormously improved if you had 25 years and $100 billion to prepare. Several crash development projects would be needed. For example, I think it would be vital to invent computer CPU and memory chips that could be manufactured in a small scale factory by a group of 50 people, starting from sand (raw silicon). The chips might be a hundred times slower than a Pentium, with much lower circuit density. The important thing is, we cannot survive easily without computers. They are as vital as telephones and tractors. You would also want crash programs to develop simple internal combustion engines. You would not worry about EPA pollution rules. Examples of such simple, rugged, fail-safe technology are found in good third world development projects. A company in England manufactures wind-up generator powered radios. Some Soviet era Russian technology, like tractors circa 1940, were remarkably simple, rugged and long lasting. People used to warm them up in the morning by throwing a cup of gasoline over the engine block and igniting it. They tried doing that with American lend-lease tractors. They complained when our stuff did not last a week. Civilization has been rebuilt from scratch at various times in history: after Black Death, during early European colonization of the Americas, and in the rebuilding of Europe and Japan after the Second World War. Mike thinks "all the high tech stuff will fail, probably in less than a century, and you will be too busy feeding yourselves to find new resources, and no time to educate the kids." I don't think so. Things could turn out much better than that, with planning, careful selection of the pioneers, and luck. I do not think the high tech stuff would fail. Instead, I think you would lose three kinds of technology: 1. Large scale. Things like railroads, cathedrals, INTEL billion dollar chip fabrication plants, nuclear fission plants, heavy weapons. 2. Old and obsolete technology and arts. Everything from leather book binding and fountain pens to hand made pottery, horse-shoeing and mechanical calculators would be lost. Some of these things might be revived when the population grows large enough, assuming the library is intact. If good LED computer screens can be developed before the rocket ship fleet leaves, CRT technology would be left behind. 3. Frivolous, or non-vital technology and learning. If you brought along Cornell University, you would leave many departments behind: foreign languages, literature, arts, hotel management, astronomy and most advanced physics. Pioneers would not need QED or string theory for a couple of generations. They would have a vital need for the agriculture department, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, and medicine. As for the minimum number of people and equipment . . . based on my experiences in small, relatively self-sufficient communities in Japan and Adams County Pennsylvania, I guess the minimum safe number would be 500 specialist adults, like doctors and mining engineers, 5,000 other adults, and the children already born in all families. They would have to be carefully selected. They should have high education, good health, no criminal record. A broad selection of racial types and cultural backgrounds should be selected, but, frankly, I think it would be best if everyone spoke English as the first or second language. The majority of people should be young and vigorous; the average age should be lower than the population. No more than 100 people over 60 should go along, although many of the experts would be middle-aged. A thousand or so people should be in top physical condition, like the men and women in the Marines. It might cause cultural problems, but to improve genetic diversity it would be a good idea to bring along frozen sperm samples from a few thousand other men. I do not think the medical facilities would be sophisticated enough, or have enough time, for more complex egg implantation procedures. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:39:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02805; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:35:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:35:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:33:50 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Anti grav test at NASA? Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711190934_MC2-28BA-98BA compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id GAA02783 Resent-Message-ID: <"TXBfN2.0.lh.kalSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12984 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gene, The last time I talked to Dr. Li, she said the experimental results were almost completed. I hope this means that she and/or Noever will be publishing soon. I find it interesting that her name was never mentioned, since she's the one that has had the theory long before Podkletnov stumbled on the apparatus. Hopefully, this paper will get published. Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:51:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19223; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:46:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:46:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199711191447.JAA15834 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: Scientific American Frontiers Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 09:55:00 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" , "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"yV5522.0.Fi4.QllSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12986 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Tomorrow night (Wed) on PBS, the Scientific American Frontiers eposide >entitled "Beyond Science?" will feature a short segment on >Puthoff/Little/EarthTech sandwiched in between debunking of dowsing, >handwriting analysis and alien landings. Tune in and find out what they >say about us...are we the debunkers or the debunked? (we really have no >idea how it's going to go!) Thanks, Scott. I was going to post the same info myself. I will make a prediction: They will trash you badly. Or, they will use you -- out of context-- to trash others, especialy cold fusion! I briefed their research associates quite extensively on cold fusion. They could have had some nice demos -- if they had wanted them, e.g. from CETI. They knew about the ABC TV coverage of CETI. I am sure they could have arranged a demo with Cravens or someone else. I'll cut them slack, but not much. I am predicting something only a tad better than the crap that John Stossel dished out about CF in "Junk Science." Infinite Energy #15/16 is at the printers now -- 128 pages -- another double issue. Lots of coverage of Chris Tinsley's passing, plus many of your kind words about him immortalized. Should have the copies back around Thanksgiving to be sent out immediately after the Big Meal. I wish I could have gone to Italy to the Asti conference (badly timed for we US turkey eaters), but Bill Collis, Peter Gluck, and others will be offering fine reports for IE #17, which will be out in Early January 1998. There is a magnificent paper in #15/16 from Italy on UV excimer laser-induced transmutation in deuterium gas-laoded palladium -- from the Physics Dept at Lecce -- Vincenzo Nassisi. Also, the entire CETI rad waste patent is reproduced -- and as usual, much, much more. Joe Champion et al mentioned prominently. Don't worry Joe, the recipe is still secret!! We are still cooking here. Jim Uban is cooking up a storm of stuff. I will join him soon at the Kiln and Cupel Kitchen now that the rag is done. Gene Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief Infinite Energy Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302 Phone: 603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 editor infinite-energy.com http://www.infinite-energy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 06:54:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03534; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:39:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:39:39 -0800 (PST) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971119083754.ZM5879 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:37:54 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics" (Nov 19, 8:05am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good teaching ....Re: the study of physics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"lwIOa1.0.6t.delSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12985 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 19, 8:05am, Horace Heffner wrote: > Maybe it's Alaska, where the state bird is a mosquito! 8^) > Don't swing at the mosquitos here or you might hurt your hand. 8^) In Chicago, hitting them with your hand only pisses them off (that is, if you still have the strength to swing after all the blood loss). ha ha ha. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:01:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA21811; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:58:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:58:31 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:57:40 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"HOTOd1.0.aK5.LwlSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12988 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Horace Heffner wrote: > kinetic energy can overcome the C of E requirement, it's just that at the > required energies they can't hang around each other long enough to make the > weak force reaction likely to have beeen experimentally observed, true? It > does appear possible to observe some free space reactions, if they occur, > due to the gamma signature, so if the current is high enough, as with some > superconducting electron accellerators, maybe it is possible to observe > experimentally? Absolutely. In fact there are very large scale experiments at the HERA accelerator in Hamburg, Germany that do just this (and a whole lot more). For information on 30 GeV electron collisions on 820 Gev protons see: http://info.desy.de/ Cheers Martin From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:03:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22885; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:01:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:01:14 -0800 Message-ID: <3472F133.7795 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:01:23 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn ctc.org, wireless@rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, mizuno@athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73 aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3 llnl.gov, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mr.fr, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, JNaudin509@aol.com, nick7 itl.net Subject: Fourth Arata Errata & Carrell response & Britz post Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4DB5BEF2B7" Resent-Message-ID: <"TuCaC3.0.Eb5.rylSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12989 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4DB5BEF2B7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nov. 19, 1997 Dear all, Reposted with this reply is a long, detailed riposte by Mike Carrell on Nov. 17 [mikec snip.net] to my Third Arrata Errata. I am quoting this comment by Dieter Britz [db kemi.aau.dk] about the Arata & Zhang report, since it shows I am not alone or clearly incompetent in finding some faults in a long paper by an eminent, highly qualified scientist, that makes very important and controversial claims of excess energy with He-3 and He-4 production. Why has this journal published such a poor translation, by a long successful scientist about very important and controversial work? It suggests to me a failure in the referee process. I am reminded of the story that the aged Beethoven, almost stone deaf, was honored by being allowed to direct the Ninth Symphony-- but the players were told to ignore his wild gestures. Britz on Nov. 14, 1997: "You must be new to this group, that you don't know Dr. Blue's credentials. He is certainly qualified to pronounce on what he has pronounced on, being a retired physicist. Lest I have given the impression to some that I uncritically defend Fleischmann & Bockris, let me add some remarks. It is true, as I have said (and Dick Blue half agrees) that one takes more notice of an apparently outrageous claim by a well know scientist than by Joe Blow. After that, however, the claim is fair game for all experts. Fleischmann made some elementary errors in the area of detection of nuclear emissions, where he has little or no experience, and Dick Blue has. F also made some mistakes in the electrochemistry, where I know a thing or two. People who know something about calorimetry have their doubts about that end of F&P's work. The most serious problem is the lack of reproducibility. This can have legitimate reasons; it has happened in other areas, where subtle effects such as impurities were hard to pin down. But it has now been 8 years and one would expect people to have some glimmers of a handle on the problem. The same, or worse, goes for Bockris, who specialised in tritium, then went over to transmutation. For a while, it was only when Joe Champion was doing it, that it worked. I am sure that Randi could do the same. And there has been critical doubt thrown on that work by Noninski in the J. Sci. Expl., who found conventional explanations for some of Lin & Bockris's observations. This is how it works. There are, nevertheless, some quality positives, as I call them. While F&P and Bockris et al have been criticised, no one to my knowledge has found anything wrong with the tritium findings of Will et al, probably because this was very carefully done, with proper controls and good techniques. And while the papers of Arata & Zhang are maybe full of internal contradiction and certainly written in a very messy style and a lot of detail is missing, I have not seen competent criticism of their very interesting mass spec results, where they found 4He and, more recently, 3He as well. This is the reverse Joe Blow effect: I had never heard of the pair before but their work has forced me to take notice. There are others. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db" If the experiments do achieve very high loading of the Pd-Black particles and produce He-3 and He-4, is there any evidence for the kind of massive transmutations reported by Miley, Mizuno et al, Dash, Bush, and others? There is a possibility of basic contradictions in the experimental results. I didn't realize that the little abstract in "Cold Fusion" might be interpreted as saying that the cathode was 5 cm square surface area. Here is a list of some questions we need details on: How carefully did they monitor the cooling flow rate-- was there a continuous automated record for each run? What condinuous records were made of temperatures, input and output temperatures, power input (voltage, current, resistance, power), temperatures and pressures inside the cathode, interval of measurements, any averaging of data, how the data appears on scales of minute, hour, day, week, etc., size and mass and shape of cathode, cathode metals in different runs, method of sealing and opening hollow cathode, composition and size and mass of catalyst, any studies to see if other elements appeared in Pd-B, composition and size of cooling tube, amount of cooling water, rate of flow, dimensions of cell, shape and mass of anode, whether different cells were used, reason for two-week elapsed times before taking data, reasons for variation in input voltages, number and timing of calibration runs, more explanation of the "spillover" effect and "Sievertz law", any other methods for determining Pd-B loading, more information about how to interpret the many pages of "Coupled spectrum" data. Were input and output temperatures separately measured, or only the temperature difference measured by directly connecting the thermocouples, as indicated in Fig. 5: "...inlet and outlet water temperatures are measured by both of reversely-connected thermocouple and Pt-Resister at the same time", and page 5: "The temperature difference (delta T) measured at entry point (T0) and exit point (T1) are automatically recorded and displayed as excess energy..." I have reposted and will continue to repost all of Mike Carrell's valuable, thorough ripostes to my Arata & Zhang critiques to my forty-some recipients. Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang are at: Joining and Welding Research Institute The Group of Mechanical Engineering Faculty of Engineering Osaka University 11-1 Mihogaoka Ibaraki, Osaka 567, Japan +81-6-877-5111 The JWRI Director General is Inoue Katsunori. The JWRI webmaster is www_admin jwri.osaka-u.ac.jp, and the JWRI web site is: www.jwri.osaka-u.ac.jp/Index-e.html . The web site is copious and detailed, and lists many senior staff members at several labs, and dozens of research reports are posted, but no mention of Arata or Zhang or their presumably very important and outstanding "capstone" report. I will mail a copy of their 56-page report to anyone who wants to participate in this critical dialogue. Rich Murray --------------4DB5BEF2B7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mx2.eskimo.com (smartlst mx2.eskimo.com [204.122.16.49]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA03589; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28850; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:07 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Third Arata Errata & Carrell response Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:20:56 -0500 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: <19971117221116487.AAA211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"xMNf41.0.c27.y1CSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12899 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich says: ---------- > > Dear all, Mike Carrell on Aug. 14 posted a very good analysis and > rebuttal of many points in my Second Arata Errata, and again firmly > recommended I post a retraction. In answer, I shall let the readers > decide for themselves on the many details of the debate between us, and > move on to share some more of my critical discoveries, reviewing the > Arata & Zhang paper again. This is a bit of an evasion. Quoting Rich, >These percentages in a mediocre, completely outmoded calorimetry, are >meaningless noise, readily achieved if the recombiner catalyst is only partially effective. and: >The poor quality of the excess energy claims destroys the main thrust of > Arata and Zhang's work, that their complex and subtle measurements of > He-4 and He-3 show the levels that should exist for the claimed energy > production. I object to his posting these conclusions to his 41 names outside vortex and allowing them to stand as seeming conclusions of a careful analysis, which it wasn't. I posted the rebuttal to Rich's comments to vortex only. I see no evidence that he has distributed my rebuttal to the 41 external names so they could draw their own conclusions. >move on to share some more of my critical discoveries Shouldn't this read as discovery of something to criticize? > "DS cathode (Pd-black in Ti, Ni and Pd tubes of 5 cm X 2 [square?] was > used to occlude deuterium into Pd by electrolysis for six months. > Excess heat generated in DS cathode was observed." > > So, this gives us notice of two additional cathode metals, Ti and Ni, Both are known to be permeable to H and D. This points to the action being in the Pd black within the cathode capsule. > and the size of the cathode, which may have volume from maybe 10 to > about 40 cc, holding .3 or .5 cc Pd-Black. Arata's Fig. 5 shows that > the cathode is shaped like a can, so it may have a fairly large interior > space. This could affect our estimates of heat transfer from the Pd-B > into the cathode, and the possible temperatures of the 3 or 5 gm of Pd-B > if it is generating up to about 20 W peaks. Fig 5 of the Arata report indicates the cathode capsule having a 3:1 length/diameter ratio. Taking the 5 cm^2 as the surface area, a bit of algebra gave me a diameter of about .73 cm and a length of about 2.1 cm, and a volume of about 0.8 cc. Rich again indulges in baseless speculation. Heat transfer from the Pd black to the capsule is irrelevant, since the output to the electrolyte bath and the cooling water is what is measured. > I am sorry to find that only today I noticed in Fig. 5 that three > thermocouples respectively go directly inside the cathode, to its > outside, and into the electrolyte between the cathode and Pt anode. Fig 5 could be better drawn. Of the three thermocouples Rich mentions, one is clearly in the electrolyte, one is apparently tangential to the capsule, and the third is shown superimposed on the capsule, suggesting that it may be inside it. However, sealing the thermocouple leads against the internal pressures inferred by capsule distortion would be a significant engineering task. This third thermocouple is thus probably not *in* the cathode capsule and its role is not clear. Fig 5 also shows what may be a tube extending from the cathode, which may have been attached to a pressure gauge for some experiments, giving graphs of internal pressure and excess energy, as in A&Z Fig. 9. > It would be good to have this temperature data, especially for power > peaks, if we are to pursue any possible artifacts, as any thoughtful > scientist would be duty bound to do. No doubt the data would be interesting, but that is not the issue of the paper, and Rich has consistently evaded reaching the conclusion that a) the calorimetry is adequate to show substantial excess heat and b) this is linked to discovery of 4He and 3He in the Pd black material. He is confusing data which would lead to a more complete understanding of the process with artifacts which would indicate faulty measurements. Also, Fig. 5 indicates that the > the inlet and outlet thermocouples are connected to generate a voltage > measuring delta-T, but nowhere is data given for the temperatures and > actual delta-T values. This is also critical information for the > assiduous artifact hunter. Again a misreading of Fig. 5. There is no indication that the thermocouples are "connected", only that delta-T is derived from the signals from the two thermocouples. Rich is again looking for something to criticize, and finds the absence of laboratory logs and computer files frustrating. A competent researcher connects the thermocouples and flowmeter to laboratory instrumentation which gives him the important number, heat energy removed by the cooling water. > Paydirt Paydirt? > in Infinite Energy #2, page 11: Excess heat graphs for the 3 gm > cathode (Pd-2B), from 0 to ~3300 hours of "Measuring Time" [What does > "Measuring Time" mean?] Fairly obvious, the time interval for which measurements were recorded as significant. > not showing an initial twenty days elapsed [Why?}, from 11/11/94 to 4/5/95 It is common knowledge that the Pd systems require a loading time, which can be days, for the concentration of D in the Pd lattice to reach the level where the reactions begin. If Rich had been studying the available publications in the field, he should know this. There is no point in putting the data for this period in a graph. .. ICCF-5 was April 9 to 13, 1995. This > is clearly the same as Fig. 8a in Arata, (DS-2B), with no dates given, > which continues the data until ~4700 hours, and has the same initial > missing twenty days elapsed. So what? > But, the Infinite Energy graph for the 5 gr Pd-B (Pd-I), which shows a > very jagged history, beginning with slight negative values and touching > a negative value at 2200 hours, and rising three times to 80 KJ/hr > levels, and ending at about 20 KJ/hr, has dates, 11/29/94 to 1/11/95, > with an apparent 8 day break, not seen in the graph, and dates 1/19/95 > to 4/5/95. A steep drop at 600 hours from about 80 to 20 has the > comment: "break off of water and electricity (for 16 hours)". The 0 > hr mark has an arrow with the note, "two weeks elapsed". So? This is an illustration of 'similar results' for other cathodes referred to in the A&Z paper. The "very jagged history" is once again the signal of an active process whose precise mechanisms are unknown. There is no evidence of measurement error. My arguments in my rebuttal to Rich stand and he has offered no creditable counter-argument. > In Arata's Fig 8b, for the 5 gm Pd-B cathode (DS-LB) [Or, is that really > (DS-IB), since the other cathode is (2B)?], is graphed from 0 to 850 hr, > stretched out to appear the same length as the 4700 hr data of the other > cathode, with no mention of initial days elapsed. Pejorative, baseless comment. One fills the available space in a publication with the best representation of the data available. Rich implies an intent to deceive, for which there is no evidence. I discussed the reason for the absence of data for the loading period above. > The data is much smoother, starting at about 20, and at 200 hr jumping to move at the 40 > to 70 level. Correct. > This is likely a continuation of the run graphed in ICCF-5 Assumption. A&Z mention a number of runs with 'similar results'. > and if this is so, this represents a goodly amount of data > selection, a possibility that has to give any skeptic pause for thought. Groundless speculation. Just who is indulging in "a goodly amount of data selection?" And it would be useful if any skeptic paused for thought long enough to doubt his own conclusions. > Is this data the actual values, several times a day, or is it > time-averaged over fixed intervals? Does it matter? If it is time-averaged, it still shows a strong positive signal of excess heat. Rich continues to evade the conclusion that excess heat is being generated. > Another problem: Fig. 8c, "Pd-black 5 [gr] and lower side (c): excess > heat ratio, Qout/Qin, (=Q*), of upper right side (b), shows values of > Qin from about 87 to about 137 W, with Qout about 3-5 W more from about > 110 to 120 W Qin, and Qout about 10-15 W for 120 to 135 Qin, which are > roughly linear relationships. This means that Qout is a roughly linear > function of Qin, and that Qin was varied in the 850 hour 5 gm Pd-B run > among many values from 87 to 137 W. So, obviously if "Cell power > (excess energy)" is measured as "Output-Input", then a goodly amount of > the variation in excess energy is caused by the substantial variations > in input power. Fig 8c clearly shows proportionality between input and output power, something that Dick Blue declares absent, quoting from his "lies" post imported by Rich without critical analysis: ---------------- My evaluation of the CF data I have seen mostly points to there being little or no dependence on any control parameter you care to mention. --------------------I will deal with Blue's post separately. Fig. 8c shows proportionality between input and output power over the range of roughly 115 to 130 W, roughly the "author's experimental range" in Fig 6b. The data show two regions with different proportionality constants, but both are clearly displaced above the 1:1 slope. 115W input produces 130W output, 135W input produces about 150W output. Now no explanation is offered for the variation in input power. There is no statement as to whether the power supply is regulated for voltage or for current, or neither; perhaps this is something so obvious to those skilled in the art as not to deserve comment. The fact of the variation is irrelevant to the issue at hand, the total integrated excess energy from a few mg of Pd-black. Rich continues to ignore this. > So, a much more appropriate measure of excess power > would be the ratio or percentage Qout/Qin, not the difference Qout-Qin. This is totally irrelevant to the basic issue, and is an attempt by Rich to evade confronting the conclusion by generating a spurious parameter which will have a smaller numerical value, which is not related to the essential topic of the paper. He is returning to his "few percent" figure of merit, which will not help him, because the variability in the calorimetric data is a fraction of a percent, and there is still a real excess energy yield over thousands of hours. > Don't we need some specific details about how this variable input power > was sampled and integrated each day? What was the source of the > variation, resistance, voltage, or current, at what time intervals, with > what precision? No, we do not need this data to reach the conclusion A&Z present. > Arata's Fig. 9 gives 1600 hr of excess energy data for Cathode (DS-K), > mass of Pd-B not given, from 1/30/96 to 4/5 [or is this data in 1995, > until 4/5/95, as in the ICCF-5 data?], and is claimed, "...seems that > the generation of excess heat was corresponding to Pc [pressures up to > 800 atm in the cathode] increased." All that is said is that when the cathode is producing excess energy, pressure inside the capsule increases, indicating an active process inside. > But I notice in the first 50 hr a > faster rise in excess energy than in pressure, So? The excess energy measurement comes from the cooling water, the pressure from a meter connected to the capsule. The physical mechanism responsible for the increased pressure inside the capsule is not well defined, but one could surmise that it is due to diffusion of D through the shell of the capsule and heat inside the capsule. A little D can produce at lot of heat without increasing the pressure much, so this lag may be completely consistent with the structure of the experiment. > and again at 1000 hr when > the power is turned on after 52 hr off, and again at 1300 hr when the > power is turned on after 86 hr off. At the end pressure drops from ~700 > to ~400 atm [The two previous such pressure drops were during the two > power off periods. Was this drop a leak?], while excess energy is > fairly constant. Again a careless reading of the graph. The excess energy drops quickly when the power is turned off, as would be expected from the proportionality shown in Fig. 8c. The small number of D atoms in the Pd black will finish reacting and the reaction will cool down since the electrolysis is not driving more atoms into the capsule. The temperature in the capsule will also drop quickly. Now Rich raises a valid point that the pressure drop may be evidence of the leak he is seeking. However, the power is off for 52 and 86 hours, two instances. We know that Pd is permeable to D atoms, so they can diffuse out of the 0.8 cc cathode in that time. This diffusion is not a "leak" in the sense that Rich is seeking. The excess energy is fairly constant while the input power is on, it clearly drops when the power is turned off. Rich's "while excess energy is fairly constant" is entirely misleading. > What is the pressure versus excess energy history for > the other seven samples? How would this help Rich (or us) other than to find more data to criticize and evade confronting the conclusion of the A&Z paper that substantial excess energy was produced with the appearance of nuclear ash in the form of 4He and 3He? Not all runs had a pressure gauge installed in the capsule. > Can anyone send me any more such data graphs from the other papers by > Arata and Zhang? Evasion again, search for more data to evade making a conclusion.. > Dennis Cravens in a long talk with me, mentioned that Ms Zhang, who I > believe is from China, may have done most of the experimental work, and > also speaks fairly good English. Perhaps Jed Rothwell could contact > her, and see if we can get more details about these experiments. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with seeking more information on the important experiments summarized in the A&Z paper. I think what Rich suspects is that the paper contains fragments of "good" evidence selected from a sea of "bad" evidence. Rich is apparently looking for data to support his theory that cold fusion researchers are conditioned pigeons desperately looking for bits of evidence to support a belief in LENR. In this he is following the lead of Dick Blue. I remind Vortex what Rich ignores, that Arata is a professor emeritus from Osaka University, decorated by the Emperor of Japan for a lifetime of distinguished service whose summarization requires a 40 page booklet. He has worked with electrochemistry and his double structure cathodes for 40 years. Zhang may well have performed many of the measurements under Arata's direction. The A&Z paper is the capstone of their work, putting a consistent set of data in one place. Mike Carrell --------------4DB5BEF2B7-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:05:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA06488; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:55:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:55:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119095011.006b9928 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:50:11 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971119074632.006d01bc world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"61GQQ.0.Ib1._slSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12987 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:25 PM 11/19/97 +0100, Martin Sevior wrote: >> The issue is 2) the magnitude of ZPE(vacuum) as compared with the >> well-known and real zero point energy of the lattice. >> >> Are you claiming that "a random sample of the 5,000 High Energy Physicists" >> will back you up that there is watts to kilowatts available in each cm3 >> of vacuum based upon the virtual presence of more than 10^95 atoms? >> >Why do you write this? I wrote to you what I would ask and the answer >I would get. You even quoted me back! Since I am skeptical they endorse this, just wanted to clarify. Also, brought it up because am looking for QUANTITATIVE answers, still are not all present. When such quantitation was last explored it generated the need for >10^95 atoms per cm3 for ZPE(vacuum) theory, and violations of special relativity in at least one of the ZPE(v) hypotheses. Also, brought this up because it appears that if your nearby physicists are not considering the numbers they might be either disinterested or overpaid. =============================================================== >> Though my mind remains upon on this, the basis of your claim that there >> is violation of the conservation of energy appears >> to not be proved. Not to the levels of either the "germ theory" of >> infection, or superconductivity, or cold fusion. Have examined >> the writings in this field, and will continue to do so with an open >> mind. It is true I have a bias for conservation of energy, but >> then for it to be overturned willl take more than handwaving. >> > >Why don't you understand? The explanation of the colliding plates through the >Casimir attraction has been observed in experiments. Have studied a little about adhesion, bond energy, bond strength, and the molecular basis of same (including with then Prof Emeritus Egon Orowan at MIT), and IMO the experiment upon which the Casimir attraction was based may have neglected one of these factors. =============================================================== >There is no contradiction with consveration of energy. Excuse me, but violation of c.o.e. appeared to be what you wrote and implied. If we agree that conservation of energy rules (until clearly proven otherwise) then there is no disagreement on that. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:10:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA07584; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:02:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:02:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119085640.006d0308 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:56:40 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Cavendish & heat In-Reply-To: <3472A6BF.467AC755 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> References: <199711121233.GAA24096 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wJ9PY3.0.Is1.yzlSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12990 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:43 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote: > I just finished reading the nice article about you > and Hal in the December "Scientific American" thanks....we haven't seen it yet! > I will certainly watch this program. I hope it goes well. We have NO control over how they "spin" us. Thanks very much for the HC quote. I'll study it. Where did you obtain this paper of his? I searched around a bit for it and found it in the U of Chicago library but nowhere else. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:32:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11513; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:22:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:22:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <347303BC.2263 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:20:28 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off topic] Back to Basics References: <199711190922_MC2-28BC-27DF compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VeA9h1.0.mp2.kGmSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12991 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Civilization has been rebuilt from scratch at various > times in history: after Black Death, As I understand it, the black death was a boon to those who survived. They inherited the wealth of the dead, and set Europe forever on a course in enhanced personal prosperity. Probably the closest thing to a true rebuilding was the Renaisance, since they endured hundreds of years of intellectual degradation prior. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:44:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA31120; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:36:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:36:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3472F9B4.7E59 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:37:40 -0600 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, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim physics.purdue.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, drom vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Britz: CF lattice theories Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"n6Ob7.0.5c7.AUmSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12992 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:32:07 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199711171648.LAA172827 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <199711171648.LAA172827 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Richard A Blue wrote: [...] > Reading between the lines, it does appear that you acknowledge the > significance of nuclear products as evidence for cold fusion reactions. > In that respect you are ahead of many CF advocates, some of whom have > consistantly sought to downplay the significance of the absence of > detectable, comensurate reaction products in association with many > claims for CF success. If I read you correctly than we should > be able to get down to the nitty-gritty questions that remain for > whichever experiments you believe I have been overlooking. [...] Let me play Devil's advocate once more. I admit that I myself have used the following argument against the CNF enthusiasts: they claim that CNF is a hitherto unknown aneutronic, atritonic nuclear reaction yielding only heat; yet whenever they find traces of tritium or neutrons or other nuclear ash, they take that as proof of the existence of CNF. Sounds ridiculous, no? Let's be fair. Let's forget for the moment the more recent variants such as vortex machines, vacuum fluctuations and transmutation, and stick to what w= e might call "conventional" CNF (!). It is here that there is in fact some theory, supported by people who know physics. I am thinking of Schwinger an= d Hagelstein, Kim, etc. This scenario is probably the most advanced, and it says that the 4He branch of the d-d fusion reaction is somehow favoured in the Pd lattice (Schwinger actually favours the p-d reaction, going to 3He). They then go on to say that the energetic 4He (or 3He) somehow lets go of i= ts energy (in the case of 4He, 24 MeV or so) in some cooperative, M=F6ssbauer-= like way, so that instead of a shower of nuclear emissions, there is only heat. = So far, I have not read of a thorough critique of this proposal, which might mean that it is not unreasonable. There has also been some experimental evidence of 4He being produced, but the amounts are so small that it is har= d to prove that there was no contamination from the air. My point is that it would be reasonable to assume that this proposed cooperative process is not quite 100% efficient, the actual efficiency varying from one experiment to the next. So sometimes they get next to no emissions, other times they get measurable levels. This would explain all. How about it, Dick? -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:47:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA32317; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:43:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:43:42 -0800 Message-ID: <3472FB54.2232 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:44:36 -0600 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, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com Subject: Britz: questions re CF lattice theories Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"kvaCJ2.0.ou7.jamSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12994 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!recycled.news.erols.com!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:27:55 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199711171648.LAA172827 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> <64s9q1$nro$1@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <64s9q1$nro$1 cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> On 18 Nov 1997, Richard Schultz wrote: > d.b (britz nospam.har.har) wrote: > > : They then go on to say that the energetic 4He (or 3He) somehow lets > : go of its energy (in the case of 4He, 24 MeV or so) in some cooperative, > : Moessbauer-like way, so that instead of a shower of nuclear emissions, > : there is only heat. So far, I have not read of a thorough critique of > : this proposal, which might mean that it is not unreasonable. > > When this proposal was first made, Steven Jones published here in s.p.f. > an extensive critique of this idea. He pointed out that Special > Relativity (i.e. the speed of light) puts strict limits on how fast the > energy can dissipate from the excited nucleus, and that this limit makes > it impossible for all of the energy to go away as heat. I find the > invocation of the Moessbauer effect to be rather troubling. The Moessbauer > effect works because the photon is highly energetic and conservation of > momentum means that the much heavier nucleus doesn't have to dump too > much into the lattice; I have never seen anything that claims that the > persence of the lattice has any significant effect on the lifetime or > decay mode of the excited nucleus (the peak separations in Moessbauer > spectroscopy are typically around 1 part in 10^10 of the photon energy). > On the other hand, this hypothesis for "cold fusion" demands that the > photons be of low energy, and that some unknown lattice coupling massively > increase the lifetime and decay modes of the excited helium nucleus. While I greatly respect Steve Jones, it has to be said that he has two things against him in this argument: he is an experimentalist, and he is biassed, clearly being at pains to disprove CNF. He is also at a disadvantage, as is anyone who gives reasons why something can't happen. Later, someone points out why in this particular case, it can happen, because... If Steve's points were telling, I believe Schwinger would have taken note and retracted his proposal (I am not sure though of the timing, however, whether he was still alive at the time). There is this small bunch of expert physics theorists who are not enthusiasts (my preferred term over TB's), and who will listen to counter arguments, but who yet believe in the possibility of CNF. I don't think they can be dismissed so lightly. You need to show how their theory is wrong, not invoke some impossibility. Our enthusiasts will be able to point out notable cases in point, where impossibilities were shown not to be after all. Is there anyone reading this group who either knows enough theoretical physics or knows someone who does, who could take a critical look at these theories and find out whether and where they go wrong? This would be much more convincing than vague generalisations from chemists, computer people etc (sorry, Richard). -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:48:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA15021; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:42:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:42:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3472FA8E.5C76 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:41:18 -0600 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, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com Subject: Schultz: lattice CF theories Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"AUTxu1.0.Xg3.2ZmSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12993 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!News.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.ibm.net.il!ibm.net!news.biu.ac.il!gefen!schultr From: schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: 18 Nov 1997 14:47:29 GMT Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Message-ID: <64s9q1$nro$1 cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> References: <199711171648.LAA172827 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> Reply-To: correct address in .sigfile NNTP-Posting-Host: gefen.cc.biu.ac.il X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] d.b (britz nospam.har.har) wrote: : They then go on to say that the energetic 4He (or 3He) somehow lets : go of its energy (in the case of 4He, 24 MeV or so) in some cooperative, : Moessbauer-like way, so that instead of a shower of nuclear emissions, : there is only heat. So far, I have not read of a thorough critique of : this proposal, which might mean that it is not unreasonable. When this proposal was first made, Steven Jones published here in s.p.f. an extensive critique of this idea. He pointed out that Special Relativity (i.e. the speed of light) puts strict limits on how fast the energy can dissipate from the excited nucleus, and that this limit makes it impossible for all of the energy to go away as heat. I find the invocation of the Moessbauer effect to be rather troubling. The Moessbauer effect works because the photon is highly energetic and conservation of momentum means that the much heavier nucleus doesn't have to dump too much into the lattice; I have never seen anything that claims that the persence of the lattice has any significant effect on the lifetime or decay mode of the excited nucleus (the peak separations in Moessbauer spectroscopy are typically around 1 part in 10^10 of the photon energy). On the other hand, this hypothesis for "cold fusion" demands that the photons be of low energy, and that some unknown lattice coupling massively increase the lifetime and decay modes of the excited helium nucleus. As the old Twilight Zone episode has it, nothing's impossible, it's just that some things are less likely than others. ----- Richard Schultz schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065 Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250 ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:49:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA32689; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:45:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:45:16 -0800 Message-ID: <3472FBB3.5EB7 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:46:11 -0600 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 Subject: Britz: Neutral Beams? How About Neutral Pellets? Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"n9lTK.0.h-7.AcmSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12995 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Neutral Beams? How About Neutral Pellets? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:48:59 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <64so5b$feu$1 news.missouri.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, d.b (that's me) wrote: > On 18 Nov 1997 c369801 sp2n09.missouri.edu wrote: > > > Intersecting neutral beams of light elements seem a workable method > > for practicable fusion to this tyro. So why not neutral pellets, > > which are much denser? Use some sort of accelerator, perhaps a coil > > or rail gun with a conductive sabot to collide frozen dabs of > > hydrogen together? Any obvious objections or references? > > The Russians have shot pellets of (I think) LiD at a stationary target at > up to 200 m/s. No dice. I'll try to find the reference in the biblio. I looked it up and the list is below, with the annotations trimmed a bit. It is an old trick, it seems, the first paper being from 1986. In fact the Russians like to point to that paper and say that they were there first, before Fleischmann & Pons, or Jones. I was also wrong about the velocities, as you see in the latest effort by Kaushik et al, who went up to 1000 m/s, and they did tentatively reckon they had a few neutrons. The Russians always find neutrons, no matter what they do - unless Sobotka is Russian. Here is the list: Klyuev VA, Lipson AG, Toporov YuP, Deryagin BV, Lushchikov VI, Strelkov AV, Shabalin EP; Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 12 (1986) 1333. (In Russian). Translated in Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett 12 (1986) 551. "High-energy processes accompanying the fracture of solids". ** Shot small pellets at LiD crystals and observed energetic radiation emitted, presumably from the micro-cracks resulting from the stress. The authors assume the possibility of cold nuclear fusion in these cracks. Note the year. # Derjaguin BV, Kluev VA, Lipson AG, Toporov YuP; Physica B167 (1990) 189. "Excitation of nuclear reaction under mechanical effect (impact) on deuterated solids". ** Another report from this Soviet team of what has been called fractofusion. Metal missiles (50 g) were shot (velocity 200 m/s) at targets of LiD and heavy water ice, and neutrons measured. A block of 7 proportional "all wave" ... # Deryagin BV, Klyuev VA, Lipson AG, Toporov YuP; Colloid J. USSR 48 (1986) 8. "Possibility of nuclear reactions during the fracture of solids". ** Another early paper from the USSR, on fracto-something. Here, they shot pellets at heavy ice, i.e. D2O crystals, and appear to measure small but significant neutrons levels, a few times the background. Normal ice, H2O, ... # Sobotka LG, Winter P; Nature (London) 343 (1990) 601 (15-Feb). "Fracture without fusion" (Scientific correspondence). ** The authors note that there appears to be a lot of evidence for fracture- induced fusion, and have a shot at it themselves, by shooting steel pellets (0.131 g mass, going at 168 m/s) at heavy ice. After 75 shots they average less than one neutron per shot, 1/10 the level measured by the Soviet team ... # Kaushik TC, Kulkarni LV, Shyam A, Srinivasan M; Physics Lett. A 232 (1997) 384. "Experimental investigations on neutron emission from projectile-impacted deuterated solids". ** Experimental, fractofusion, projectile, res+ This Bhabha team tries to confirm the Russian fractofusion hypothesis, by shooting nylon projectiles at high velocity at polycrystalline solid LiD, TiDx, PdDx etc) and counting neutrons. Velocities were up to 1000 m/s. Neutron detection was by a bank of 12 BF3 detectors embedded in a plexiglass moderator, all shielded by a metal(Al) enclosure, giving about 12% efficiency. By careful consideration of the neutron data obtained, it was concluded that the LiD samples did indeed emit more neutrons than the background when shot at, though only marginally, and not in all cases. No PdDx or TiDx samples showed neutrons above background. Thus the fractofusion theory of cold fusion is tentatively supported here. Apr-96/Aug-97 # -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 07:50:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00927; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:47:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:47:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3472FC2A.3630 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:48:10 -0600 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 Subject: Schultz: Mossbauer effect & lattice theories Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"RHG96.0.6E.AemSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12996 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!mr.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.ibm.net.il!ibm.net!news.biu.ac.il!gefen!schultr From: schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: 19 Nov 1997 11:38:51 GMT Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Message-ID: <64uj4b$h4o$2 cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> References: <199711171648.LAA172827 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> <64s9q1$nro$1@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> Reply-To: correct address in .sigfile NNTP-Posting-Host: gefen.cc.biu.ac.il X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] d.b (britz nospam.har.har) wrote: : While I greatly respect Steve Jones, it has to be said that he has two : things against him in this argument: he is an experimentalist, and he : is biassed, clearly being at pains to disprove CNF. Why would he be at pains to disprove it, as he was one of the first people to have claimed to have seen it (a claim, admittedly, that he later retracted after having done more careful experiments)? : He is also at a disadvantage, as is anyone who gives reasons why something : can't happen. That depends on the "something" and on the reason. If you tell me that you have discovered an even prime number greater than two, and I tell you why that can't happen, I'm hardly at a disadvantage. If you tell me that you have developed a method to send coded messages faster than the speed of light (hi there Jack Sarfatti), and I tell you why that can't happen, again, I am hardly at a disadvantage, Special Relativity being one of the most well-established principles of physics. : If Steve's points were telling, I believe Schwinger would have taken : note and retracted his proposal (I am not sure though of the timing, : however, whether he was still alive at the time). Why do you think that Schwinger would have been more willing to change his mind than Steven Jones would be? : Is there anyone reading this group who either knows enough theoretical : physics or knows someone who does, who could take a critical look at these : theories and find out whether and where they go wrong? This would be much : more convincing than vague generalisations from chemists, computer : people etc (sorry, Richard). I am kind of puzzled by your comments. My discussion of the (lack of) relevance of the Moessbauer effect was hardly a "vague generalization." I pointed out several specific differences between the Moessbauer effect and the kind of nucleus-lattice coupling needed in the "magic" cold fusion. (By "magic," I mean the one in which the branching ratio and lifetime of the decay of 4He* are massively affected by the lattice in some not-yet- defined way.) I make no claim that CF is "impossible." I only pointed out that citing the Moessbauer effect has, as far as I can tell, no relevance to the question of how probable its existence is likely to be. The "vague generalization" is what comes in when someone (not mentioning any names, but his initials are M.S.) says that "the Moessbauer effect shows that there can be a coupling between a nucleus and the lattice, therefore the lattice can change the branching ratio of D+D -> 4He from near zero to near 100%." ----- Richard Schultz schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065 Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250 ----- ". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness." -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 08:31:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07205; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:26:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:26:00 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:25:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119112523_1760771950 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"4HJTj1.0.Um1.MCnSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12997 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/19/97 9:55:42 AM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: <> ZPEc for 1 cm3 of matter depends on the matter you have in mind. ZPEv is estimated by John Wheeler to be 9 X 10^114 ergs/cm^3 based on assuming a Planck cutoff frequency. However, matter does not interact with the high-freq modes, so the fact that it is so high should not cause concern. Feynman, taking interactions with the ZPEv to cut off at nuclear compton wavelengths estimates a lower value for practical considerations, rougholy on the order of nuclear energy densities. Either way, therefore, the ratio you asked about is a small number indeed. That does not make it unreal, however. As I have said, this is all standard textbook stuff, not fringe physics. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 08:42:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09416; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:36:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:36:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:36:24 -0800 Message-Id: <199711191636.IAA22754 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"_WZRx1.0.pI2.LMnSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12998 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >For Horace, > free Hydrogen atoms cannot do the reaction: > >p + e => n + neutrino > >Because the final state (neutron plus neutrino) has more energy than the >initial state. > >Initial energy (proton + electron) = 938.28 + 0.511 MeV = 938.791 MeV >Final Energy (neutron + neutron) = 939.57 + 0 MeV = 939.57 + neutrino MeV. > >Conservation of energy therefore forbids this reaction. > Not if the e had the KE prior to the reaction to make up the difference. In that case, it is a perfectly valid reaction, just the reverse of the neutron decay path. And even if the proton had an electron in orbit, that does not preclude the reaction because an energetic second electron could blast into the nucleus, convert the proton to a neutron, and the e that had been in orbit would then fly away free. So you conserve energy, particles, charge etc. As there is a lot of turbulence in the quantum vacuum (aether ocean) there is always a finite possibility that this reaction occurs. Of course, in 12 minutes or so it would convert back again. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 08:49:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA24315; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:42:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:42:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:41:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199711191641.IAA24660 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"xwlLe2.0.rx5.7SnSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12999 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >In a message dated 11/19/97 9:55:42 AM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >< What is ZPEc/ZPEv for 1 cm3 of matter and 1 cm3 of true vacuum?>> > >ZPEc for 1 cm3 of matter depends on the matter you have in mind. > >ZPEv is estimated by John Wheeler to be 9 X 10^114 ergs/cm^3 based on >assuming a Planck cutoff frequency. However, matter does not interact with >the high-freq modes, so the fact that it is so high should not cause concern. Greetings All; If matter consists of solitonic structures, then all of those high frequency modes ARE the structure of matter. So matter does interact with them. We call them classically, "Spacetime", and ignore that matter is always interacting with that structure when we try to think of QM behaviors because we don't like the notion of matter being composed of wave structures. The reason is simple, when you think it through. If matter is composed of wave structures, then the universe is an ocean, mass is the amount of that ocean confined in that resonance (particle), AND, that aether must be flowing out of stars due to the conversion of mass to energy. But when you study stars, and T-tauri newborn stars where that aether emission and anamalous spacetime curvature first ignites, you learn that it all finally makes sense. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 08:54:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25883; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:50:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:50:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3473185E.B0B4DD15 ro.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:48:30 -0600 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anti grav test at NASA? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199711190934_MC2-28BA-98BA compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-lzth3.0.KK6.YZnSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13001 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Debbie wrote: > Gene, > > The last time I talked to Dr. Li, she said the experimental results > were > almost completed. I hope this means that she and/or Noever will be > publishing soon. > > I find it interesting that her name was never mentioned, since she's > the > one that has had the theory long before Podkletnov stumbled on the > apparatus. Hopefully, this paper will get published. > > Debbie Debbie, Please see http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Physica-C.htm There you will find NASA's Physica C preprint with Dr. Li given top billing. Have a nice day!...:) -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 08:56:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA12059; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:48:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:48:36 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:47:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119114759_-389602699 mrin39> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"8ioBd.0.Jy2.YXnSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13000 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/19/97 2:00:12 PM, Horace Heffner gave us this joke: <> A related joke. A philospher, a sociologist and a mathematician see two people go into a house, and after awhile three come out. I forget what the first two say, but the mathematician says "if one more person enters the house, then it will be empty." Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:22:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29326; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:16:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:16:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:15:54 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Ostrowski X-Sender: jimostr victor1.mscomm.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Free Lunar Orbit calculator (was- Hollow Body Gravitation) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971118195909.0069a8c4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Xb9uT1.0.8A7.0ynSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13003 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, John Winterflood wrote: [snip] > > > > With the above I conclude my argument that the moon is perhaps hollow, > > ... > > In the light of my above comments I would have to conclude that the > reason for lunar crashes could not be due to the differences between > the gravitational field above the surface of a hollow moon as > compared with that of a solid moon - because there are no > differences! Sorry Jim! Hi all- Well , I don't want anybody to say that I won't admit it when it appears I've been mistaken. I did a check on the Apollo 8 website which indicates that it took 20 hours for the crew to complete 10 circular orbits of the moon at an altitude of 102 km. So this being about 120 minutes per rev the following basic program I cooked up from my physics book procedure yeilds about 118 minutes...close enough . So before we close the book on this I would just like to say thank you John W, Frank S, Fred E. , and Hamdi for their input on this subject. I guess I will have to investigate the hollow moon theory by some other means ,such as mean density of core samples, seissmic data etc which hopefully might be available somewhere. Anyway , for anyone thinking of getting into the business of figuring out lunar orbital periods and velocities - here's a free calculator I hereby release into the public domain with my compliments to the above mentioned fellows. When I get more data about moonrock densities and such I might just write another article ... so don't feel too smug just yet. ;-) Jim O. --------------------------cut here------------------------------------ 10 D=3475900! 20 INPUT "Altitude of Lunar Orbit in Km";A 30 A=A*1000 40 PRINT 50 RO=(D/2)+A 60 RM=D/2 70 GO=((RM/RO)^2)*1.617 80 PRINT "At this altitude the acceleration of gravity has decreased from" 90 PRINT "it's value at the surface of 1.617 m/s^2 to";GO;" m/s^2." 100 X=RO*GO 110 V=SQR(X) 120 PRINT "orbital velocity =";V;"m/s" 130 T=(6.28*RO)/V 140 T=T/60 150 PRINT "orbital period =";T;" minutes" From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:22:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28705; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:11:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:11:56 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:37:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119113740_1213741426 mrin83.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"MZdsn.0.M07.QtnSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13002 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/19/97 12:52:36 PM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: <> None of the ZPE arguments involve violating the conservation of energy. Indeed, the opposite. For example, it is the conservation of energy applied to the Casimir effect that gives the value of the Casimir energy and force. As the plates get closer, the rejected modes' energy transforms into the kinetic energy of the plates' motion, and when the plates collide, the kinetic energy transforms into heat. Conservation of energy all the way. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:31:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01315; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:29:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:29:12 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3472DB4B.14D9 earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:27:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube Resent-Message-ID: <"C_Wn42.0.QK.b7oSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13006 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rich Murray has brought up a relevant question on the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. >Nov. 19, 1997 > >Larry, I am sending this to you again, in case you didn't notice or >save it a month ago, since there's a chance the Ranque-Hilsch effect >might be relevant to either one or both of the atmospheric temperature >anomalies or the theory of negative viscosity. Can you post us a >simple explanation of the gist of the principle or process of negative >viscosity? Would it have an analogue to phenomenon of electric >conduction in various materials? > >Thanks very much, and good luck on establishing your innovative ideas. > >Rich Murray He also posted an excellent report on the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube to vortex but I have not seen it yet there. Negative viscosity could be important here as well as heat conduction in directions other than -grad T . For heat conduction there is not a simple form, as in the case of viscosity, where the effect is opposite in sign. These effects would change the dynamics as in the related case of a tornado. As far as getting any free energy out, there is no chance of that. The conservation of H density equation is given by d/dt H + div F = S with H the H density F the H flux and S the source term which is always negative. Making an expansion of F we obtain F = F0 + F1 + F2 + ... = H V - q/(kT) + F1 + F2 + ... where q is the heat flux and V is the fluid velocity. The added terms F1, F2 ... are contained in B. C. Eu's papers. Eu tries to get rid of these added terms through a bogus modification of the Hamiltonian. Just ignore that part and look at the part where he derives the additional terms from standard physics. Think of H as a type of available energy. The source term is always negative so H is always being waisted. This is always true even in the higher order evaluation. We always waist H and nothing can be done about that. However the flux term expansion contains terms in addition to the first one, - q/(kT), which is the term from which the Carnot efficiency is derived. The secret is to utilize the higher order flux terms, F1, F2 ... .The first step is to take our candidate PMM device and construct an enclosing surface around it at large distances and take the time average. Then we obtain Surface Int[ F dot dA] = Volume Int[S d V] < 0 where we have used the divergence theorem and eliminated the d/dt H term because of time averaging. Now at large distances from the PMM F1, F2,... will go to zero with at least a 1/distance^3 dependence and the surface integral will be zero. So then we have Surface Int[{H V - q/(kT)} dot dA] < 0 Now we must neglect the flux term H V as this term could contain some wind or heat flux energy. We must require that our PMM works in the absence of wind energy or hot or cold fluid flows. Then we have Surface Int[-q/(kT) dot dA] < 0 or Surface Int[ q/(kT) dot dA] > 0 This is just the Second Law so you get nothing in the way of free energy. To violate this law you need to violate the assumptions in the derivation. If you have simply connected surfaces with the H flux continuous across those surfaces the derivation is valid. For the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube these assumptions are valid and you get zero free energy. This result is even true for turbulent transport. It does not matter if we do not fully understand turbulence this theorem is still true and you still get zip for free energy. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:31:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18078; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:26:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:26:00 -0800 Message-ID: <3473134D.5B0A earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:26:53 -0600 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 Subject: Shkedi: CF not replicated at Bose Corp. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------29C857523722" Resent-Message-ID: <"X9-Pd1.0.IQ4.c4oSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13004 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------29C857523722 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://xp6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c1996Jan18.135629 plasma.byu.edu%3e&server=db96q1&CONTEXT=879959967.2140340344&hitnum=0 --------------29C857523722 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="getdoc.xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp" Content-Base: "http://xp6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c1996Jan18.135629 plasma.byu.e du%3e&server=db96q1&CONTEXT=8799599 67.2140340344&hitnum=0" Deja News - Article
Deja News Home · Resource Directories New!
-------------------------------------
Quick Search · Power Search · Search Filter · Interest Finder · Browse Groups
Search the White Pages
Find Phone Numbers and E-Mail Addresses Anywhere!!

 Article 1 of exactly 14 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article		 [Next Article]
Next
Articl e		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Extensive expts. on cold fusion: NO real excess heat
From:         jonesse plasma.byu.edu
Date:         1996/01/18
Message-ID:   <1996Jan18.135629 plasma.byu.edu>
Newsgroups:   sci.energy.hydrogen
[More Headers]


Path: plasma.byu.edu!jonesse
From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Bose Corp. and BYU find no real excess heat in cold fusion experiments
Message-ID: <1996Jan18.135453@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 96 13:54:53 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 91

To avoid any confusion, I post here the entire text of a
Letter from Zvi Shkedi, Ph.D. to Fusion Facts (Dec. 1995 issue).

14 Dec 1995

We were somewhat surprised to read your introduction and comments
in the November 1995 issue of _Fusion Facts_, regarding the two
cold fusion articles published in the November 1995 issue of
_Fusion Technology_.

It appears that the Shkedi et al. paper was completely
misunderstood and misrepresented in the "Editor's Introduction." 
The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not been
found in the light-water cells.  On the contrary, excess heat WAS
FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells.  

The difference between this work and all other published research
in the field is that once excess heat was found, the researchers
did not pause to celebrate but continued the research to identify
the source of the excess heat.  To everybody's surprise, including
the authors', the source of the "excess heat" was identified as
unaccounted internal recombination of hydrogen and oxygen.  In
other words, the common assumption that underlies almost even
"successful" light water experiment, i.e. that the Faraday
efficiency is unity, was proven to be wrong.

When the "excess heat" data were analyzed, taking into account the
actual Faraday efficiency, all "excess heat" disappeared and the
energy balance turned out to be exactly zero.  The data, the
methodology, and the analysis, are all presented in the Shkedi et
al. paper.

By contrast, it is interesting to note that in the Mills and Good
paper published in the same issue of Fusion Technology, the excess
heat claimed to be found by Mills and Good is predicated on the
assumption stated following equation (7): "The net Faraday
efficiency of gas evolution is ASSUMED to be unity."

Famous cold fusion scientists have served as consultants to Bose
Corp. throughout the research.  Many more, from around the globe,
have either visited the Bose cold fusion laboratory or were visited
by one of the Bose team members.  The authors have included in the
list of experiments every advice given them by the most famous and
successful cold fusion researchers.  In addition, manuscripts of
the publication were sent out for comments and suggestions to many
researchers with whom the authors kept close contacts.  All the
recommendations have been implemented, yet, the end result was no
real excess heat.

For the heavy-water experiments the authors have tried all known
sources of "hot" palladium; spent unlimited resources to have
custom lots of palladium and palladium/silver manufactured for them
according to successful researchers specifications; had single-
crystal palladium cathodes custom grown; palladium grain size
ranged from a few microns to single crystal; D/Pd loading ratios
were consistently in the range of 0.85 - 0.95; yet, again, no
excess heat.

The authors have offered to some of the most famous scientists in
the field to try their cathodes, cells, and loading protocols in
the Bose calorimeters, at Bose expense.  All offers have been
declined despite the fact that the Bose calorimeters were the most
accurate and stable calorimeters reported in the field.  Since the
Bose cold fusion laboratory has been disassembled this opportunely
is no longer available.

With all due respect, the conclusion is unavoidable.  So let's stop
classifying scientists as believers or non-believers.  Instead,
let's remove from the experiments all assumptions and possible
sources of error.  the challenge presented at the conclusion of the
shkedi et al. paper is still open -- "...all resports claiming the
observation of excess heat should be accompanied by simultaneous
measurements of the actual Faraday efficiency."  Will anyone pick
up the glove?

Very Truly yours,
/s/ Zvi Shkedi
Bose Corporation
The Mountain
Framingham, MA 01701-9168
---------------------------------------------------------------
I should note that the conclusions of the Shkedi paper, in
particular, no real excess heat, agree entirely with our
experimental results, published in:

J.E. Jones et al., "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during
electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in
'cold fusion' cells," J. Physical Chem. 99 (May 1995) 6973-6979.

--Steven E. Jones/BYU
Search the White Pages
Find Phone Numbers and E-Mail Addresses Anywhere!!
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------29C857523722-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:31:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18141; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:26:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:26:14 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:25:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119122534_1738337288 mrin45.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Resent-Message-ID: <"hWXAn.0.MR4.r4oSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13005 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/19/97 3:02:15 PM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: <10^95 atoms per cm3 for ZPE(vacuum) theory,>> ZPE theory does not say that there are 10^95 atoms per cm3 in the vacuum. More precisely, the statement is that if the energy density were to be converted to mass (m = E/c^2) there would be enough energy to equate to 10^94 gms/cm^3. But it doesn't. There are no atoms in the vacuum. This is simply Wheeler's attempt to give by illustration an idea of the energy density in the ZPE from 0 to the Planck cutoff frequency. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:54:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22774; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:48:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:48:01 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:47:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119124723_1105199656 mrin42.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electron capture by protons Resent-Message-ID: <"6zz1V3.0.kZ5.FPoSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13007 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace: yes, I was asking about capture of an orbital electron, especially in the case of hydrogen. Martin, thanks for the information that this hasn't been seen in free space because conservation of energy forbids a free hydrogen atom from doing the endothermic reaction p + e --> n + neutrino. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:55:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04693; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:49:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:49:18 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:47:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119124728_-2041725016 mrin39> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: FoE and CF Resent-Message-ID: <"G8hjt2.0.A91.PQoSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13009 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a post of Nov. 18, Nick Palmer wrote: "Randell Mills has attracted large commercial sponsorship - so what? This has been done before by many OU energy device inventors - it only came to fraud, self-delusion or ambiguity, in the past. Similarly Patterson has attracted some official support - I suspect this is rather more that these people are monitoring the situation "just in case" (as I am)." What examples are there of OU energy device inventors who attracted $10 million in commercial sponsorshop? (If you want to go back to, say, 1960, that would be about $2 million in 1960 dollars.) What official support has Patterson attracted? We know about interest in CETI's energy work on the part of DOE officials charged with monitoring developments in the field of energy (see the unsigned letter in INFINITE ENERGY, No. 13-14, p. 3). We know from the ABC-TV segment on the "Good Morning America" program of June 11, 1997, that Dr. Olson of the Hanford lab was interested in CETI's radioactive remediation work. But has that translated into any financial support or in-kind support from any governmental agency for either the remediation or the energy work? (By the way, does FoE stand for Friends of the Earth?) Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:55:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04635; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:47:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119124718_-1961914968 mrin86.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: CF 10keV Radiation? Resent-Message-ID: <"WRhyr2.0.G81.BQoSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13008 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell, In a post of November 17, you wrote that "cold fusion came out in 1989 about 10 watts/cm3 and is now two orders of magnitude greaters in power density with nuclear ash of helium-4 (mainly), much lesser amounts ofhelium-3, tritium, and very low level ~10 keV radiation." What's a reference on that 10 keV radiation? (And by the way, as someone who thinks that Mills is right about the existence of 1/n states of hydrogen, I would interpret ash of mass 4 as the dideuterino molecule.) Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 09:58:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25138; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:56:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:56:42 -0800 Message-Id: <199711191756.JAA23018 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: JED - Back to Basics Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:35:40 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kbkcb2.0.h86.OXoSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13010 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Dean! > > According to quite a variety of psychic predictions, we're going to have > a chance to find out exactly what it takes in a year or two. > According to the vast majority of psychic predictions (Cayce and Gordon Michael Scallion come to mind) theses cataclysms should have already happened. Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 10:05:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA06173; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:57:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:57:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711191756.JAA07792 mail1.halcyon.com> From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Free Lunar Orbit calculator (was- Hollow Body Gravitation) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:55:59 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4NARj.0.NW1.UYoSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13011 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jim! > So before we close the book on this I would just like to say thank you > John W, Frank S, Fred E. , and Hamdi for their input on this subject. I > guess I will have to investigate the hollow moon theory by some other > means ,such as mean density of core samples, seissmic data etc which > hopefully might be available somewhere. > Yes, I saw a lot of seismic and geological data a long time ago when I was looking at this idea. Sorry, I've completely forgotten the sources, but you will find it. I have a short Sci Am. article referring to the moon ringing like a gong. The scientists were quoted as saying something along the lines of, "we won't repeat to you some of the ideas we've had about this..you would think we were crazy." The Don Wilson books have pretty good bibliographies. Do you have them? Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 10:29:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29615; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:20:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:20:04 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:18:59 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: Anti grav test at NASA? Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711191319_MC2-28CB-C81D compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA29585 Resent-Message-ID: <"EwDUB3.0.YE7.ItoSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13012 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patrick, I've been to your web site, and I know that Dr. Li is going to get credit from the people that count. I still find it interesting that the article didn't site anyone by name; Dr. Li is NOT a NASA scientist, she works for the University of Alabama/Huntsville, and is funded by several organizations here at MSFC. Dr. Noever does work for NASA. So, the implication is that this work is his (or someone else's). Where did you get this paper, and do you have permission to have it on a web page, by the way? Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 10:45:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12783; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:36:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:36:47 -0800 (PST) From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711191835.MAA13268 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: [Off topic] Back to Basics In-Reply-To: <347303BC.2263 math.ucla.edu> from Barry Merriman at "Nov 19, 97 07:20:28 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:35:22 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UOc9r1.0.f73.t6pSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13013 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > As I understand it, the black death was a boon to those > who survived. They inherited the wealth of the dead, > and set Europe forever on a course in enhanced personal > prosperity. This seems counter-intuitive. If we assume that the black death was indescriminate in its victims, then the average productivity of the human population should not have changed. Since in all non-decaying societies, the average ratio of productivity to consumption is greater than 1:1, the loss of members of society to an indescriminate plague imply that the net result will be a general decline in absolute wealth production. This, by the way, is why over-population scares are generally illfounded. Until the ratio turns less than 1:1 (production to consumption) an increase in population increases overal wealth. However, if indeed there was a increase in general prosperity after the black death, one might look to either coincident developments (namely scientific breakthroughs), driven developments (desperate situations require inventiveness), or the collapse of enforcement of cultural constraints to new ideas. If they could have traveled any of the other avenues without the masive die-off, they would have been generally better off than with the die-off. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 11:32:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18292; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:22:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:22:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:22:37 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"_I7ev2.0.gT4.UnpSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13014 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:47 AM 11/19/97, Puthoff aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/19/97 2:00:12 PM, Horace Heffner gave us this joke: > ><equations of mass (energy) balance and say the reaction was denied. A >mathematician might look at your equations and say the resulting neutrino >clearly must have negative mass. 8^)>> > >A related joke. A philospher, a sociologist and a mathematician see two >people go into a house, and after awhile three come out. I forget what the >first two say, but the mathematician says "if one more person enters the >house, then it will be empty." > >Hal Puthoff Yea, that's the same joke. I couldn't rememeber it either, so adapted it to the situation and left it at that. Instead of saying: "I would like to make a small joke," I could have said: "I would like to make a joke out of a joke I can't remember," but that would be like making something out of nothing, which is not permitted. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 11:40:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19455; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:29:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:29:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:21:31 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Back to Basics Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711191425_MC2-28CD-E872 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ZB_s63.0.ul4.vtpSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13015 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: As I understand it, the black death was a boon to those who survived. They inherited the wealth of the dead . . . That's correct! It sparked an economic boom. So did the destruction of Japanese and German industry during WWII. They rebuilt from scratch, with help from the U.S. By 1960 the newness of their factories was an advantage. They started with the most essential thing in 1945: experts and a disciplined, educated work force. If a third world country like Mexico had that kind of workforce it would richer than the U.S. In the science fiction scenario I described I think the same thing would happen. 7,000 superbly qualified, well trained people would show on a planet with billions of dollars worth of canned factories and spare parts and a plan of activities put together by the world's leading experts. Everyone would get to work prospecting for minerals or planting crops according to plans they rehearsed year after year on earth. I suppose for the first 50 years they would wear glasses instead of contact lenses, and use buttons instead of zippers or velcro. They would have only three choices of glasses frames, instead of the 200+ I saw today at the optometrist. In 50 years a population of young healthy people can triple. By the time the population reached 500,000 they would have sufficient diversification to train experts in many fields, and they would soon have every convenience, even coke machines and non-dairy creamer. In a hundred years their standard of living would be better than the stay-behinds' back on earth. It would be easier with 50,000 people to start with, instead of 7,000. I think survival would be assured with 7,000. With 50,000 near-term prosperity and no significant loss of skills would be assured. You could even bring a hotel administrator and a fashion designer. I would hate to try to pull it off with only, say, 500 people. I do not envision any need for hardscrabble ax and oxen pioneering. If they could not bring enough heavy earth moving equipment they would be fools to go. As Arthur Clarke said of the Pilgrims, this will be a collection of eggheads. Their statue of liberty would not say "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses . . ." It would say: "Give me your nuclear physicists, your chemical engineers, your biologists and mathematicians." (Clarke's joke, from "Profiles of the Future," chapter 8.) Probably the closest thing to a true rebuilding was the Renaissance, since they endured hundreds of years of intellectual degradation prior. A good example! Although the dark ages were not quite as dark as they are sometimes portrayed. It should be remembered that civilization has to be renewed from top to bottom every 80 years no matter what. People die, machines wear out, bridges fall, books fade. The human race has to relearn everything it ever knew every generation. Most artifacts of civilization break or disappear. Very few people own or make active use of tools, dishes, houses or machinery over 50 years old. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 12:03:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA22616; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:49:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:49:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:44:41 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Back to Basics Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711191447_MC2-28CD-EC52 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"WPwCC.0.FX5.zAqSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13016 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In response to the statement that the black death cause an economic boom a generation later, John Logajan writes: This seems counter-intuitive. If we assume that the black death was indiscriminate in its victims, then the average productivity of the human population should not have changed. . . . Ah, but it wasn't indiscriminate. It killed off flea-bitten poor people more than rich. It killed people jammed into ghettos in close proximity to rats. Most epidemics kill the weak, the old and very young. (AIDS is an exception; it kills people in the prime of productive life.) Of course many prosperous and educated people died too. The gap in healthcare between the poor and the rich is greater today. Since in all non-decaying societies, the average ratio of productivity to consumption is greater than 1:1, the loss of members of society to an indiscriminate plague imply that the net result will be a general decline in absolute wealth production. After stability was regained, crops were planted and the panic faded, a great deal of cultivated land, buildings, mills, barns and other long-term assets fell into the hands of the survivors. In a mediaeval times these structures were worth much more than buildings and infrastructure today. [If] there was a increase in general prosperity after the black death, one might look to either coincident developments (namely scientific breakthroughs), driven developments (desperate situations require inventiveness) . . . The lack of trained manpower did spur innovation and improved efficiency. The same thing happened in the U.S. during the 19th century. If they could have traveled any of the other avenues without the massive die-off, they would have been generally better off than with the die-off. That goes without saying! But they didn't. I believe the plague was one of main causes of the Renaissance. Sometime good consequences come from evil events. WWII brought us radar, rapid dissemination of penicillin, and the civil rights movement. Another avenue that did not involve killing 50 million people and destroying thousands of cities and towns would have been better. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 12:08:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25016; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:04:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:04:12 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf525$bcc73c20$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"sGSZK.0.n66.wOqSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13017 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Several years ago there was an article in the Scientific American (amateur scientist section) on holding a ping-pong ball a few inches above a golf ball at waist height and releasing them simultaneously. Upon collision with the floor the ping-pong ball will rebound to a height several times waist height indicating a velocity multiplication. I tried this using a 55 gallon drum so that I didn't have to chase the p-p ball all over the place. Good way to lose an eye if you use a marble and a 1" steel ball. :-( In an agitated fluid (or a gas plasma)where there is the mass of the "propeller" and various masses or "impurities" "or heavy ions) in the fluid, would this not also kick molecules-electrons up to high velocities? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 12:10:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12596; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:04:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:04:44 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971119200433.0068dab0 atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:04:33 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: A moon-earth atmospherics question for Dr. Wharton Resent-Message-ID: <"iXVAR1.0.K43.PPqSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13018 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In the book "The Secret School" by Whitley Strieber (Harper Collins, 1997), Whitley says (on page 112): Without the slowing effects of the moon's gravity, the planet's thousand-mile-an-hour rotational speed would cause constant surface winds of at least three hundred miles an hour. The gentle winds that characterize our weather would instead be a ceaseless hurricane. Water vapor, borne aloft by the wind, would sheathe the planet in an unending cloud cover. Whitley gives *no* references for these claims and cites no authorities, and this is the first time I have seen this kind of claim regarding the moon's affect on the Earth. My question to Dr. Wharton, an apparent atmospherics scientist, is is there any validity to what Whitley Strieber is claiming above -- and if there is, can you give the best reference and your own opinion as to the quality of the claimed result. Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 12:33:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17131; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:25:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:25:55 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:22:33 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf528$de777940$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"QngGw1.0.aB4.HjqSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13019 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In the late 50s there was a thing going around that said, "if you have enough chimpanzees doing hunt and peck on typewriters, eventually they will type out an intelligent phrase or paragraph, perhaps even a sonnet." Now, with millions of people on the Internet, with a keyboard, what can we expect? Jed? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 12:36:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19477; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:32:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:32:17 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:33:37 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Electron capture - some questions Resent-Message-ID: <"RPeTH3.0.ul4.DpqSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13020 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some things are bothering me about the fact E.C. does not occur where C of E forbids it, and even some cases where it does not. What are the mechanics of this conservation? If an e and p are within range of operation of the weak force, then what mechanism prevents the reaction? It seems the reaction might take place within the boundaries of the time in which borrowed energy is available from the uncertainty principle, but that would be an extremely short period of time - and there is the problem of that escaping neutrino. More significantly, it seems to me that if some portion of a stable nucleus can undergo an E.C., which then makes the nucleus unstable with respect to the two portions, the E.C. capturing portion, and the remaining portion, then fission can be produced by that electron capture. If E.C. can result in fission, then perhaps the energy of the fission might be used to negate the impossibility of the reaction due to C of E? It seems unfortunate that the heavy isotopes subject to E.C., regardles of other decay pathways involved, with few exceptions, have very short half lives, and thus are not a problem for remediation. (Some exceptions are 149Eu 150Eu 152Eu, 157Tb, 158Tb, 163Ho, 173Lu, 174Lu, 193Pt, 194Hg, 204Tl, 202Pb, 205Pb, 207Bi and 208Bi.) This makes me wonder if possibly some alpha decays, or other decay modes, are actually precipitated by an unseen initial E.C.? The E.C. could be readily missed if any of the fission products resulted in short half life beta decays? It seems strange that the other long half life heavy nuclei, within the above isotope range between 149Eu and 205Pb, have no E.C. pathway. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 12:50:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22735; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:44:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:44:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:45:52 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Resent-Message-ID: <"H5qDE3.0.6Z5.Y-qSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13021 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:00 PM 11/19/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >In an agitated fluid (or a gas plasma)where there is the mass of the >"propeller" and various masses or "impurities" "or heavy ions) in the fluid, >would this not also kick molecules-electrons up to high velocities? > >Regards, Frederick Isn't this a well known property? Since the distribution of the constituants is the same, then the velocity of the constituants is distributed as (1/m)^0.5. The tail of the velocity distribution of light molecules is at a higher velocity than the heavies, but, unfortunately, no more so than if the heavies were not there. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 13:34:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06786; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:23:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:23:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3473587F.6040 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:22:07 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A moon-earth atmospherics question for Dr. Wharton References: <1.5.4.32.19971119200433.0068dab0 atlantic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gKtMV2.0.uf1.JZrSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13022 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Kurt Johmann wrote: > > In the book "The Secret School" by Whitley Strieber (Harper Collins, > 1997), Whitley says (on page 112): > > Without the slowing effects of the moon's gravity, the > planet's thousand-mile-an-hour rotational speed would > cause constant surface winds of at least three hundred > miles an hour. This sounds goofy to me. The strength of the moons gravity in the earths atmosphere is about 10^-5 g (since its 1/6 g at the surface of the moon, and its ~100x further to the surface of the earth, so reduced by 100^2). Thus the force per unit volume of atmosphere is like (density)x 10^-5 g = (density)x10^-4 In contrast, the viscous forces in the atmosphere, per unit volume, go like (density)*(turbulent viscocity)*V/L^2, where V is the characteristic speed, and L the characterisitc gradient length scale. If the effective viscocity is ~ 1 m^2/s, V ~ 100 m/s, L~1000 m, we get (density)x10^-2, which is thus 100x larger. So, it would seem that the viscous frictional forces in our atmosphere are ~ 100x greater than the moons gravitational force (and much greater still than the tidal forces), so I would expect simple viscous/turbulent dissipation to be responsible for keeping the surface winds at a tolerable level. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 13:40:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA29886; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:34:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:34:46 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:31:46 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf532$89b45cc0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"GwrKR2.0.uI7.rjrSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13023 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 1:49 PM Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier >At 1:00 PM 11/19/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >> >>In an agitated fluid (or a gas plasma)where there is the mass of the >>"propeller" and various masses or "impurities" "or heavy ions) in the fluid, >>would this not also kick molecules-electrons up to high velocities? >> >>Regards, Frederick > > > >Isn't this a well known property? Since the distribution of the >constituants is the same, then the velocity of the constituants is >distributed as (1/m)^0.5. The tail of the velocity distribution of light >molecules is at a higher velocity than the heavies, but, unfortunately, no >more so than if the heavies were not there. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Don't hide the physics with rhetoric, Horace. The heavy ball strikes the Earth first,and is on the rebound when it collides with the lighter ball. Thus C of E,and/or momentum laws come into play. If this is occurring at the interface of a ship propeller or a hydrofoil and water-impurities the "three-body" collisions can put neutral molecules up to temperatures that can cause production of infrared-to-visible photons that cause the production of hydrinos(be it by whatever means). By the same token, when the atoms in a hot fusion plasma are bouncing off the walls or interacting with dB/dT and doing essentially the same thing, and thus putting the "distribution tail" on the constituents it gives something more in the way of a picture of what is responsible for the "tail". When an alpha particle goes crashing through a material at 5 Mev (initially 1.55E7 meters/sec) and you have 2 kev electrons (delta rays)coming off and moving at 2.65E7 meters/second or 1.7 times a fast as the alpha, it's kind of interesting to know why, rather than basing the "physics" entirely on a distribution curve,isn't it? Sort of a Cause and Effect setup. Try explaining that delta-ray-electron velocity without a three-body collision. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 13:58:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01164; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:52:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:52:57 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711192152.PAA15975 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: [Off topic] Back to Basics In-Reply-To: <199711191447_MC2-28CD-EC52 compuserve.com> from Jed Rothwell at "Nov 19, 97 02:44:41 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:52:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"l1JxE.0.zH.t-rSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13024 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > This seems counter-intuitive. If we assume that the black death was > indiscriminate in its victims, then the average productivity of the > human population should not have changed. . . . > > Ah, but it wasn't indiscriminate. It killed off flea-bitten poor people more > than rich. It killed people jammed into ghettos in close proximity to rats. Well, since "poor" people jammed into ghettos don't have large estates to pass on to heirs, the following paragraph ... > After stability was regained, crops were planted and the panic faded, a great > deal of cultivated land, buildings, mills, barns and other long-term assets > fell into the hands of the survivors. In a mediaeval times these structures > were worth much more than buildings and infrastructure today. ... wouldn't seem to follow. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 14:01:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01892; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:55:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:55:57 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:50:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119165017_-1106296906 mrin45.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: kennel speaks Resent-Message-ID: <"oMVw01.0.PT.h1sSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13026 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thought I'd let you know that there is going to be another seminar on cold fusion at Wright State this Friday, Nov.21, at 3 pm. The speaker is Elliot Kennel, who had worked at the Hydrogen Energy Laboratory in Sapporo, Japan from June 96 until last month. The talk abstract says that "experiments to date show that much of the data base is probably in error, although there remains an intruiging body of data which hints at the existence of previously undiscovered nuclear reaction pathways." I believe that Elliot was at Miley's talk last May at Wright State. I realize that Wright State is not just around the corner from you, but in case you get the urge to travel, now at least you know about the talk. John From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 14:12:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01595; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:54:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:54:55 -0800 Message-Id: <34735AF7.9F7951BE verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:32:39 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Re: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? References: <01bcf528$de777940$LocalHost default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0vG1J1.0.hO.j0sSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13025 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > To: Vortex > > In the late 50s there was a thing going around that said, > "if you have enough chimpanzees doing hunt and peck on typewriters, > eventually they will type out an intelligent phrase or paragraph, perhaps > even a sonnet." > > Now, with millions of people on the Internet, with a keyboard, what can we > expect? Jed? :-) Intelligence is selecting. Without recognizing the sonnet from garbage a bulk data is undistinctible* from noise. (* could not found the proper spelling) hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 14:13:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA14198; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:06:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:06:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119170100.006b84b0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:01:00 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Proposal for a new scientific society In-Reply-To: <971119112523_1760771950 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"n_ROo.0.kT3.OBsSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13027 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:25 AM 11/19/97 -0500, Hal Puthoff wrote of the ZPE(v) energy density which ZPE(v)-believers claim exists: > >In a message dated 11/19/97 9:55:42 AM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >< What is ZPEc/ZPEv for 1 cm3 of matter and 1 cm3 of true vacuum?>> > >ZPEc for 1 cm3 of matter depends on the matter you have in mind. > >ZPEv is estimated by John Wheeler to be 9 X 10^114 ergs/cm^3 based on >assuming a Planck cutoff frequency. However, matter does not interact with >the high-freq modes, so the fact that it is so high should not cause concern. Then at 12:25:40 -0500 (EST) Hal wrote about the energy (mass) density which ZPE(v)-believers claim: Resent-Message-Id: <"hWXAn.0.MR4.r4oSq" mx1> >ZPE theory does not say that there are 10^95 atoms per cm3 in the vacuum. > More precisely, the statement is that if the energy density were to be >converted to mass (m = E/c^2) there would be enough energy to equate to 10^94 >gms/cm^3. But it doesn't. There are no atoms in the vacuum. This is simply >Wheeler's attempt to give by illustration an idea of the energy density in >the ZPE from 0 to the Planck cutoff frequency. OK. Thanks, Hal, but the correction but it is even towards a larger number. This remains, for me, the last of the two bothersome issues about ZPE(v). ZPE(vacuum) estimates assume that hidden in each cm3 of space there is hidden energy relating to 10^114 ergs/cm3 which equals about 10^94 grams/cm3. It does not seem to matter that there are ONLY ~10^79 (+/- some orders of magnitude) atoms in the entire universe, Thus ZPE(vacuum) believers assume there is the equivalent of > ~10^115 nucleons "hidden" in each cm3. Upon what is this based? This boundary condition seems wrong if it requires more nucleons than are known to be present in the entire universe to be equivalently (E=mc^2) in each cm^3. The mere fact that it makes the equation come out correctly, given it IS more than present in the entire UNIVERSE, suggests perhaps considering an alternate hypothesis. And by vacuum is what is meant "pure" EM-free vacuum (or the actual interstellar cosmic-bombarded ion-filled EM-transversed "vacuum")? ? ========================================================= > Feynman, taking interactions with the ZPEv to cut off at nuclear compton >wavelengths estimates a lower value for practical considerations, roughly on >the order of nuclear energy densities. > >Either way, therefore, the ratio you asked about is a small number indeed. > That does not make it unreal, however. > A very very small number seems reasonable. But 10^+114 ergs/cm3 of theoretically pure vacuum (gendankenly free of cosmic rays) seems like not such a small number. Could the sign of exponential might be wrong ;-)X Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 14:18:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09024; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:16:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:16:01 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:15:20 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <34726985.25845900 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <01bcf3bf$79b5ec40$LocalHost default> In-Reply-To: <01bcf3bf$79b5ec40$LocalHost default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6guUa2.0.kC2.UKsSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13028 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:15:36 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >I think you can calculate the potential energy from W = k*q^2/r. Since one >of the"quarks" >in a proton has a rest mass of about 312 Mev it's radius r is k*q^2/w = >4.61E-18 meters. > >Then by a leap of faith since a 13.6 ev electron "orbits" at 5.29E-11 meters >the >magic number 137^3 (1/alpha^3)times 13.6 ev >gives an energy of 35 Mev and a "coupling radius" of 4.11E-17 meters. The >binding energy of 35 Mev for a 312 Mev "quark" in a proton >seems about right. > >In other words a "swallowed" Light Lepton or >electron will have a relativistic mass of: >Mrel = Mo[(q*V/Mo*c^2)+1] = 6.31E-29 Kg. > >Equating Fc = Mrel*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/R^2 > >Fc = 5.682E-12/4.11E-17 = 1.38E5 nt. > >Fes = 2.3E-28/4.11E-17 = 1.36E5 nt > >Close enough for a stable hydrino or WIMP? :-) [snip] I can't quite tell exactly which assumptions you have made here, by I get the feeling that you have obtained a balanced end situation by applying a scaling factor to a balanced begin situation. (In fact I think this is the essence of your "leap of faith"). And in this case, I think the scaling factor is (1/137)^3. So I not sure that you have really proved anything. To convince me, you will need to supply either a number or a calculation for the V in your Mrel calculation above. One thing that makes me very wary, is that fact that you appear to have used a charge of q where quarks are concerned, and I was under the impression that quarks were considered to have only a partial charge. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 14:22:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16601; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:18:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:18:02 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Proposal for a new scientific society Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:15:23 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3474774a.29371452 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ovBIo1.0.I34.AMsSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13029 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:14:37 +0100 (MET), Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >The Lamb shift of energy levels in the Hydrogen Atom due to the efffects of >zero point energy of the vacuum was originally measured in 1946 and led >directly to the development of Quantum ElectroDynamics. Finally the general >topic of Quantum Field Theory has a very complex vacuum structure that has many >direct and measurable consequnences. In fact the effect of Zero Point Energy >effects on the value of the magnetic moment of the electron has been measured >to well over 8 significant figures. [snip] Hi Martin, I was (perhaps wrongly) under the impression that the Lamb shift was due to the magnetic field of the nucleus. Could you perhaps explain how ZPE of the vacuum enters into this? PS Isn't this the basis of MRI (formerly NMR)? 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 14:23:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11385; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:21:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:21:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:21:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711192221.OAA28570 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? Resent-Message-ID: <"ljUqZ.0.dn2.RPsSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13030 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: >In the late 50s there was a thing going around that said, >"if you have enough chimpanzees doing hunt and peck on typewriters, >eventually they will type out an intelligent phrase or paragraph, perhaps >even a sonnet." > >Now, with millions of people on the Internet, with a keyboard, what can we >expect? Jed? :-) ...or a new Hydrino formation theory every day? Dan (n-1th monkey) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:00:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23031; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:53:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:53:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:50:28 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Black plague info. Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711191751_MC2-28D0-1C96 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"jVlMQ2.0.jd5.1usSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13031 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex John Logajan asks for cleaner, simpler logic than history offers, as seen in this exchange: Me: . . . it wasn't indiscriminate. It killed off flea-bitten poor people more than rich. It killed people jammed into ghettos in close proximity to rats. J.L.: Well, since "poor" people jammed into ghettos don't have large estates to pass on to heirs, the following paragraph ... Me: After stability was regained, crops were planted and the panic faded, a great deal of cultivated land, buildings, mills, barns and other long-term assets fell into the hands of the survivors. . . . J.L.: ... wouldn't seem to follow. What I mean is, the effects were mixed. Plague kills many marginal people and old people and cleans out the poorhouses, which -- to put it cruelly -- does remove a burden on society in the short term. Older artisans died off and the usual burden of apprenticeship was relaxed, so vigorous young people became masters of their trade many years earlier than usual, and they experimented with new techniques to save labor. On the other hand it killed many monks, because they crowded together, and no doubt this hurt literacy. On the other hand again, that plus the general breakdown of authority weakened the power of the church. And even the poor crowded in the cities left many valuable assets. When half the population of poor peoples dies, they leave many workshops, tools, stalls, and real estate in the aggregate. About 1000 villages in England were wiped out -- totally depopulated -- but a generation later, before the forests could regrow and the fields disappear, people moved in to reclaim it. That was a great boon to the survivors. Here is part of the Encyclopedia Britannica says about it: The rate of mortality from the Black Death varied from place to place: whereas some districts, such as the duchy of Milan, Flanders, and Barn, seem to have escaped comparatively lightly, others, such as Tuscany, Aragon, Catalonia, and Languedoc, were very hard hit. Towns, where the danger of contagion was greater, were more affected than the countryside; and within the towns the monastic communities provided the highest incidence of victims. . . . The study of contemporary archives suggests a mortality varying in the different regions between one-eighth and two-thirds of the population . . . The population in England in 1400 was perhaps half what it had been 100 years earlier; in that country alone, the Black Death certainly caused the depopulation or total disappearance of about 1,000 villages. A rough estimate is that 25 million people in Europe died from plague during the Black Death. . . . The consequences of this violent catastrophe were many. A cessation of wars and a sudden slump in trade immediately followed but were only of short duration. A more lasting and serious consequence was the drastic reduction of the amount of land under cultivation due to the deaths of so many labourers. This proved to be the ruin of many landowners. The shortage of labour compelled them to substitute wages or money rents in place of labour services in an effort to keep their tenants. There was also a general rise in wages for artisans and peasants. These changes brought a new fluidity to the hitherto rigid stratification of society. . . . History is not an exact science. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:01:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23760; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:57:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:57:26 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:36:23 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf53b$90c90520$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"XfTsO3.0.4p5.JxsSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13035 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Hamdi Ucar To: vortex Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> >> To: Vortex >> >> In the late 50s there was a thing going around that said, >> "if you have enough chimpanzees doing hunt and peck on typewriters, >> eventually they will type out an intelligent phrase or paragraph, perhaps >> even a sonnet." >> >> Now, with millions of people on the Internet, with a keyboard, what can we >> expect? Jed? :-) > > >Intelligence is selecting. > >Without recognizing the sonnet from garbage a bulk data is undistinctible* from noise. > >(* could not found the proper spelling) How about indistinguishable or inseparable? :-) Regards, Frederick > >hamdi ucar > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:01:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21644; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:56:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:56:20 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:30:39 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf53a$c3740480$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"MPo2F3.0.kH5.JwsSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13033 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Dan Quickert To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Off Topic, Internet Intelligence? >Frederick Sparber wrote: > >>In the late 50s there was a thing going around that said, >>"if you have enough chimpanzees doing hunt and peck on typewriters, >>eventually they will type out an intelligent phrase or paragraph, perhaps >>even a sonnet." >> >>Now, with millions of people on the Internet, with a keyboard, what can we >>expect? Jed? :-) > >...or a new Hydrino formation theory every day? > >Dan (n-1th monkey) > Aw, Shoot. :-) Regards, Frederick (2^nth Chimp.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:04:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23223; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:55:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:55:22 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:53:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971119175313_-591306732 mrin84.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Electron capture by protons. Resent-Message-ID: <"Gschd3.0.gg5.IvsSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13032 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 11/19/97 8:45:55 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: <> With my ZPE work I'm accused of this every day! (g) Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:07:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21743; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:56:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:56:30 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:52:57 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf53d$e0d1fe80$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"EJpMP.0.ZJ5.SwsSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13034 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter >On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:15:36 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>I think you can calculate the potential energy from W = k*q^2/r. Since one >>of the"quarks" >>in a proton has a rest mass of about 312 Mev it's radius r is k*q^2/w = >>4.61E-18 meters. >> >>Then by a leap of faith since a 13.6 ev electron "orbits" at 5.29E-11 meters >>the >>magic number 137^3 (1/alpha^3)times 13.6 ev >>gives an energy of 35 Mev and a "coupling radius" of 4.11E-17 meters. The >>binding energy of 35 Mev for a 312 Mev "quark" in a proton >>seems about right. >> >>In other words a "swallowed" Light Lepton or >>electron will have a relativistic mass of: >>Mrel = Mo[(q*V/Mo*c^2)+1] = 6.31E-29 Kg. >> >>Equating Fc = Mrel*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/R^2 >> >>Fc = 5.682E-12/4.11E-17 = 1.38E5 nt. >> >>Fes = 2.3E-28/4.11E-17 = 1.36E5 nt >> >>Close enough for a stable hydrino or WIMP? :-) >[snip] >I can't quite tell exactly which assumptions you have made here, by I >get the feeling that you have obtained a balanced end situation by >applying a scaling factor to a balanced begin situation. >(In fact I think this is the essence of your "leap of faith"). >And in this case, I think the scaling factor is (1/137)^3. >So I not sure that you have really proved anything. >To convince me, you will need to supply either a number or a >calculation for the V in your Mrel calculation above. The potential V is k*q^2/r. put any value of r that you want and solve it. Simple arithmetic. >One thing that makes me very wary, is that fact that you appear to >have used a charge of q where quarks are concerned, and I was under >the impression that quarks were considered to have only a partial >charge. That is the "impression" that the "Standard Model" folks are trying to substantiate, however, Two "up" positive quarks and one "down" negative gives a net charge of + one, and a net spin of + 1/2 for the proton. Ain't nobody seen a fractionally charged fragment come out of a nucleon, except perhaps at TEV energies which are a thousand times the rest mass of the proton. And if you accept that charge is just a matter of phase of the EM fields that make up a "quark" , you will probably see phase relationships that would indicate "fractional charge". You will not likely see fractionally charged electrons +/- in beta decay or electron capture. :-) > > >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! >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:30:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA30755; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:23:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:23:39 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119172131.00750f70 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:21:31 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Electron capture - some questions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"a8eQu3.0.SW7.vJtSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13036 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:33 11/19/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >initial E.C.? The E.C. could be readily missed if any of the fission >products resulted in short half life beta decays? AFAIK, E.C. is always accompanied by the emission of K x-rays from the daughter nucleus. These x-rays are not readily missed. In fact, they have been intentionally sought after by x-ray spectroscopists. Radioisotopes which decay by E.C. are used for primary x-ray sources in portable XRF analyzers. Fe-55 decays by E.C. and emits Mn K x-rays. 2.7 year half-life. Cd-109 decays by E.C. and emits Ag K x-rays and an 88 keV gamma. 1.3 year half-life. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 15:48:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02667; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:44:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:44:24 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:39:49 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf544$6d1c8c60$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"vxD9O1.0.Yf.LdtSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13037 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: BTW. Robin The literature shows lowering of the Cesium-Tungsten work function down to 1.5 ev. The Cesium pressure is held at 1.0 mm Hg. The temperature of the emitter should be 3.6 times the cesium reservoir temperature. Potassium and Rubidium are also used as space charge neutralization ions in the Thermionic Converters, as are inert gases. I'll ask my resident Russian TOPAZ expert if they ever used hydrogen in their Topaz power plants. Maybe they don't need any Radioisotope heat after initial warm-up. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 16:14:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06353; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:08:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:08:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119190443.006c7e04 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:04:43 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [Off topic] Black plague info. In-Reply-To: <199711191751_MC2-28D0-1C96 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"377Bg3.0.1Z1.dztSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13038 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 05:50 PM 11/19/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > >Me: . . . it wasn't indiscriminate. It killed off flea-bitten poor people more >than rich. It killed people jammed into ghettos in close proximity to rats. > No. It is NOT true that fleas bite people causing the disease of plague. The disease is spread flea to rat, then rat to rat, and occasionally rat to people, and then people to people. The parasite is Pasterella pestis (Yersinia pestis) and it lives in rodents (rats, squirrels). The fleas bite the rats because the bacillus (Y. pestis) lives in the fleas intestinal tract where it BLOCKS passage of all food. The hungry fleas become ferocious and bite the rats. When humans get plague, they cough droplets filled with plague which are HIGHLY infectious yielding primary pneumonic plague which is always fatal in humans. So virulent a single bacillus can kill (by reproducing of course in the host human). The organisms grow in the lymph to form buboes. ----> In any case, IT IS NOT TRANSFERRED TO HUMANS BY FLEAS, but by rats and mainly other humans through cough. Hope that helps these attempted revisions of herstory. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 16:36:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10380; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:28:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:28:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:28:16 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: m.w. of alum 808.57? Resent-Message-ID: <"y6c0H2.0.6Y2.GGuSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13039 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My CRC Handbook shows alum as K2Al2(SO4)4*34(H2O), for which I calculate a molecular weight of 808.57. (I bought my USP alum from the local grocery store so it does not have the molecular weight printed on the label.) I made a weak solution, based on m.w. 808,57, but the conductivity seems high. Is there a variety of alum that has less water of crystalization? Is m.w. 808.57 wrong? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 16:36:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10466; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:28:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:28:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:27:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711200027.QAA13344 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: [Off topic] Black plague info. Resent-Message-ID: <"tK7gs.0.LZ2.iGuSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13040 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Boy, we're waaay off-topic here! Mitchell Swartz writes: > The parasite is Pasterella pestis (Yersinia pestis) and it lives >in rodents (rats, squirrels). The fleas bite the rats because >the bacillus (Y. pestis) lives in the fleas intestinal tract where >it BLOCKS passage of all food. The hungry fleas become ferocious >and bite the rats. So... those hungry fleas won't bite a human? Or is it that a human can't get it even if the flea bites? > ----> In any case, IT IS NOT TRANSFERRED TO HUMANS BY FLEAS, but >by rats and mainly other humans through cough. Are you sure? I've seen many reports of plague-carrying fleas here in California, most notably in National Forest campgrounds in the north-central part of the state. Signs are frequently posted at these campgrounds warning not to pitch tents near ground-squirrel holes, because of plague danger. Do the Forest Service biologists have it wrong? Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 16:36:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11456; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:33:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:33:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711200033.QAA14006 pop1.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: [Off topic] Black plague info. Resent-Message-ID: <"u1p23.0.to2.mLuSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13041 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: from CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION Date Last Rev'd: March 9, 1995 PLAGUE INFORMATION Health-care Worker Information CLINICAL TYPES Human plague has three clinical forms: bubonic, septicemic, and pneumonic. Bubonic plague, the classical disease in humans, is most commonly acquired by the bite of an infected flea, but may also result from direct contact with plague infected tissues or body fluids through a break in the skin. It is characterized by fever, headache, malaise, and by one or more very painful swollen lymph nodes (the bubo) in the region of the body where the organism was inoculated. [snip] In North America, plague is found from the Pacific Coast eastward to western Texas and from British Columbia and Alberta, Canada southward to Mexico. Most of the human cases occur in two regions: one in northern New Mexico, northern Arizona, and southern Colorado, another in California, southern Oregon, and far western Nevada. [and lots of other interesting stuff] Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 17:09:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA15654; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:01:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:01:53 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:03:24 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electron capture - some questions Resent-Message-ID: <"iyGwC3.0.Qq3._luSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13042 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:21 PM 11/19/97, Scott Little wrote: >At 11:33 11/19/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: > >>initial E.C.? The E.C. could be readily missed if any of the fission >>products resulted in short half life beta decays? > >AFAIK, E.C. is always accompanied by the emission of K x-rays from the >daughter nucleus. These x-rays are not readily missed. In fact, they have >been intentionally sought after by x-ray spectroscopists. Radioisotopes >which decay by E.C. are used for primary x-ray sources in portable XRF >analyzers. > >Fe-55 decays by E.C. and emits Mn K x-rays. 2.7 year half-life. > >Cd-109 decays by E.C. and emits Ag K x-rays and an 88 keV gamma. 1.3 year >half-life. > > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little OK, let's forget the beta decays then, as they are really not relevent anyway. If an E.C. caused a fission there would not be time for the K x-ray emission, especially if some of the energy to accomplish the capture comes from the fission itself. At least the resulting emissions would be indistinguishable from other fission signatures. I know this is grasping at straws, but on the other hand it could explain a few things if electrons are involved in the fission process. I suppose E.C., its mechanisms per se, need not even be an issue. The isssue really is more whether bound electrons may be involved in an energy exchange with the nucleus that triggers nuclear decays, especially alpha decay, in long half life heavy elements. However, the nice thing about studing E.C.s from the point of view of stimulating the atom by kinetics, heat, or EM, is that there just seems there is a direct bearing on the issue by the increased presence of the electrons in the nucleus. I do suppose there is a direct bearing on the issue by the increased *energy* of the electrons being in the nucleus as well, and maybe that is more to the point when it comes to remediation. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 17:27:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA19611; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:19:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:19:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:20:57 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Resent-Message-ID: <"Aj65q2.0.Jo4.T0vSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13043 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:31 PM 11/19/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >When an alpha particle goes crashing through a material at 5 Mev (initially >1.55E7 meters/sec) and you have 2 kev electrons (delta rays)coming off and >moving at 2.65E7 meters/second or 1.7 times a fast as the alpha, it's kind >of interesting to know why, rather than basing the "physics" entirely on a >distribution curve,isn't it? Sort of a Cause and Effect setup. Try >explaining that delta-ray-electron >velocity without a three-body collision. :-) > >Regards, Frederick I don't think it is analagous to the ping pong ball situation because here you have a potential sling shot effect, and a multibody effect working together. As the alpha crashes into solid natter it will cause massive mutibody electron interactions. Some of the electrons from the leading electron shock wave can be expected to be coming at the alpha at nearly 1.55E7 m/sec. Some of these can circuit around the back of the alpha, and exit moving forward. These will end up with the velocity of the alpha added toheir inital reverse velocity, which is now changed to a forward direction. Should be some reduction in the maximum possible velocity of the alphas due to relativistic change in mass. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 17:30:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20959; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:24:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:24:59 -0800 Message-ID: <3473837A.6048 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:25:30 -0600 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, shkedi@bose.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim physics.purdue.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, JNaudin509@aol.com, nick7 itl.net Subject: Critique: Bush, Dash reports: Stolper, Shkedi, Stolin re recombination: 1993 CETI cells Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"CW24x.0.K75.g5vSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13044 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 19, 1997 Dear all, I am responding to Infinite Energy # 12, Jan.-Feb., 1997, which in pages 23-35 finds much to praise in the work of Robert T. Bush [no email address] and Robert D. Eagleton [rdeagleton csupomona.edu], which gives me a chance to discuss related systems and issues. The likable, obdurant CF critic, John R. Huizenga, for the first time on Feb. 28 confronted an operational CF cell (page 24): "And, while the gain (Pout/Pin) was rather modest at that time (about 1.12) the excess power was well outside the possible error bars, according to our measurements...this was an open cell...unrecognized recombination...However, it became clear that, in the voltage range that I was working in, this could not possibly be making a significant contribution to the excess power. My department head nodded his agreement with this." (page 33): "The cell G1, "that made Huizinga blink,"...anode...platinum wire...cathode...Ni fibrex...The net power in is taken to be Papplied(IXV) + Pdissociation[(-1.48VXI]. Note well: separate tests show that recombination inside this open cell is essentially negligible...The top data points show an excess power of about 7 W (about 50 Watts in and 57 Watts out, for about a 114% gain.) This cell G1 is still functioning." This is a light water cell. Fig. 1 shows that at Pin of 50 W, delta T is about 50 degrees C, and Fig. 2 shows that at that level, Voltage was about 15 V. The small (size not given) cell was three-forths submerged in a well-stirred 6 L water bath, maintained at 30.2 degrees C. I agree that at this power level, recombination cannot be an issue. However, there may well be other artifacts. One indication that an artifact is involved is that, after eight years of work by this team, the excess power is only 14%, for why should a nuclear process be limited to only 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 excess power ratios? At the end of this post, I cite 1994 data for 7 CETI cells, small, 5 with light water, of which many seemed to have excess power ratios of 1000%, but the overall pattern of the data suggests a flow-dependent artifact. In the Bush cell, there is no flow. I don't know what the artifacts might be...any suggestions, gang? It would help to have really complete information on the cell's size, composition, and chemical changes over time, but proprietary concerns once again may impede the CF community's evaluation process. R Bush and R Eagleton, "Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes," Trans. Fusion Technology, Dec., 1994, 26, p. 344-54, has a more adaquate pyrex closed cell with an internal platinum black recombiner, at 1.0 mA/cm2, but gives no data about the run history, except to say that the total excess heat for Cell 53 is (4.0 +- 0.8) X 10exp19 MeV. He does give four SIMS graphs: for mass 57 vs 56 we, after the obligatory doubling of the graphs via zerox, find pre-run values, about 60,000 to 300,000, ratio .2, and post-run, 200 to 6,000, ratio .03. So, the pre-run ratio is many times more anomalous than the post-run. Now, that's efficient research! No need to even run the electrolysis! This is a much more significant result than the claimed transmutation of rubidium to strontium, eh? Prof. John Dash of Portland State University [dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu] and his graduate student Radovan Kopecek reported the same two runs in Journal of New Energy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1966, p. 46-53, "Excess Heat and Unexpected Elements from Electrolysis of Acidifid Heavy Water with Titanium Cathodes," and in Kopecek's M.S. thesis, 1995, 113 pages, "Electrolysis of Titanium in Heavy Water,". In Sept., 1996 Dash told me in a phone call that he said he had very similar results with Ti slightly acidified light water. If the water is too acidic, the Ti is eroded quickly. This was a problem in Kopecek's first run--the .25 mm Ti foil broke in half in 22 hours at .75 A constant current at 2 A/cm2. This was because the loss of the electrolyte in the both cells, experimental and control, the control with a Pt cathode, connected in series, sealed with Apiezon Q, with a recombination catalyst, was still so great that each cell lost about 2.5 ml out of the original 9 ml, lowering the pH by 0.5. The original electrolyte was heavy water with 0.06 mole fraction sulfuric acid. Bubbles on the cathode changed the resistance so much that voltages could not be accurately measured. The second run used only 0.01 mole fraction sulfuric acid, 15 ml electrolyte, current reduced to .55 A, and smaller cathodes to maintain the current density of 2 A/cm2. Bubbling was so reduced, that voltages could be monitored well and continuously. The run was for 54 hours. But at 23 hours the C cell had to be taken out, as it had lost 1.5 ml more electrolyte than the D cell. Power input was calculated as Pin = VXI. Total electrolyte losses and change in pH was not given. The main data in both papers is Fig. 22, T in both cells, and Fig. 23, Power input in both cells. The experimental D cell always had about 3 to 7 degrees C higher T, but received .5 to -.1 less input power. The conclusion was that (page 50): "We can see that the enthalpy for TiD formation is negligible. This means that we have at least 750 cal energy per one hour released out of the the D cell that can not be explained, an energy gain of 44 % (750/1720). However. This was a constant current system: I = V/R V = IR R = V/I P = VI P = (I**2)R This means that as the resistance of each cell shifts, its input power and therefore its temperature will change linearly with its resistance, since both cells have identical I, being connected in series. The cells will have different R as soon as the Ti starts eroding, the water evaporates, the acid concentrates, and the temperature become more and more different, so they will have different power input and temperature histories. This is exactly what is described: by 23 hours the control C cell had lost 1.5 ml more electrolyte than the experimental D cell. We would expect that the C cell, as it lost water and had increased acid concentration, would have lower resistance, and thus lower input power and lower temperature-- but the data shows that it has higher input power and lower temperature. What acounts for the higher, but steadily declining power input for the C cell? Did bubbles shield the Pt cathode? Was some other kind of impurity deposit involved? Were the C and D cells initially different in size of electrodes, their spacing, resistanace in leads and connections, different amounts of dissolved air, or even different initial pH? Why did the up to 7 degree cooler C cell have more evaporation? Did the C cell have a looser seal, hence more evaporation, and more cooling via evaporation? Did the recombiner catalyst in the C cell function poorly, releasing H2 and O2 which would have removed water and cooled the cell? At any case, it is no wonder that no radiation was found. Many fascinating EDS photos and spectra were taken of odd minute spots: "Highly localized, unexpected elements were found in both experiments. Zn, Ni and Fe...Cr, K and Ca..." Stainless steel contamination? Zvi Shkedi et al, Bose Corp., "Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells, Fusion Technology, Nov., 1995, 28, p. 1720-31. Shkedi ran four light-water Ni cells at 180 to 600 mA for up to 4 days a run with an average power accuracy of 0.6 mW. All released H2 and O2 were carefully recombined and returned to the cells. Assuming 100 % Faraday efficiency, as did most studies of this reaction, he found apparent excess power of 15 to 37 %, reduced to zero when the actual recombination efficiency was factored in. Shkedi also ran, but did not describe in detail, 154 palladium D2O cells, with the same null results. Confirming was a report by JE Jones et all at Brigham Young U., "Faradaic Efficiencies Less Than 100 % during Electrolysis of Water Can Account for Reports of Excess Heat in "Cold Fusion" Cells," J. Physical Chem., 1995, 99, p. 6973-79. They also did not cite "Excess" in their 20 references. They used low current densities of 1-2 mA/cm2. "Excess", as did other similar studies, seemed to find more excess heat with K2CO3 than with Na2CO3. Jones wrote on page 6978: "In agreement with a recent report (20) showing that different electrolytes produce differing bubble sizes in aqueous solution, our experiments show that the difference between NaCO3 and K2CO3 as electrolytes probably is due to differences in interfacial properties of the solutions at the electrodes. The H2 bubbles were smaller when K2CO3 was the electrolyte than when Na2CO3 was the electrolyte in the same cell. Smaller bubbles allow better mobility of gases in the electrolyte and contact between the electrolyte and the electrode surface, thus allowing more frequent reaction of dissolved gases. When detergent was aded to the Na2CO3 electrolyte, the bubbles became much smaller, did not adhere to the electrode, and resulted in about the same rate of apparent excess heat as was observed with the K2CO3 electrolyte." This shows how subtle and unexpected the artifacts can be in these deceptively simple experiments. I want to thank Tom Stolper for this excellent, reasonable, and detailed critique of my critique of Nov. 1: "Subject: Murray on Ni-H2O wreckage Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:48:35 -0800 Resent-From: Vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:47:58 -0500 (EST) From: Tstolper aol.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com Thanks to Rich Murray for reposting, a couple of weeks ago, in email form, his critique of November 1, "Ni-H2O wreckage & Ragland ruin." I find it hard to follow nuclear chemistry arguments, but it looks as if Rich has done a pretty good job of demolishing various transmutation claims, especially those of the CG. He continued that line of criticism on November 1, and I have no quarrel with it. However, I think that Rich was way off base in his criticisms of the excess heat work of Mills and in his evaluation of the bearing that the articles by Shkedi, et al., and Jones, et al., have on that work. Rich keeps citing the article by Shkedi, et al., "Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells," FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 28, No. 4 (November 1995), pp. 1720-1731. Rich called it a powerful criticism. Hardly. Shkedi, et al., cited only the earliest of Mills' articles on excess heat, namely, Mills & Kneizys 1991, which reported only low-power experiments, for the analysis of which recombination was indeed an issue. Shkedi, et al., failed to cite Mills, Good & Shaubach, FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 25 (January 1994), pp. 103-119. Shekedi and his team failed to deal with the much more robust results reported by Mills, Good & Shaubach in their 1994 article, most of which were beyond even 100% recombination. The article by Shkedi, et al., was received by FUSION TECHNOLOGY on May 31, 1994, so the January 1994 article by Mills, Good & Shaubach should have been available to Shkedi and his team. According to Good's comments in FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 30 (September 1996), p. 132, Shkedi, et al., failed to contact Good or his colleagues, though according to Shkedi himself, he and his team consulted many others (Shkedi's letter in FUSION FACTS, Vol. 7, No. 6 (December 1995), pp. 20-21). The highest recombination rate claimed by Shkedi, et al., was only about 34% (see their Table IV). A typical recombination rate was about 25% using nickel Fibrex for the cathode and about 20% using nickel coil. The 1995 Shkedi article was rendered even more obsolete by an ironical coincidence: it was published in the very same issue as an article by Mills & Good on "Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen," pp. 1697-1719, which contained sections (on pages 1698-1701) reporting exceptionally robust results from a long-running experiment, using a wire-mesh cathode, that produced excess heat far beyond even 100% recombination. To sum up, the 1995 Shkedi article was already obsolete by the time of publication, and it's now hopelessly out-of-date, though it retains historical interest. Rich also likes to cite another 1995 article to the effect that the excess heat from Mills-type electrolytic cells is an artifact caused by recombination: Jonathan Jones, Lee Hansen, Steven E. Jones, et al., "Faradaic Efficiencies Less Than 100% during Electrolysis of Water Can Account For Reports of Excess Heat in 'Cold Fusion' Cells," JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY, Vol. 99, No. 18, pp. 6973-6979. It would be an understatement to say that Rich and I interpret this article differently. I think that Jonathan Jones is a good experimenter, and I like his style, so I interpret his article with Lee Hansen and Steven E. Jones (no relation), et al., as follows: Jonathan Jones, being a good experimenter, may have been able to produce the light water excess heat effect. His bosses were determined to stop the effect, which was easy to do. One way was to bubble N2 through the cell, another way to bubble O2, another way to put a glass tube around the cathode. The best method was just to assume the effect away. The paper blithely assumed that a 50% recombination rate was typical of Ni-H2O cells (p. 6977 col. 2). The paper cited a private communication from Oriani that he found the recombination rate to be from 22% to 50%, and the worst number was picked. But the worst recombination rate that Shkedi, et al., reported in the tables in their 1995 article was only about 34% (Faradaic efficiency of 66%). A typical recombination rate for the nickel Fibrex cathodes that Shkedi, et al., used was about 25% (Faradaic efficiency of 75%). For their nickel coil cathodes, a typical recombination rate was about 20% (Faradaic efficiency of 80%). John Logajan didn't find the recombination rate in his experiments to go any higher than about 25%. J. Jones, Lee Hansen, Steven E. Jones, et al., said (6973 col. 2) that in order to rule out recombination as the source of excess heat, the heat and the recombination rate (100% minus Faradaic efficiency) had to be measured simultaneously. One could just as well set the same requirement for attempts to rule in recombination as the cause of "apparent" excess heat. But I don't see such simultaneous data presented for their own experiments. For that matter, I don't see any measured recombination rate given for their own cells, except for the experiment where they bubbled O2 through the cell, thus bringing the recombination rate to over 95% (Faradaic efficiency of less than 5%). It looks as if Lee Hansen was the group leader (he was listed as the corresponding author). The theme of the article that he wrote with Steven E. Jones, et al., was that recombination explained apparent excess heat. By their own standard, they failed to show that. Tom Stolper" Reposte to Stolper by Murray: Since I am posting this whole post to Zvi Shkedi himself [shkedi bose.com], perhaps he can be stirred to reluctantly reenter the fray. My answer is timely. After all these years, is Mills still doing electrochemical experiments, which seemed so promising in the reports you cited? Is Hydrocatalysis Corporation, after all these years, still poised to market kilowatt water heaters based on light water-nickel reactions? Subject: Extensive expts. on cold fusion: NO real excess heat From: jonesse plasma.byu.edu Date: 1996/01/18 Message-ID: <1996Jan18.135629 plasma.byu.edu> Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen [More Headers] Path: plasma.byu.edu!jonesse From: jonesse plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen Subject: Bose Corp. and BYU find no real excess heat in cold fusion experiments Message-ID: <1996Jan18.135453 plasma.byu.edu> Date: 18 Jan 96 13:54:53 -0700 Distribution: world Organization: Brigham Young University Lines: 91 To avoid any confusion, I post here the entire text of a Letter from Zvi Shkedi, Ph.D. to Fusion Facts (Dec. 1995 issue). 14 Dec 1995 We were somewhat surprised to read your introduction and comments in the November 1995 issue of _Fusion Facts_, regarding the two cold fusion articles published in the November 1995 issue of _Fusion Technology_. It appears that the Shkedi et al. paper was completely misunderstood and misrepresented in the "Editor's Introduction." The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not been found in the light-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells. The difference between this work and all other published research in the field is that once excess heat was found, the researchers did not pause to celebrate but continued the research to identify the source of the excess heat. To everybody's surprise, including the authors', the source of the "excess heat" was identified as unaccounted internal recombination of hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, the common assumption that underlies almost even "successful" light water experiment, i.e. that the Faraday efficiency is unity, was proven to be wrong. When the "excess heat" data were analyzed, taking into account the actual Faraday efficiency, all "excess heat" disappeared and the energy balance turned out to be exactly zero. The data, the methodology, and the analysis, are all presented in the Shkedi et al. paper. By contrast, it is interesting to note that in the Mills and Good paper published in the same issue of Fusion Technology, the excess heat claimed to be found by Mills and Good is predicated on the assumption stated following equation (7): "The net Faraday efficiency of gas evolution is ASSUMED to be unity." Famous cold fusion scientists have served as consultants to Bose Corp. throughout the research. Many more, from around the globe, have either visited the Bose cold fusion laboratory or were visited by one of the Bose team members. The authors have included in the list of experiments every advice given them by the most famous and successful cold fusion researchers. In addition, manuscripts of the publication were sent out for comments and suggestions to many researchers with whom the authors kept close contacts. All the recommendations have been implemented, yet, the end result was no real excess heat. For the heavy-water experiments the authors have tried all known sources of "hot" palladium; spent unlimited resources to have custom lots of palladium and palladium/silver manufactured for them according to successful researchers specifications; had single- crystal palladium cathodes custom grown; palladium grain size ranged from a few microns to single crystal; D/Pd loading ratios were consistently in the range of 0.85 - 0.95; yet, again, no excess heat. The authors have offered to some of the most famous scientists in the field to try their cathodes, cells, and loading protocols in the Bose calorimeters, at Bose expense. All offers have been declined despite the fact that the Bose calorimeters were the most accurate and stable calorimeters reported in the field. Since the Bose cold fusion laboratory has been disassembled this opportunely is no longer available. With all due respect, the conclusion is unavoidable. So let's stop classifying scientists as believers or non-believers. Instead, let's remove from the experiments all assumptions and possible sources of error. the challenge presented at the conclusion of the shkedi et al. paper is still open -- "...all resports claiming the observation of excess heat should be accompanied by simultaneous measurements of the actual Faraday efficiency." Will anyone pick up the glove? Very Truly yours, /s/ Zvi Shkedi [shkedi bose.com] Bose Corporation The Mountain Framingham, MA 01701-9168 --------------------------------------------------------------- I should note that the conclusions of the Shkedi paper, in particular, no real excess heat, agree entirely with our experimental results, published in: J.E. Jones et al., "Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion' cells," J. Physical Chem. 99 (May 1995) 6973-6979. --Steven E. Jones/BYU Subject: Re: CETI's Power Cell on ABC! From: bsulliva sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Date: 1996/02/14 Message-ID: <4frqej$72c_001 ip81.sky.net> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion [More Headers] In article <4fg2lk$22cs useneta1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A prodigy.com (James Stolin) wrote: ->bsulliva sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote: -> ->>It doesn't take anything but rudimentary science knowledge to ->> understand how mistaken assumptions about Faraday efficiency ->> (recombination) have caused supposedly competent analysts to ->> have fantasies about free energy. I suggest you follow your own ->>often-stated advice and review the literature starting with the ->>letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corporation published in 'Con' ->> Fusion Facts. -> ->Bob, -> -> I'm missing the reasoning in all the discussions of Faraday efficiency. If you put in "E" amount of energy and get out E times something, how does the Faraday efficiency enter into the equation except to INCREASE the power gain of whatever reaction is taking place? For instance, if you see a 4X gain and Faraday efficiency is 50%, only half of your input E was used so the actual reaction gain would be 8X. I'm not claiming "cold fusion" is taking place. I don't know if there is cold fusion, there are actual energy gains or if all the experiments are botched. However, I think my reasoning applies to any reaction. Could you please explain? Thanks. ->- ->Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - jbstolin prodigy.com ->http://pages.prodigy.com/jbstolin John-- Here's how recombination affects the (heat output)/(electric input) ratio calculation in a simple (without CF) cell using the Cravens heat balance: output (ohmic heating) + (heat energy from recombination) ----- = -------------------------------------------------- input (electric energy input) - (energy from gas loss) Note that the input is the denominator is reduced by the (energy from gas loss). At 100% Faraday efficiency all of the gas produced would show up in the (energy from gas loss) in the denominator. In the real world, some of the gases will recombine (energy from recombination) and add to the heat in the numerator. Temperature measurements can't distinguish between the (ohmic heating) and the (heat energy from recombination), so the true Faraday efficiency is reflected in the numerator. Those who do flow calorimetry seem to prefer to present their results in terms of power rather then energy. This means that they have to take instantaneous measurements. The problem occurs in the denominator. It's difficult to do instantaneous gas production measurements particularly when the gas measurement would be displaced in space (and hence, in time) from the gas production. Since the instantaneous gas loss measurement is difficult, we might substitute a calcultaion instead. We know the gas loss should be related to the electric current and the Faraday efficiency. If we assume 100% Faraday efficiency when the actual efficiency is less than 100% then our cell will appear to be producing 'excess heat', because the adjustment in the denominator will be too large. Cravens assumes that he can calculate the (energy from gas loss) to be used in the denominator. In doing so, he must make (perhaps implicitly) an assumption about the instantaneous Faraday efficiency. If he makes the right assumption, then no harm is done, but the evidence suggests that he has made the wrong assumption. The claim is that no recombination occurs, but the cell construction points to just the opposite conclusion. In McKubre's studies, a platinum catalyst was used to force the hydrogen and oxygen gases to recombine within the cell. The Patterson cell has fine mesh platinum screens at the inlet and outlet. If that were not enough, Jed's favorite CF authority, Steven Jones, has pointed out that both the palladium and the nickel can catalyse the recombination. Now, the recombination problems are real, but I'm not sure that we have gotten to that level yet. It's been common knowledge that Cravens has had problems with his temperature measurements. After reading his description of some of those problems on the CETI web page, and with the understanding that the bubblegum patch applied to fix them didn't work, I'm not sure that any of the measurements can be taken at face value. In addition to the measurement concerns, I find one aspect of the 'protocol' questionable. When they make a 'gain' calculation they reduce the electric input until they get the highest ratio of output to input. It's not unreasonable to expect some thermal 'inertia' to hold up the output as the input is reduced. It looks to much like driving your car down the road at sixty mph and then briefly turning off the ignition while you measure the instantaneous gas consumption. Murray critique of CETI patent, # 5,372,688, granted Dec. 13, 1994, filed Dec. 2, 1993: This was before Dennis Cravens started working with CETI in late 1994. The patent is published in full in pages 3-13 in Green's "Cold Fusion" #7. Data were given for seven cells, with about a dozen points at intervals of 2 minutes. Although the cells used Pd, Pt, and Au cathode films on the beads, and light or heavy water, the results are surprisingly similar, as this list of typical high heat output data shows: Pt, light water, 14.7 psi, Table I, Fig. 8: 7.7V .30A .60 ml/min 33.0 delta 18.0W Power 2.31W Power 779% " " 1.11 22.0 T 24.4 Out " In=VXA 1056 Pd, light water, 14.7 psi, Table II, Fig. 9: 8.5 .30 .62 38.5 23.4 2.55 597 " " .48 61.0 29.3 " 1149 Pd, heavy water, 14.7 psi, Table III, Fig. 10: 9.7 .40 .89 37.0 32.9 3.88 1277 " " .85 46.0 39.1 " 1008 Au, light water, 180 psi, Table IV, Fig. 11: 5.7 .50 .55 29.0 15.9 2.85 558 5.8 .60 " 36.0 19.8 3.48 569 Pd, light water, 180 psi, Table V, Fig. 12: 6.6 .60 .59 59.0 34.8 3.96 879 " " " 62.0 36.6 " 924 Pd, light water, 180 psi, Table VI: 7.3 .60 .58 63.0 36.54 4.38 834 7.5 " 1.10 44.0 48.40 4.50 1076 Pd, heavy water, 180 psi, Table VII: 7.7 .50 .58 54.0 31.32 3.85 814 7.3 " " 53.0 30.74 3.65 842 If there is any recombination of H2 and O2, as is likely in the dense bed of closely packed beads, then the excess power ratios would be even higher. However, the high output power ratios for Au or Pt in light water indicate that some artifacts are responsible, since no other reports reliably suggest that these metals are effective in producing excess powerm ratios in electrolysis experiments. For Pt, almost doubling the flow rate with no change in voltage, current, or Input Power makes a much smaller change in output power ratio, which is counterintuitive if the source is nuclear, but makes sense if there is a flow-dependent artifact. For Au, a small increase in Input Power makes a much smaller increase in output power ratio, which at least is consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in light water, Table II, shows no sign of producing a higher excess power ratio than did Pt for almost identical levels of voltage, current, flow rate, and Input Power, but again, shows a large change in output power ratio for a small change in flow rate, consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in light water, Table V, shows about a 5% change in output power ratio with no change in voltage, current, flow rate, or input power: this perhaps indicates the overall accuracy of measurements and acceptible fluctuations in the system. Pd in light water, Table VI, again shows a 29% increase in output power ratio for almost a doubling of flow rate, with small changes in voltage and input power: this again is consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in heavy water, Table III, shows a 21% decrease in output power ratio with a small change in flow ratio, with no change in voltage, current, or input power: this also is consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in heavy water, Table VII, shows no evidence of greater output power ratio than Pt in light water, even though the Pd has much greater Input Power. With no changes in any of the inputs, the output power ratio is almost unchanged: this again indicates acceptible uncertainties in the basic measurements and in the system fluctuations. I find no evidence to support the radical hypothesis that nuclear reactions are responsible for the apparent ten-fold increase in output power ratio. The voice of the data suggests a flow-dependent artifact. This indicates that other, similar experiments with similar impressive power output ratios are also not convincing evidence of nuclear reactions. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall earthlink.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 17:47:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24057; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:44:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:44:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347387EB.6DC0 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:44:27 -0600 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 Subject: Blue: lattice theories, Part 2 Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"KxC7H.0.ot5.cNvSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13046 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: nntp.earthlink.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!news-west.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsgate.tandem.com!dave r!zorch!fusion From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Authorities #2 Reply-To: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Sender: scott zorch.sf-bay.org Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Message-ID: <199711191628.LAA39010 pilot016.cl.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:34:18 GMT Continuing my comments concerning the credibility of theories for cold fusion, I think it is important to keep track of just what has been said and when it was said. I dealt with Schwinger (to the extent I am able) in my previous response so let's move on to Hagelstein. While it is true he was an early supporter of the notion that d + d fusion would lead to the formation of excited 4He that would then magically deexcite by phonon emission, I don't believe he continued to support that point of view. In fact an article he wrote for Cold Fusion Magazine (Mallove's first effort) makes it clear that he could not find anyway to make the case for such a process. I believe that it is basically incorrect to continue to use him as an "authority" who supports such notions. What has he said about this recently? So does that leave just Kim as the theoretical authority for cold fusion? Which Kim is that? The only one I recall by that name does not rank very high on my scale of world authorities so if his ideas have merrit they will have to stand on their own. Of course much of this debate is pretty academic now that so much attention has been directed to "cold fusion" involving only ordinary water or something called "massive transmutations." No matter how sound the theory may be for deuteron fusion it all goes out the window when the deuterons are replaced by protons. The fact that the substitution is made with so little apparent effect is a pretty clear indication that the nuclei are not really involved. The experimentalists, bless them, left their theoretical buddies out on a limb. No wonder we haven't heard much from Hagelstein recently. Dr. Scott Chubb, it seems, is still busily explaining how bosons may condense, etc., but last time I checked a proton is not a boson. Let's face it, Dieter, cold fusion claims have gotten too crazy to be believed, even by theorists. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 17:47:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24375; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:42:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:42:21 -0800 Message-ID: <347387A8.E5E earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:43:20 -0600 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 Subject: Blue: lattice theories Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"cYvZk.0.ny5.xLvSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13045 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!news.idt.net!netnews.com!daver!zorch!fusion From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Reply-To: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Sender: scott zorch.sf-bay.org Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Message-ID: <199711191550.KAA24398 pilot016.cl.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:54:25 GMT I find it passing strange that Dieter Britz would suggest that certain theories concerning a cold fusion reaction process are still in play simply because Schwinger had not trashed them before his death. Although Steve Jones does not need me to defend his basically sound arguments against the notion that nuclear excitations can easily couple to thermal excitations of the lattice I can't let Dieter's assertion that he is somehow unqualified to make that argument pass unchallanged. We experimental physicists are given some grounding in the fundamentals of theory before they turn us loose in the laboratory, and it really takes nothing more than a knowledge of basic physics to poke huge holes in most of what passes as theories for cold fusion. As to why Schwinger became involved in this without, it seems, being sufficiently critical of the theories that were being advanced we can only guess. However, before anyone invokes his name as the ultimate authority on these matters we ought to have a clear picture of what theory or theories did satisfy Schwinger's judgement. As I recall Schinger's first examination of the cold fusion question led him to suggest that the dominant CF reaction should be p + D -> 3He rather than D + D -> 4He . That solves some problems relating to the absence of expected reaction products, but it ran into difficulties due to the absence of any claims for the detection of 3He as a significant reaction product. I would say that Schwinger's first venture into cold fusion theory was shot down by experimental results. So other than his reputation Schwinger did not have much going for him at point. Now I admit that I did not read directly any further pronouncements on the CF question by Schwinger, but only second or third hand reports about his thoughts. In one such report Schwinger is said to have made note of the fact that 0+ to 0+ transitions are strictly forbidden for single photon emission. This selection rule may have bearing on the decays of excited states of 4He because the ground state is indeed a 0+ state. What Schwinger was suggesting, it seems, is that the decay of an excited 0+ state in 4He would be so inhibited that a much slower deexcitation process, such as phonon emission, could assume a dominant roll. At this point there is basically nothing wrong with Schwinger's theory, but he clearly did overlook some significant experimental facts which I, as an experimentalist, feel well qualified to call to your attention. I don't know the context in which Schwinger made his suggestion with regard to 0+ to 0+ transitions ( if he actually did), and I regret that he has no opportunity to respond. Still we can't let his error just hang there. We have to move on. The obvious flaw in the Schwinger line of reasoning is that the reaction process by which a 0+ excited state in 4He can be formed is reversible. If the state is formed by the fusion of two deuterons it can always decay back the way it came into two deuterons. Thus the inhibited electromagnetic reaction channel has no significant effect on the actual lifetime of the 0+ excited state to which Schwinger may have made reference. The lifetime of the excited state of 4He is still too damn short for any thermal deexcitation process. Steve Jones's argument still stands even if he is just an experimental physicist. So the experimental facts concerning excited states of 4He are that there are no states between the ground state and a cluster of states at roughly 20 MeV. Furthermore the lifetime of the excited state(s) is so short that it approaches the Wigner limit. For the uninitiated the Wigner limit is something like the transit time for a nucleon crossing the diameter of the nucleus. It has been my assertion that basic quantum perturbation theory (see Schwinger's early work) tells us that any multiphonon deexcitation process would require the existance of several million states spread over the full range of 20 MeV of excitation energy. That in turn implies a perturbation of the nuclear states by some atomic-nuclear interaction that defies all reason. Since you, and others, invoke the Moessbauer effect as an example of a atomic-nuclear coupling interaction to justify any variety of CF theories I will invoke that reality, too. There are numerous well studied examples of couplings between nuclear wave functions and the atomic states of the surrounding materials. Next time you see your innards pictured via an MRI scan you may want to remember that those fine shadings are the result of such a coupling. The point is that the magnitude of possible perturbations on nuclear states is known, both from an experimental and a theoretical perspective. Fact! Chemistry does not offer any prospect for a 20 MeV perturbation of the excited states of 4He, and Schwinger never said it did. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 17:56:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26497; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:52:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:52:08 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119204842.006c9340 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:48:42 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [Off topic] Black plague info. In-Reply-To: <199711200027.QAA13344 pop1.ucdavis.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"7weoq3.0.xT6.6VvSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13047 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:27 PM 11/19/97 -0800, Dan Quickert wrote: >Boy, we're waaay off-topic here! > It a vortex of information ;-)X ======================================================= >Mitchell Swartz writes: > >> The parasite is Pasterella pestis (Yersinia pestis) and it lives >>in rodents (rats, squirrels). The fleas bite the rats because >>the bacillus (Y. pestis) lives in the fleas intestinal tract where >>it BLOCKS passage of all food. The hungry fleas become ferocious >>and bite the rats. > >So... those hungry fleas won't bite a human? Or is it that a human can't get >it even if the flea bites? Bacillus is less virulent when obtained from the flea (see below), also there are temperature and possibly innoculum volume issues. =================================================================== > >> ----> In any case, IT IS NOT TRANSFERRED TO HUMANS BY FLEAS, but >>by rats and mainly other humans through cough. > >Are you sure? I've seen many reports of plague-carrying fleas here in >California, most notably in National Forest campgrounds in the north-central >part of the state. Signs are frequently posted at these campgrounds warning >not to pitch tents near ground-squirrel holes, because of plague danger. Do >the Forest Service biologists have it wrong? As I said, rodents: rats and squirrels are serious vectors of this disease. Fleas do bite humans -- although their bite is more difficult to find that rat or squirrel bites -- there are other issues that complicate this. First, consider the bacteria. The bacteria (gram negative, non-motile, non-spore-forming bacillus) grow with or without molecular oxygen. The bacteria can enter the human body through a bite, the mucous membranes, inhalation by a aerosol, or be scratched in inadvertantly. Second, now the question has to do with virulence of the organism. This depends upon temperature and other factors. The fleas DO bite humans, but first the cold-blooded nature (~25 Cent.) of the fleas has an impact. "the virulence of the bacilli in the flea is .. masked by the low temperature at which they have prolifierated." In rats, not only does the warm-blooded nature of the host markedly increase the virulence, BUT in the rat the bacilli are eaten by monocytes in which they flourish, grow intracellularly, and then "emerge as fully virulent organisms possessing both the F1 and VW antiphagocytic factors (*)" [ref. Microbiology, B. Davis, et alia, Harper and Row, p 802-817 (1973)] (* increases virulence in humans) Therefore, because of the warm-blooded nature of rats and squirrels, and because of the intramonocyte (prehuman-)growth leading to immune changes in the covering of the bacteria, the bacteria from fleas are much less virulent then those obtained from rats/squirrels. As mentioned, there may be a factor of dose delivered as well. Hope that begins to help explain this. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 18:19:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28328; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:08:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:08:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34739B4A.96C76D84 microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:37:06 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Rmog & Smot updates Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TAqtD3.0.Tw6.lkvSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13048 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have just updated the Smot shipping schedule. You will also find the results of my latest Rmog research which shows that its the Mmf return flux which is responsible for the Rmog operation. Interesting, its also the return flux which allows the ball to exit from the Smot ramp............ -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 18:23:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA30886; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:17:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:17:02 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:18:32 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Resent-Message-ID: <"j7y4C1.0.VY7.SsvSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13049 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Corrected version of what I just wrote: "I don't think it is analagous to the ping pong ball situation because here you have a potential sling shot effect, and a multibody effect working together. As the alpha crashes into solid matter it will cause massive mutibody electron interactions. Some of the electrons from the leading electron shock wave can be expected to be coming at the alpha at its velocity of nearly 1.55E7 m/sec. Some of these can circuit around the back of the alpha, and exit moving forward. These will end up with the velocity of the alpha added to their inital reverse velocity, which is now changed to a forward direction. Should be some reduction in the maximum possible velocity of the electrons due to relativistic change in mass." In thinking further, I can see where a three body version of this could work, with very small probability, but it would actually be 3 two body interactions. An alpha crashes into an atom at velocity v1, and some of the electrons have a net velocity v2 toward the alpha prior to collision. If all is just right some of these are capable of circling around the alpha and exiting forward, picking up its velocity v1 plus their own v2. These then go ahead of the alpha with speed v2 relative to the alpha and circle the nucleus of the original atom at speed V1 + V2, exiting toward the alpha with speed roughly v1 + v2 (again if all is perfect.) These circle the alpha again (just right), and exit with forward velocity 2*v1 + v2. Of course there need be corrections for loss of speed of the alphas and relativistic losses, but these are small. Brehmsstahlung would eat up chunk I would think though. It is interesting that these interactions could continue as long as the initial conditions, especially v2 and the distance of the initial interaction, (and incredible improbability) permit, and much more velocity added, as the massive energy is there to do it. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 18:24:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA31478; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:20:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:20:53 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:22:24 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Resent-Message-ID: <"UJj5r1.0.mh7.4wvSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13050 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: OK, it is analagous. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 18:37:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01756; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:32:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:32:20 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:27:53 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf55b$e7a34fc0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"7eUwX1.0.LR.n4wSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13051 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tell you what, Horace. Take a 4 foot length of 1 inch PVC pipe and put a couple of holes in it at the top so that you can put a "U" shaped retainer in from the side so as to hold a 1" ball bearing and a 1/2" ball bearing centered about an inch above it. Set it on a concrete floor and pull the "U" clip out, while NOT looking down the pipe as the balls fall. DISCLAIMER:Do figure it out before trying it. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 18:54:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA04167; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:44:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:44:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:45:28 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electron capture - some questions Resent-Message-ID: <"9hV0i.0.x01.OGwSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13052 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "OK, let's forget the beta decays then, as they are really not relevent anyway. If an E.C. caused a fission there would not be time for the K x-ray emission, especially if some of the energy to accomplish the capture comes from the fission itself. At least the resulting emissions would be indistinguishable from other fission signatures. I know this is grasping at straws, but on the other hand it could explain a few things if electrons are involved in the fission process. I suppose E.C., its mechanisms per se, need not even be an issue. The isssue really is more whether bound electrons may be involved in an energy exchange with the nucleus that triggers nuclear decays, especially alpha decay, in long half life heavy elements. However, the nice thing about studing E.C.s from the point of view of stimulating the atom by kinetics, heat, or EM, is that there just seems there is a direct bearing on the issue by the increased presence of the electrons in the nucleus. I do suppose there is a direct bearing on the issue by the increased *energy* of the electrons being in the nucleus as well, and maybe that is more to the point when it comes to remediation." I case it is unclear what I am saying here (which has been the case most of the day due to my busy situation and haste) I would like to rephrase a bit. By vibrating electron shells, or a lattice as a whole, by electromagnetic stimulation, or by kinetic stimulation, the displacement of the center of charge from the nucleus should also increase the probability of orbital electrons being within the nucleus. Obital electron(s) that enter within a nucleus carry a significant amount of energy. If a nucleus is unstable, and is suddenly endowed with the externally supplied energy of the electron interacting with the nucleus, via either the weak force or the EM force, it seems such a presence of such electrons could push the nuclear energy over a threshold and trigger a nuclear disintegration. This is an implication that half lives might be reduced by kinetic or EM stimulation, and thus has a bearing on nuclear remediation. Further, then, is the question: have bound electrons played a role in half lives all along without detection? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 18:55:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA02653; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:48:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:48:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:50:14 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Resent-Message-ID: <"ItZY41.0.Nf.8KwSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13053 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Tell you what, Horace. > >Take a 4 foot length of 1 inch PVC pipe and put a couple of >holes in it at the top so that you can put a "U" shaped retainer in from the >side so as to hold a 1" ball bearing and a 1/2" ball bearing centered about >an inch above it. > >Set it on a concrete floor and pull the "U" clip out, while NOT looking down >the pipe as the balls fall. > >DISCLAIMER:Do figure it out before trying it. :-) > >Regards, Frederick Let's figure out a way to amplify energy instead! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 19:09:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05218; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:06:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:06:01 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:03:47 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf560$ebed6340$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"uNwqe1.0.LH1.NawSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13054 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier >>Tell you what, Horace. >> >>Take a 4 foot length of 1 inch PVC pipe and put a couple of >>holes in it at the top so that you can put a "U" shaped retainer in from the >>side so as to hold a 1" ball bearing and a 1/2" ball bearing centered about >>an inch above it. >> >>Set it on a concrete floor and pull the "U" clip out, while NOT looking down >>the pipe as the balls fall. >> >>DISCLAIMER:Do figure it out before trying it. :-) >> >>Regards, Frederick > > >Let's figure out a way to amplify energy instead! 8^) This is fundamental to doing just that, whether it be Fission, Fusion, or CF, LENT, or Hydrinos. If you double the velocity of a particle, you quadruple its temperature: .5 mv^2 = kT . :-) Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 19:39:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09699; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:30:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:30:06 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Fourth Arata Errata & Carrell response & Britz post Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:27:55 -0500 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: <19971120033330372.AAA197 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"B3S0h2.0.RN2.ywwSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13055 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich says: > Nov. 19, 1997 > > Dear all, Reposted with this reply is a long, detailed riposte by Mike > Carrell on Nov. 17 [mikec snip.net] to my Third Arrata Errata. > > I am quoting this comment by Dieter Britz [db kemi.aau.dk] about the > Arata & Zhang report, since it shows I am not alone or clearly > incompetent in finding some faults in a long paper by an eminent, highly > qualified scientist, that makes very important and controversial claims > of excess energy with He-3 and He-4 production. No report is free of faults. The most eminent scientists make mistakes, including Einstein. Rich indeed made "some mistakes" in his reading of Arata's paper. I pleased that he now realizes that Arata is eminent and highly qualified. > Why has this journal published such a poor translation Literary criticism, does not obscure the data presented. Irrelevant. > It suggests to me a failure in the referee process. Misdirection, evading the technical issue. The translation is "poor", so the referees (almost certainly Japanese) did a sloppy job in reviewing the technical aspects. It should be obvious that the translation came after the review process. > I am reminded of the > story that the aged Beethoven, almost stone deaf, was honored by being > allowed to direct the Ninth Symphony-- but the players were told to > ignore his wild gestures. Misdirection again. Rich now equates Arata with the aged, deaf Beethoven. > Britz on Nov. 14, 1997: > > "You must be new to this group, that you don't know Dr. Blue's > credentials. He is certainly qualified to pronounce on what he has > pronounced on, being a retired physicist. Even retired physicists such as Blue make errors. He knows physics-speak, but where are his honors and credentials? > Fleischmann made some elementary errors in > the area of detection of nuclear emissions, where he has little or no > experience, and Dick Blue has. Fleishchmann retracted. > The most serious problem is the lack of reproducibility. This can have > legitimate reasons; it has happened in other areas, where subtle effects > such as impurities were hard to pin down. But it has now been 8 years > and one would expect people to have some glimmers of a handle on the > problem. No one said this was easy. Reproductions have been made. Miley of the Patterson cell, CERM of the P&F boiloff experiment. >The same, or worse, goes for Bockris, who specialised in > tritium, then went over to transmutation. For a while, it was only when > Joe Champion was doing it, that it worked. I am sure that Randi could do > the same. The last refuge of the determined skeptic. Randi can demonstrate a similar effect, so the phenomenon must be bogus. Fox has reported ten repetitions of CG thorium remediation. Dieter is somewhat out of date. >And there has been critical doubt thrown on that work by > Noninski in the J. Sci. Expl., who found conventional explanations for > some of Lin & Bockris's observations. This is how it works. > > There are, nevertheless, some quality positives, as I call them. While > F&P and Bockris et al have been criticised, no one to my knowledge has > found anything wrong with the tritium findings of Will et al, probably > because this was very carefully done, with proper controls and good > techniques. > And while the papers of Arata & Zhang We were talking about one paper. What "papers?". > are maybe full of internal contradiction Maybe? Has Dieter been reading Rich's "critique" or the original paper? What internal contradictions? > and certainly written in a very messy style and a > lot of detail is missing, I have not seen competent criticism of their > very interesting mass spec results, where they found 4He and, more > recently, 3He as well. This is the reverse Joe Blow effect: I had never > heard of the pair before but their work has forced me to take notice. > There are others. Precisely. Literary style aside, the report commands careful attention. > > If the experiments do achieve very high loading of the Pd-Black > particles and produce He-3 and He-4, is there any evidence for the kind > of massive transmutations reported by Miley, Mizuno et al, Dash, Bush, > and others? There is a possibility of basic contradictions in the > experimental results. Rich forgets that the Pd samples were analyzed by a QMS which would find any other transmuted elements. Apparently there were none. There is also a possibility that the LENR in the Arata cell are not those in other experiments with other materials and configurations. Critics such as Blue, and Murray, carry an implicit assumption that all nuclear reaction pathways are already known, that all new experiments must conform to these for the results to be valid. This is stout reductionism at work, but it is not necessarily true. Rich has been resisting the conclusion that the A&Z paper reports a valid finding. He thought he demolished Miley's findings, but found that the error was his, not Miley's. > I didn't realize that the little abstract in "Cold Fusion" might be > interpreted as saying that the cathode was 5 cm square surface area. Well, yes. The honorable skeptic should be skeptical about his own skepticism. If you read material with the assumption it is wrong, you forbid your own possible understanding and learning. To make an honest critique you have to strive to understand what is being said, despite any problems in presentation. The author might be right, after all. When you understand, then one can form a reasoned critique. This takes real work, Rich. > Here is a list of some questions we need details on: Once again, who are "we"? And why do "we" need these details? Rich dismissed the referees work on the basis of a literary judgment, which has no scientific merit. Rich has complained of a "data stew", yet he asks for more and more data which will lead to more and more questions, all to avoid reaching a conclusion. How will he evaluate the data if he had it? He is effectively asking for a detailed tutorial, which it is not the business of A&Z to give him. Rich asks about the "Sievertz law", which I had to go search for. There is a Sievertz law which expresses the pressure necessary to cause a gas to diffuse into a metal. Some CF researchers have tried to load Pd by pressure alone, and the pressures required are enormous. This is what led P&F to use electrolysis to generate the necessary pressure to get the diffusion. What A&Z are pointing out is that they are getting loadings much higher than would be predicted by the Sievert law. > more information about how to interpret the many pages of "Coupled spectrum" data. Rich is now asking to be spoon-fed on Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry and the interpretation of the graphs. He did not interpret the calorimetry data correctly, which is much simpler. > Were input and output temperatures separately measured, or only the > temperature difference measured by directly connecting the > thermocouples, as indicated in Fig. 5: "...inlet and outlet water > temperatures are measured by both of reversely-connected thermocouple > and Pt-Resister at the same time", and page 5: "The temperature > difference (delta T) measured at entry point (T0) and exit point (T1) > are automatically recorded and displayed as excess energy..." How will this help? These are just more questions for a data stew. > I have reposted and will continue to repost all of Mike Carrell's > valuable, thorough ripostes to my Arata & Zhang critiques to my > forty-some recipients. Fair enough. Some of Rich's posting activity has seemed to be biased, and I want to acknowledge that he has cross-posted some useful information. However, he muddies the time-sequence by digging out old work like the Bose experiments and mixing it with recent work. There were some critiques of the Bose work as well, which need to be placed in context. > The web site is copious and detailed, and lists many senior staff > members at several labs, and dozens of research reports are posted, but > no mention of Arata or Zhang or their presumably very important and > outstanding "capstone" report. "presumeably"? Arata is, I believe, professor emeritus and so would not be listed as current staff. The report in question was not published by Osaka University, nor was the work done under its auspices, to my knowledge. Russ George is working with Arata and he indicates that the resources dedicated to this particular work are meager. I believe that the building in which the institute is housed has Arata's name on it. > I will mail a copy of their 56-page report to anyone who wants to > participate in this critical dialogue. Good. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 19:49:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14087; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:38:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:38:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3473AB7E.797557A6 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:16:14 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rmog & Smot updates References: <34739B4A.96C76D84 microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"plMih.0.-R3.03xSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13056 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have just updated the Smot shipping schedule. Hi Greg, I read the SMOT status page. News are great. I have a comment about Dremel polishing method. As the Dremel run 15000 to 23000 RPM, any friction, even a cotton is enough to melt the Perspex. It even damage the polycarbonate. I do not recommend using high s peed greater than 1000-2000 RPM. Wet polishing with a polishing liquid gives best results. But you need low RPM for do not spread the liquid everywhere. High temperature damages could not be repaired. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 20:32:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24195; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:26:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:26:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:23:11 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Black plague info. Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711192326_MC2-28DC-3980 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"pn2u6.0.zv5.2mxSq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13057 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: No. It is NOT true that fleas bite people causing the disease of plague. The disease is spread flea to rat, then rat to rat, and occasionally rat to people, and then people to people. Not according to Encyclopedia Britannica, which says: plague, an infectious fever caused by the bacillus Yersinia pestis, transmitted by the rat flea. It is primarily a disease of rodents, and epidemics in human beings originate in contact with the fleas of infected rodents. . . . Plague is primarily a disease of rodents, and man enters only accidentally into the usual cycle. This cycle--rodent-flea-rodent--as a rule is enzootic (present in an animal community at all times but occurring in only small numbers of cases), but under certain environmental conditions it reaches epizootic proportions (affecting many animals in any region at the same time). In some areas plague-infected rats from ships spread the infection in ports, where it became epizootic. Spread of the infection among domestic rodents in the vicinity of human habitations creates conditions favourable for outbreaks of human plague, for when an epizootic outbreak reduces the rodent population, fleas from the dead animals fail to find another rodent host and thus begin to infest man. At first the cases are sporadic, but under suitable conditions large numbers of persons may be included. . . . Swartz adds: Hope that helps these attempted revisions of herstory. Mitch Swartz should choose his words more carefully. I have presented the standard, widely accepted medical theory about the plague, which can be found in history books and encyclopedias. I am not attempting to revise anything. He is! Perhaps he is right; perhaps Britannica is, but in any case, he should not make such comments here. I am sick of his rude comments and his know-it-all attitude. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 20:57:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA30979; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:53:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:53:41 -0800 Message-ID: <3473C21A.A76E50D microtronics.com.au> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:22:42 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Rmog & Smot updates References: <34739B4A.96C76D84 microtronics.com.au> <3473AB7E.797557A6@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PP3XK3.0.uZ7.K9ySq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13058 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I have just updated the Smot shipping schedule. > > Hi Greg, > > I read the SMOT status page. News are great. I have a comment about Dremel polishing method. As the Dremel run 15000 to 23000 RPM, any friction, even a cotton is enough to melt the Perspex. It even damage the polycarbonate. I do not recommend using high speed greater than 1000-2000 RPM. Wet polishing with a polishing liquid gives best results. But you need low RPM for do not spread the liquid everywhere. High temperature damages could not be repaired. > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar Hi Hamdi, The CNC guys don't like my project. They get about a 50% reject rate due to polishing faults. I run my Dremel on a variac and control the RPM. I, like you, had a lot of problems polishing. I am making a male mold from one of the really good bases and plan to experiment with Rick's hand mixed urethane's. I have been told that bubbles are a problem to watch for. Any suggestions on using urethanes? -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 21:31:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA06845; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:25:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:25:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3473BBEF.441E earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:26:23 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: Tom Droege astronomy network Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"l10ln1.0.rg1.8dySq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13059 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 19, 1997 Dear all, The former CF researcher, turned CF skeptic, has organized a wonderful network of amateurs to survey the sky, as reported in this week's Science. Here is his press release, from his site, http://p674p06.isc.rit.edu/tass/tass.html For Release 10:00 AM EDT, June 10, 1997 TASS - The Amateur Sky Survey A group of amateur astronomers have used the internet to form a "College" which directs a search of the sky for new phenomena. Tom Droege has seeded the group by designing, building and giving away moderate cost search telescopes. Tom is a semi-retired engineer at Fermilab, the High Energy Physics facility near Chicago. The first result from this international collaboration, measurement of the variable star BP Virginis (Figure 1), is being presented today to the American Astronomical Society meeting in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The group expects to map a 3 degree wide strip of sky centered on the Celestial Equator over the next year. The multiple telescope locations allow many precise measurements to be taken of each star in the strip. Hundreds of new variable stars should be discovered over the course of the survey. Previous wide field surveys have used photographic techniques which do not have the photometric accuracy of the CCD detectors used by TASS. The challenge in designing an all sky search program is the extensive software required. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said, "That's where the money is." The internet is where the programmers are. But programmers are not often builders of hardware. To turn loose the powerful abilities of professional programmers (like amateur astronomers Mike Gutzwiller of Cincinnati, Ohio; and Chris Albertson of Redondo Beach, California), 22 search telescope systems have been built and shipped out to everyone who sent e-mail indicating that they understood the problems and that they would be willing to operate a system. The computer programs written so far are impressive in their quality. These are professional programmers writing for fun and to show what good work they can do. The code is amazing in the degree of documentation in the code and the detail of the operating instructions that go with it. This author once supervised 19 systems programmers with a combined salary of over a million dollars a year. I feel that I am in much better control of the TASS programming effort (and getting more work done). This effort costs nothing and supervises itself. Professionals use huge telescopes to study tiny areas of the sky. The TASS collaboration uses tiny telescopes to study large areas of the sky. In a typical evening, a TASS telescope will view a million more times the area of the sky as seen in the widely distributed Hubble Deep Field galaxy picture. Over a year the 22 TASS telescopes should be able to accumulate 200 measurements on each of 100,000 stars. These telescopes are small enough to fit in one hand. They are little more than a camera lens fitted with a sensitive CCD detector. TASS is presently working on variable star measurement because it is a first easy task which will promote the development of the required software. TASS was conceived as a comet finding project starting just after Shoemaker/Levy 9 crashed into Jupiter. The group expects to go on to comet and asteroid searches, eventually zeroing in on searches for earth-crossing asteroids. The second-generation telescopes that are under construction will be able to search for transient phenomena like optical counterparts of gamma ray bursts and comet snowballs. Each camera typically takes 5000 photometric star measurements per hour. The cameras are sensitive to magnitude 13.5 at the one sigma level. Photometry of bright stars has a one sigma error of 0.05 magnitude. This degrades to 0.30 magnitude at the limit of magnitude 13.5. The astrometry of bright stars is accurate to one arcsecond at one sigma for bright stars, degrading to 3.5 arcseconds at the magnitude limit. These numbers are preliminary. We expect considerable improvement when we develop better programs and improve our operating skills. Today the group is announcing the routine discovery of a variable star measured in a small fraction of the data taken so far. While BP Virginis was known to be variable, this is the first data that allows determination of its period. Arne Henden (U. S. Naval Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona) has been leading the analysis of the data. He has written extensive software to process the millions of accumulated measurements. While BP Virginis is the first variable star that we have found, hundreds more should be discovered over the course of the next year. In the past one needed to attend a University to perform serious study. One does this to find a College, a group of people interested in working together on a narrow field. TASS demonstrates that it is possible to form a strong special-interest group using only communication over the internet. This working group has been formed entirely over the internet. Many of the group will be meeting each other for the first time at this meeting, and at a dinner this evening. The collaboration is truly international. One active contributor, Jure Skvarc, lives in Slovenia. The on line camera software was written in Canada by professional programmer Norman Molhant. The mail list used for communication between the over 150 members contains representatives from 14 countries. A TASS telescope is an ideal project for an astronomy club. Nick Beser, Marty Pittinger and Bernie Kluga of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (Laurel, Maryland) have set up a TASS telescope there as a science outreach project. Glenn Gombert opertates a triplet at the Miami Valley Astronomical Society observatory (Yellow Springs, Ohio). Another astronomy club, The Valley of the Moon Astronomical Society (Glen Ellen, California) is represented by Ron Wickersham. While called the amateur sky survey, we do not restrict professionals. Michael Richmond, a Princeton professional whose "day" job is with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has set up a TASS triplet at his parents' home in Vermont. Paul Rybski of the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater has set his up at the University in Whitewater. Data is actively exchanged over the internet. On can leave a data file at a relay point one day and have someone like Herb Johnson (Princeton, NJ) process it into a picture and leave it at another relay point the next day. While the telescope systems have been given away, it was not necessary to provide computers to operate them. Most of the telescopes have gone to computer professionals who already have powerful computers sitting on their desks, computers that seldom work hard at night. The TASS telescopes are automatic. One just uncovers them and turns them on in the evening and turns them off in the morning. They have no moving parts. They simply measure a three degree wide strip of sky that is overhead as the earth's motion scans the heavens. This is called drift scanning in the biz. The telescope systems that have been given away are similar to systems selling for about $1500. Twenty two have been built. Tom Droege has spent about $50,000 so far in distributing the first group of telescopes and in the development of a much more powerful design which should come on-line later this year. Help has been received from others. Ron Wickersham fabricated and donated the printed circuit boards. Bohdan Paczynski of Princeton University purchased the filters for the first round of telescopes and has provided CCD chips for the next generation. Dave Vrona of World Wide Access provides a free internet connection and the mail list server. Professionals writing proposals to their funding agency might consider what would happen if they were to propose a project like TASS. We want funds to build a number of expensive telescopes. When we have them built, we are going to give them away to strangers that we meet through correspondence on the internet. We hope they will write programs that will allow doing good science with the collected data. This has been the fun of this project for the founder. I call this the "Field of Dreams" school of science management. "If you built the telescopes the software will come." Tom Droege Tom Droege has worked on the instrumentation of High Energy Physics experiments for 35 years. Recently he designed electronics for the experiment at Fermilab that discovered the top quark. Tom had no interest in astronomy prior to S/L9. The text of this press release, the figure, extensive information about TASS, and a number of pictures can be accessed on line at: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~richmond/tass/tass.html Person Day Phone Evening Phone e-mail Tom Droege (630) 840-3286 (630) 879-7609 droege fnal.gov Chris Albertson (818) 351-0089 x127 chris topdog.logicon.com Jure Skvarc skvarc eros.ijs.si Glen Gombert (513) 296-1136 ggombert infinet.com Mike Gutzwiller (513) 872-5322 (513) 741-1426 deepsky fuse.net Norman Molhant (514) 451-4881 molhant ere.umontreal.ca Herb Johnson (609) 771-1503 hjohnson pluto.njcc.com Michael Richmond (609) 258-3578 (609) 275-7461 richmond astro.princeton.edu Nick Beser (410) 792-5000 x4476 beser aplcomm.jhuapl.edu Bernie Kluga (410) 792-5000 x7257 klugabel jhuapl.edu Marty Pittinger (410) 792-5000 x8588 pittimj! jhuapl.edu Arne Henden (520) 779-5132 aah nofs.navy.mil Paul Rybski (414) 472-5766 (414) 495-4756 rybskip uwwvax.uww.edu Ron Wickersham (707) 523-2611 (707) 584-8915 rjw alembic.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 23:00:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA07897; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:53:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:53:18 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:49:47 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf578$1c5d79e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"G4YCf2.0.Jx1.D1zSq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13060 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Robin I checked with my Source-Oracle after catching Hal and Scott on the Sci American Frontiers program (great segment). The work function of Cesium-Tungsten can be gotten down to 1.3 ev if the right plane is used on single crystal Tungsten 110 plane? forgot. The Cesium has to be held at 0.8 monolayers or less. "There is NO IMPROVEMENT in the performance if Hydrogen is used". Potassium or Barium, perhaps? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 23:24:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA18497; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:23:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:23:50 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:22:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3475c44d.15539545 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Qkd6t2.0.xW4.4M-Sq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13063 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:23:01 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Makes *my* head spin! Yes, without some way to spin up, would the nuclei >ever catch up? Then there is the problem of heat. Would all that >"rattling around" cause too much heat? If the nuclei are atoms in an >insulator, like quartz, then at least the microwaves shouldn't heat them up >too much. If "rattling around" does not cause much heat loss, then this >could possibly be an energy storage device? [snip] Horace, I think your "rattling" already exists. At least to some extent it must be a consequence of normal heat, especially when random thermal vibrations combine to cause a particular atom to vibrate more strongly than it's neighbours. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 23:28:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA23505; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:20:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:20:27 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:20:21 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: "Frederick J. Sparber" cc: vortex Subject: Re: Three-Body Collision Velocity Amplifier In-Reply-To: <01bcf525$bcc73c20$LocalHost default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4IeCM3.0.Bl5.wI-Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13061 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>Several years ago there was an article in the Scientific American (amateur >>scientist section) on holding a ping-pong >>ball a few inches above a golf ball at waist height and releasing them >>simultaneously. Upon collision with the floor the ping-pong ball will >>rebound to a height several times waist height indicating a velocity >>multiplication. >> >>I tried this using a 55 gallon drum so that I didn't have to chase the p-p >>ball all over the place. Good way to lose an eye if you use a marble and a >>1" steel ball. :-( >> >>In an agitated fluid (or a gas plasma)where there is the mass of the >>"propeller" and various masses or "impurities" "or heavy ions) in the fluid, >>would this not also kick molecules-electrons up to high velocities? >> >>Regards, Frederick >> >> That effect is REAL (and fun too as I remember :) Did you ever get a chance to jump on a trampoline when you were younger with a friend or two. (IF) YOU could short jump and add to the 'incoming' mass - you would send your sister (err friend, ERR MASS) HIGHER than could be done alone. Lot's of Fun, but stretched medium added for the C.O.E. nothing unique.. used by nasa with gravtational fly-by "sling-shot" effect. But it WORKS! really WELL! :) In a fluid kick higher volocities ( I would guess it would 'have to come down' ).. BUT, catch/use it while its UP There would be "*!" :) Best to you & yours Happy Thanksgiving. -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 19 23:28:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA23713; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:23:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:23:12 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Blue: lattice theories Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:22:32 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3477dd8f.22006898 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <347387A8.E5E earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <347387A8.E5E earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YbxeO3.0.Ko5.UL-Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13062 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:43:20 -0600, Rich Murray wrote: Quoting Dick Blue: [snip] >As I recall Schinger's first examination of the cold fusion question >led him to suggest that the dominant CF reaction should be > > p + D -> 3He rather than D + D -> 4He . > >That solves some problems relating to the absence of expected reaction >products, but it ran into difficulties due to the absence of any claims >for the detection of 3He as a significant reaction product. I would >say that Schwinger's first venture into cold fusion theory was shot down >by experimental results. So other than his reputation Schwinger did not >have much going for him at point. I believe however that the Arrata & Zang results show an "unnatural" He3-He4 ratio. This implies that the D + P -> He3 reaction does occur. > >Now I admit that I did not read directly any further pronouncements on >the CF question by Schwinger, but only second or third hand reports >about his thoughts. In one such report Schwinger is said to have made >note of the fact that 0+ to 0+ transitions are strictly forbidden for >single photon emission. This selection rule may have bearing on the >decays of excited states of 4He because the ground state is indeed a >0+ state. > >What Schwinger was suggesting, it seems, is that the decay of an excited >0+ state in 4He would be so inhibited that a much slower deexcitation >process, such as phonon emission, could assume a dominant roll. > >At this point there is basically nothing wrong with Schwinger's theory, >but he clearly did overlook some significant experimental facts which >I, as an experimentalist, feel well qualified to call to your attention. >I don't know the context in which Schwinger made his suggestion with >regard to 0+ to 0+ transitions ( if he actually did), and I regret >that he has no opportunity to respond. Still we can't let his error >just hang there. We have to move on. > >The obvious flaw in the Schwinger line of reasoning is that the reaction >process by which a 0+ excited state in 4He can be formed is reversible. >If the state is formed by the fusion of two deuterons it can always decay >back the way it came into two deuterons. Thus the inhibited electromagnetic >reaction channel has no significant effect on the actual lifetime of >the 0+ excited state to which Schwinger may have made reference. The >lifetime of the excited state of 4He is still too damn short for any >thermal deexcitation process. Steve Jones's argument still stands even >if he is just an experimental physicist. I agree with DB on this, as far as it goes. I also think that Schwinger missed the boat, when he went looking for a thermal de-excitation process. However this doesn't preclude the formation of He4 or He3! It just limits the number of ways available for redistribution of the energy. Note well, that in the Mössbauer effect, it is the MOMENTUM of the nucleus that couples to the lattice, not the energy. We may therefore reasonably expect that in a CF reaction, it will also be the momentum that couples to the lattice, not the energy. What does this mean in practical terms? In plasma phase reactions, such as D + D -> T + p the REASON for the production of TWO particles is conservation of mass-energy, combined with conservation of MOMENTUM. If OTOH momentum can be conserved by coupling to the lattice, then there is no need for the initially formed He4 nucleus to break apart into two particles (T + p or He3 + n). The energy (and momentum) of the reaction is shared between two "particles", one of which is the newly formed He4 nucleus, the other of which is the "lattice". Given that the He4 nucleus is much lighter than the lattice it gets (almost) all of the energy. [snip] I further suspect, that the force connecting the nucleus to the lattice is such that the direction in which the newly formed nucleus will be ejected will usually be into the lattice. Given that the penetrating power of alpha particles is not very great, these will be difficult to detect. Nevertheless, the following experiment may make such detection feasible. Use as cathode very thin gold leaf. Allow this gold leaf cathode to "float" on the surface tension of the heavy water electrolyte. Now when alpha are formed, some will make it all the way through the gold leaf, to a detector suspended just above the surface, enabling direct detection and measurement. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 01:01:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA04983; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:54:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:54:36 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:54:30 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ROSS HELP:) Re: Beauty and the Machine In-Reply-To: <971119171244_528505177 mrin41.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KgmVM1.0.kD1.Ah_Sq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13064 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 MFergerson aol.com wrote: >> Steve, you wrote: >>>'thought-form:' is your X-Energy = to Ross' Soliton Aether? in >>>attached depleted/clumped for connectivity (memory) or your knowing >>>were it *needs* to go? (through the mirror). Slinkies (Coil-Toy) have an >>>'appearance' of memory for were it wants to go, however the above doesn't >>>seem to explain the concentration of 'the coil' (tight), nor the edges and >>>the coils passing of X-energy to a next(?) (fully stretched) coil. Looks >>>good though for all reactions within/between its ends. (wave). >>> >>>just a thought form :) >>>-=se=- >> >> I must admit total ignorance of Ross' Soliton Aether (I despise ignorance, >>especially mine. Got a URL I can research it at?) But I do know a bit from >>solitons, so I see the connection. The rest of your post was so >>information-dense I can't quite decipher it. >> Re-reading it myself, I can't blame you. Maybe Ross will step in, (I add a plea for help in the header). I thought, I saw or felt a connection between the X and Aether conversations that had been going on here. Given space-time (as one unit) a solitary wave is a special solution!, and fixed velocity, as in a soliton, should/would require a 'new ' look(law) at things universally. Ross is much better at coherent sentence stucture than I, and is in the process of writting a book about it now. His e-mail is tessien oro.net. url? Hopefully Ross will read this :) ROSS, do you have a URL? or suggested url for above? Admittadly, I have no idea on HIS standings with the X-energy waves being discussed here, but, both have strikingly similar characteristics. [IF] the addition of mind/xxx../or/..4th.5th..xxdimension(s) can concentrate within their boundries, then the two would/could be one and the same. (of infinite-dimensional Hamiltonian systems) Ross' Aether theory explains very simply (once you grasp it) pretty much everything from a Black-Hole / White hole, down to exothermic sun emmissions (aether). And everything under the sun at that point! :) To see aetheric/soliton effects on the surface of the earth (ocean/water) try http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/OCDST/shuttle_oceanography_web/oss_70.html This will show the (broad)low-freq's of soliton-waves (aether) pounding the straights of Gibralter and the Alboran Sea as seen from the space shuttle. What was the question again ? oh URL! ROSS?? HeLp!:)- -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 01:36:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA01307; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:33:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:33:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34742078.45B7 keelynet.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:35:20 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Updated Korean PPM info] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------10963D8A539D" Resent-Message-ID: <"tUY4z2.0.LK.tF0Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13065 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------10963D8A539D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gnorts! --------------10963D8A539D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <34742040.5FEC keelynet.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:34:24 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Updated Korean PPM info References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folks! The self-running Minato magnetic wheel info has all been updated with relevant patents attached...if you wish to check it out; http://www.keelynet.com/index0.htm click on Korean 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 --------------10963D8A539D-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 02:15:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA02918; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:09:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:09:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack mail2.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <3473FC68.546579CD mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:01:28 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cavendish & heat References: <199711121233.GAA24096 natasha.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19971119085640.006d0308@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TC4Fh3.0.Wj.hn0Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13066 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: "At 03:43 11/19/97 -0500, Jack Smith wrote: "I just finished reading the nice article about you and Hal in the December "Scientific American"" thanks....we haven't seen it yet! "I will certainly watch this program." I hope it goes well. We have NO control over how they "spin" us. Thanks very much for the HC quote. I'll study it. Where did you obtain this paper of his? I searched around a bit for it and found it in the U of Chicago library but nowhere else. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little" Hi Scott, My copy was given to me by a friend, and I'm missing some pages. It does not seem to be available anywhere in northern Ohio; and the libraries I've contacted for help have given me the runaround. I'll get it eventually. When I do, I'll send you a copy. I watched Scientific American Frontiers last night; and your segment came across very well, at least by contrast. I especially liked the piece on your Mother's clock; and it was apparent that the major purpose of the whole program was entertainment, not science. The young lady's science project was a prime example of this. Anyone doing chemical design knows that interactions have to be thoroughly examined. For example, it can be "proved" that several fertilizers show no difference in their effect on plant growth merely by not adding water to any of the pots. >From the larger point of view, the producers took pains to show that you and Hal are wasting your time evaluating and developing zero point energy devices because the zpe content of the universe is negligible, at least according to the big bang -- Hawking view of things. So we find ourselves in the familiar situation of being told that we can't do something because of some theory or other, especially after fooling around with some design equations. It is not surprising that so many young minds find science boring Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 02:40:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA03900; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:35:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:35:29 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3473C21A.A76E50D microtronics.com.au> References: <34739B4A.96C76D84 microtronics.com.au> <3473AB7E.797557A6 verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:35:19 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Rmog & Smot updates Resent-Message-ID: <"JOCJE2.0.sy.m91Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13067 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg - > I am making a male mold from one of the really > good bases and plan to experiment with Rick's > hand mixed urethane's. I have been told that > bubbles are a problem to watch for. Any > suggestions on using urethanes? The hard clear stuff I have has a very low viscosity, the lowest I've ever seen for urethane. If you mix it gently and let it settle for a bit (small masses so exotherm doesn't kick it off), you'll have very few bubbles, excluding any trapped air in undercuts in your mold, which should be properly vented if necessary. Your critical rail surface areas are probably going to be on the bottom of the mold, so bubbles will rise away from that area. Leave a good sized "sprue" or pouring area in the top of your mold when you take it off the master, and when you cast parts you can bang the thing on the table to get the bubbles to rise without splashing resin out. Preheating the mold (125F-150F) and pouring the resin in at room temp is another way to get small bubbles away from the critical surfaces, and this resin needs to be heat cured anyway. For some reason heated surfaces chase the bubbles away - convection or progressing curing-wave? I don't know. It works horizontally away from vertical surfaces too. Of course the two best methods for degassing are vacuum and/or centrifugation. I've resorted to putting a mold in a bucket on a short rope and swinging it around over my head and have gotten good results from these low viscosity resins. I guess pulling my arm out of joint is preferable to figuring out the radius of gyration to counterbalance my home-built centrifuge on some days. (Ibuprofen alert) There's also degassing agents which can be added to resin which cuts down on foaming when you vacuum them. These new resins degas pretty well without them, but I use a degas agent anyway out of habit. I get bubble-free castings from a short vacuum degassing before pouring. I'm gearing up right now for a surfboard leash deck attachment using this resin. Good stuff. If you can't find a supplier locally, try: Polytek Development Corp. Salem Industrial Park P.O. Box 384 Lebanon, NJ 08833 (908) 534-5990 Fax (908) 534-5190 They might have a distributor in Oz. Product: Poly-Optic 1410 (for impact strength) or Poly-Optic 1420 (hardness). 1420 is very hard to tell from perspex when cured in small sections. 1410 is like a polycarbonate. These resins are very clear, no real color unless several inches thick. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 02:57:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA14718; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:51:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:51:32 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:52:11 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0 Resent-Message-ID: <"f-jEV.0.ob3.pO1Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13068 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts - Congrats you guys, you looked good! Can't believe they didn't try to kill you with all their debinking going on. Maybe after you get some real positive results. Was that guy who thought the ZPE must have detectable mass really a physicist? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 04:20:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA11868; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:16:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:16:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971120070811.006bb0fc world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:08:11 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [Off topic] Black plague info. In-Reply-To: <199711192326_MC2-28DC-3980 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xzSVl3.0.4v2.rd2Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13069 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:23 PM 11/19/97 -0500, Jed Rothewell wrote: > No. It is NOT true that fleas bite people causing the disease of plague. > The disease is spread flea to rat, then rat to rat, and occasionally rat > to people, and then people to people. > >Not according to Encyclopedia Britannica, which says: > (zip) Jed Rothwell relies on the Encyclopedia Britannica, and calls into question several medical, microbiological, and infectious disease, and immunology texts. Jed Rothwell states, and quotes the Encyclopedia which implies, that all of these doctors, immunologists, infectious disease specialists, etc. are WRONG, because, .... well.... , becasuse the Encyclopedia SEEMS to says so. In my comments, there were two quotes from a medical school text book called "Microbiology" which is about as thick as three volumes of Jed's encyclopedia, and specifically from the chapter devoted to the Bacillus in question. Reliance in my post was also made upon on medical text books incluing Harrison's "Internal Medicine". One conclusion is that a serious literature search might involve more than just reading a few passages from an Encylopedia. In any case, was just trying to correct a what appears to be a myth and add some science based upon what is really known. Mitchell Swartz, MD, ScD, EE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 04:33:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00397; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:27:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:27:26 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: A Tortoise Tale Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:24:22 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf5af$3c03dfa0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"jNBRy1.0.76.jo2Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13070 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In the summer of 1942 out in the "sticks" of northwestern Pennsylvania, I was on a moonlit-night exploration trip with two of my brothers.We chanced upon a very large snapping turtle near a spring-fed sluice that ran under the narrow dirt road. Being wary of getting too close to the powerful jaws of this fellow, we taunted him with a stick taken from a bush. He promptly clamped down on the stick, with no intention of letting go of it. With a good tug on the stick we flipped him over on his back and dragged him like a sled to our home, a distance of about two miles, with every intent of making turtle stew out of him. Fortunately for him the concrete vat in the milkhouse that he was placed in for the night apparently wasn't deep enough to hold him and much to our disappointment he made his escape while we were dreaming of a feast. Moral?: He could have saved himself a lot of bother, if he he had been willing to "let go" earlier on. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 05:44:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22939; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:37:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:37:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34742F05.262F earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:37:25 -0600 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: Tony Rusi , vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fourth Arata Errata & Carrell response & Britz post References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"87Jei1.0.Lc5.1q3Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13071 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 20, 1997 Tony Rusi, I haven't heard about CF due to muonic air showers, although the last issue of Cold Fusion Times reported Japanese work during WWII that might have been trying to power high altitude aircraft with this. Ditto, tritium explained as triatomic molecules-- a common explanation is HD molecules. There seem to been an amazing number of ways to get seemingly simple experiments wrong. We need a central artifact archive. We also need to actively encourage the search for artifacts that explain puzzling results. The cold fusion hypothesis is so attractive and dramatic that many researchers are not letting their experimental data speak to them. What experiments up there have you heard about-- maybe they'd like to post reports on Vortex-L? Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 05:45:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23909; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:42:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:42:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34743068.6E0A earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:43:20 -0600 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 Subject: Shultz: Mossbauer effect Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ojfGa.0.Vr5.Xv3Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13073 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!mr.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news.biu.ac.il!gefen!schultr From: schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: 20 Nov 1997 07:12:34 GMT Organization: Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Message-ID: <650nt2$hn2$1 cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> References: <64s9q1$nro$1 cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <64uj4b$h4o$2@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <64vjrr$sph$1@news.fsu.edu> Reply-To: correct address in .sigfile NNTP-Posting-Host: gefen.cc.biu.ac.il X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Jim Carr (jac ibms48.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: : Richard S[c]hultz (correct address in .sigfile) writes: :: I pointed out several specific differences between the Moessbauer effect :: and the kind of nucleus-lattice coupling needed in the "magic" :: cold fusion. : Starting with the low energy, required so the recoil can couple ot : phonons. This is easier for 10 to 100 keV in a heavy nucleus than : for 20 MeV in a light nucleus. While that's a good point, I think the real difference is that in the Moessbauer effect, the excitation energy is carried away by a single energetic photon that is not coupled to the lattice, while in the Magic CF Effect [tm], the excitation energy is supposedly delivered to the lattice as a very large number of not especially energetic photons. So even before we worry about the three order of magnitude difference in energy and order of magnitude difference in nuclear mass, we have to consider that the coupling demanded in the MCFE is qualitatively different from the Moessbauer effect. After that, we can consider that the Moessbauer effect per se has no effect on the energy, decay mode, or lifetime of the nuclear decay -- the effect itself is an explanation of why the very small shifts in the nuclear energy levels show up in the spectrum of the emitted photons rather than being Doppler broadened out of existence. In the MCFE, however, our nuclear-lattice coupling has to change the [(T+p), (3He+n)] branching fraction from near 100% to near zero. ----- Richard Schultz schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065 Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250 ----- ". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness." -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 05:46:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10239; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:40:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:40:40 -0800 Message-ID: <34743003.455C earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:41:39 -0600 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 Subject: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"7aBow1.0.qV2.Mt3Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13072 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu!vncnews!HSNX.wco.com!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news.uunet.ca!xenitec!zorch!fusion From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Subject: Neutrons from arc welders Reply-To: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Sender: scott zorch.sf-bay.org Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Message-ID: <199711191659.LAA51596 pilot016.cl.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:02:20 GMT The assertion has been made that a welder's arc produces neutrons that are captured by boron in the flux to release alpha particles detected by a geiger counter. Well, it isn't really true! In case you should be tempted to try the experiement you should fist be aware that arc welders and geiger counters don't get along very well. An arc welder is a tremendous source of electrical noise such that operation of any form of electronic detection device while the arc is on is unlikely to yield any meaningful information. The arc is also a source of high intensity UV light which is another consideration. Second fact. The range in air of your typical alpha particle is not very great so sticking a detector close enough to the arc to pick up alphas is too likely to fry the detector for the above mentioned reasons. With that in mind I rather doubt anyone's claim for having detected alpha particles while the arc is on. Can we then assume that they detected something after the arc was extinguished? That is quite possibly the case. However, what they detected most certainly is not the result of the B + n reaction. The alphas emitted from that are very prompt. Once the arc is out, no more alphas from that source are possible. One more fact to bear in mind. Certain types of welding rods are actually doped with an alpha-emitting radioactive material. You can, in fact, detect said activity with an ordinary geiger counter. It just does not have anything to do with neutron emission from the arc. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 05:48:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10991; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:44:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:44:54 -0800 Message-ID: <34743100.704C earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:45:52 -0600 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 Subject: Britz: Mossbauer effect Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"m6SXe1.0.ah2.Kx3Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13074 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:11:51 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199711171648.LAA172827 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> <64s9q1$nro$1@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <64uj4b$h4o$2@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <64uj4b$h4o$2 cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> On 19 Nov 1997, Richard Schultz wrote: > d.b (britz nospam.har.har) wrote: > > : While I greatly respect Steve Jones, it has to be said that he has two > : things against him in this argument: he is an experimentalist, and he > : is biassed, clearly being at pains to disprove CNF. > > Why would he be at pains to disprove it, as he was one of the first people > to have claimed to have seen it (a claim, admittedly, that he later > retracted after having done more careful experiments)? Well, you said it; he changed his mind about CNF and since that time has indeed been at pains etc. In other words, right or wrong, he is biassed and I find him slightly overboard at times. I have told him so myself, he is a friend. > : He is also at a disadvantage, as is anyone who gives reasons why something > : can't happen. > > That depends on the "something" and on the reason. If you tell me that > you have discovered an even prime number greater than two, and I tell you > why that can't happen, I'm hardly at a disadvantage. If you tell me that > you have developed a method to send coded messages faster than the speed > of light (hi there Jack Sarfatti), and I tell you why that can't happen, > again, I am hardly at a disadvantage, Special Relativity being one of the > most well-established principles of physics. Yeah yeah. Maths is an exception, being very precise. But physics is not like that, and your example actually makes my point. Tomorrow someone might find out how to make wormholes work, or something. Before lasers, I read a very condescending statement about death rays (I read a lot of SF), to the effect that they were of course impossible, because no part of the EM spectrum would do the job. Then, lasers. And relativity upset some Newtonian impossibilities, didn't they? How about quantum tunnelling, would that not have been regarded as flatly impossible at one time? I imagine that before Onnes, people would have grandly dismissed the very idea of superconductivity on general arguments about scattering electrons or the like. Some things are more impossible than others, I'll grant you. > Why do you think that Schwinger would have been more willing to change his > mind than Steven Jones would be? Because both Steve and Schwinger, being scientists, would retract if shown evidence that they are wrong. They can be wrong and stick to their wrong ideas, but only as long as noone proves them wrong. I'd say Steve didn't retract his neutron findings all that gladly, but retract them he did, when he found artifacts that could explain them. > : Is there anyone reading this group who either knows enough theoretical > : physics or knows someone who does, who could take a critical look at these > : theories and find out whether and where they go wrong? This would be much > : more convincing than vague generalisations from chemists, computer > : people etc (sorry, Richard). > > I am kind of puzzled by your comments. My discussion of the (lack of) > relevance of the Moessbauer effect was hardly a "vague generalization." > I pointed out several specific differences between the Moessbauer effect > and the kind of nucleus-lattice coupling needed in the "magic" cold fusion. > (By "magic," I mean the one in which the branching ratio and lifetime of > the decay of 4He* are massively affected by the lattice in some not-yet- > defined way.) I make no claim that CF is "impossible." I only pointed out > that citing the Moessbauer effect has, as far as I can tell, no relevance > to the question of how probable its existence is likely to be. The There you go again. OK, you were maybe more specific than arm waving, but you still just pointed out some difficulties, instead of going directly to the theory and showing where it is wrong. As I say, some things are more impossible than others. How do you know that some special circumstances might not get around your difficulties? I'd say that Schwinger thought of them too, but decided that his theory is a goer anyway. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 05:49:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA24702; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:47:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:47:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34743195.7D4 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:48:21 -0600 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 Subject: Britz on CF theories Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"YdinZ1.0.u16.D-3Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13075 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!mr.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uninett.no!news.net.uni-c.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Authorities on Cold Fusion Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:35:53 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <199711191550.KAA24398 pilot016.cl.msu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <199711191550.KAA24398 pilot016.cl.msu.edu> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Richard A Blue wrote: Thank you, Dick, for your remarks on Schwinger's theory. This is more like what I was after, rather a list of impossibilities. > We experimental physicists are given some grounding in the fundamentals > of theory before they turn us loose in the laboratory, and it > really takes nothing more than a knowledge of basic physics to > poke huge holes in most of what passes as theories for cold fusion. Sorry if you thought I was denigrating Steve's competence. I know what you mean, but I still insist on the difference. I am an experimentalist myself, in electrochemistry, and of course I know a fair amount of theoretical background. But there is quite a gulf between me and the theoreticians on the fifth floor of our Dept. Same thing over in Physics, where they make a lot of the difference between the two groups. If the experimentalists can handle theory as well, why do they keep hiring new theorists? Not that one is better than the other. If the theory people were to step into the labs, they would find themselves at a disadvantage. > As I recall Schinger's first examination of the cold fusion question > led him to suggest that the dominant CF reaction should be > > p + D -> 3He rather than D + D -> 4He . > > That solves some problems relating to the absence of expected reaction > products, but it ran into difficulties due to the absence of any claims > for the detection of 3He as a significant reaction product. I would > say that Schwinger's first venture into cold fusion theory was shot down > by experimental results. So other than his reputation Schwinger did not > have much going for him at point. Maybe; but if you take Arata & Zhang seriously, they now claim to have found 3He... I don't even know who the heavies in theory are, as you rightly pointed out. I can't evaluate the theory papers and you might notice that my abstracts of these are somewhat vague and probably inept. I didn't realise Hagelstein no longer favours that scenario, or that there are two Kim's. I don't have a clear picture in my mind of who proposes what, I must admit, beyond the obvious connection of certain key words to certain authors, like dineutrons with some Russians, boson condensates with the Chubbs, etc. I still think that if there is anything at all to CNF (which I doubt), it will be in what I call "conventional" CNF; the original variant. I don't need competent proof against Mills' stuff, or light water & Ni CNF, or transmutation or electrochemically eating radioactives or chickens making their own calcium or vortex over-unity; I am satisfied with just not entertaining those even for a moment. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 06:06:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26982; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:01:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:01:07 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:00:16 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0 Resent-Message-ID: <"8BuXl1.0.Vb6.XA4Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13076 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Gnorts - > >Congrats you guys, you looked good! Can't believe they didn't try to kill >you with all their debinking going on. Maybe after you get some real >positive results. I would second that. It should not be any surprise as the science done at EarthTech has always been of high quality. If you are doing good work it is likely that you will look good. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 06:52:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA21990; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:42:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:42:35 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34744BFC.5211 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:41:00 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: schultr gefen.cc.biu.ac.il, jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu Subject: Re: Shultz: Mossbauer effect References: <34743068.6E0A earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FEBxA.0.MN5.Pn4Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13077 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich Murray wrote: > > Richard Schultz wrote: > > Jim Carr (jac ibms48.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: > > :: I pointed out several specific differences between the > :: Moessbauer effect > :: and the kind of nucleus-lattice coupling needed in the "magic" > :: cold fusion. > I think one other difference is that the Moessbauer effect can be understood entirely classically as well, in that if the EM radiation from a classical radiator bound in a a periodic lattice potential is computed, the dominant frequency in the spectrum is the same as the intrinsic frequency of the radiator, so there is no doppler downshifting of the frequency. I recall reading a simple 1-D analysis of this in a thin, old old book on the Moessbaur effect. Not sure anymore, but it might have been Gibb, Terence Charles. Principles of Mössbauer spectroscopy /, T. C. Gibb. London : Chapman and Hall ; New York : Wiley, 1976. 254 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Series title: Studies in chemical physics Language: English Thus, Moessbaur is not really quantum magic, its got a classical version demonstrating the same effect--no doppler shift of radiation from nuclei bound inn a lattice (in QM, this is precise, while in calssical EM it is just describes the dominant mode). In contrast, the is no simple classical claculation that demonstrates the fundamental "CF" effect (unless you count error analysis :-). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 07:05:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25264; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:01:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:01:06 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Rmog & Smot updates Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:20:53 -0500 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: <19971120150442656.AAA64 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"IYRJQ.0.QA6.l25Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13078 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg wrote: > The CNC guys don't like my project. They get about a 50% reject rate > due to polishing faults. I run my Dremel on a variac and control the > RPM. I, like you, had a lot of problems polishing. > > I am making a male mold from one of the really good bases and plan to > experiment with Rick's hand mixed urethane's. I have been told that > bubbles are a problem to watch for. Any suggestions on using > urethanes? I don't blame the CNC guys. Polishing without messing up the surface isn't easy. Molding will, however, exactly duplicate a surface, virtually to the molecular level, which is why we could have quiet LP records and now CDs. If the object is thick, there are flow problems in injection molding that can cause warpage of the surface and have to be worked out. I know Greg isn't ready for mass production yet and the $7000 I recall for a mold is within reason, even low, but perhaps not within budget. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 07:22:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05098; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:10:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:10:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:05:02 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [Off topic] Personal attacks and SPAM Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711201008_MC2-28E6-F62F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Rh4uX.0.WF1.gB5Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13079 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net; >INTERNET:mica world.std.com I am fed up with two people here. I have no power to stop them, and I would not compel them if I did, but I wish they would review the rules, examine their own behavior, and take it upon themselves to stop bothering us. Bothering me, anyway. Rich Murray keeps posting long obnoxious messages from s.p.f. Logajan, I and others have repeatedly asked him to stop. People who want to read messages from Dick Blue or R. Shultz can tune into s.p.f. Mr. Blue is free to post here directly. I would prefer not to have to scroll through this spam every morning. I'll grant it takes little effort to delete messages. But it spoils the tone. The rules here politely ask you not to quote other messages extensively or cross-post. Rich: PLEASE stop doing that! Mitchell Swartz keeps diverting the discussion into personal attacks on me, Jed. He claimed that *I* did not calibrate the Cravens calorimeter. I did not touch the thing. Cravens built it, operated it and calibrated it. I merely reported his claims, and my observations, such as when I mixed up cups of water and measured the temperature. Swartz should not repeatedly claim this was my experiment, and I did not calibrate, or I did not do this or that or the other. I have corrected him on this TIME AFTER TIME. I should not have to keep doing that. I should not have to answer for other people's work. If Swartz thinks Cravens did not calibrate and Cravens lied to me about that issue, he should discuss the matter off-line with Cravens. Swartz also keeps insisting that I am deliberately posting misinformation; that I have not done my homework; or that I should master obscure fields of science which I make no claim to knowing; or I am making up claims, even after I post bona fide authoritative sources. This is obnoxious. He should shut up about me and address the issues instead. In the latest exchange, he writes: Jed Rothwell relies on the Encyclopedia Britannica, and calls into question several medical, microbiological, and infectious disease, and immunology texts. Where would I get such texts? I said that my sources are history books and general encyclopedias. Dan Quickert quoted information from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published on March 9, 1995. Such sources should satisfy anyone that Dan and I have done our homework. We may be wrong, but in that case the experts disagree. Nobody should blame us because our information is out of date. Jed Rothwell states, and quotes the Encyclopedia which implies, that all of these doctors, immunologists, infectious disease specialists, etc. are WRONG, because, .... well.... , because the Encyclopedia SEEMS to says so. It does not SEEM to say so. It states it explicitly, unequivocally, in plain English: . . .an infectious fever . . . transmitted by the rat flea. It is primarily a disease of rodents, and epidemics in human beings originate in contact with the fleas of infected rodents. . . .when an epizootic outbreak reduces the rodent population, fleas from the dead animals fail to find another rodent host and thus begin to infest man. This particular article is not signed, but Britannica solicits articles from expert doctors, immunologists, infectious disease specialists, etc. Perhaps the latest medical textbooks disagree, but Swartz should not accuse me of misinterpreting. He should not muddy the waters by saying "it SEEMS to say. . ." when it says plain as day! If he disagrees, he should write to the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica and set them straight. He should not post messages here denigrating me, picking fights, or claiming it only SEEMS to say." The other day, in yet another snit fit, he claimed I was agreeing with him -- caving in, so to speak -- when it was obvious I was not. What's the point? Why not just say "I think you are wrong" or "I think the Britannica is out of date" and leave it that? Why twist other people's words and misrepresent their views? Such debate tactics are confusing, rude and sophomoric. In my comments, there were two quotes from a medical school text book called "Microbiology" which is about as thick as three volumes of Jed's encyclopedia . . . In any case, was just trying to correct a what appears to be a myth and add some science based upon what is really known. My encyclopedia is 1 mm thick. It is a CD ROM. The CDC announcement is from their web page which, I suppose, has the thickness of a layer of electrons impacting on the CRT. I have discovered mistakes in articles in general reference books. I think Britannica's author misjudged Francis Bacon: Bacon was not cold hearted and he did not accept bribes. That was a trumped up charge. Encarta made a glaring error in their article on Japanese grammar. (I told them. They have probably fixed it by now.) But, in general, these books get the basic facts right. Anyone who cites them as the source of this or that claim *has done his homework* and should be excused from accusations and attacks by Swartz!!! If it in the encyclopedia, it is "really known" by someone. It does not "appear to be a myth." Or if it is a myth, it was not originated by Jed Rothwell. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 07:21:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA28520; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:14:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:14:31 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:12:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971120101220_1470051769 mrin85.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, jayneg@grove.iup.edu, david.noever msfc.nasa.gov, RVargo1062@aol.com, rseese@gpu.com Subject: scott you look good on TV Resent-Message-ID: <"QxDp11.0.Iz6.LF5Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13080 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My partners and I really had a good laugh when you said on national TV, "You hoped the Yusmar would blow up!" We thought it was a funny comment. I'm sure, however, that Yuri will and his Visor Scientific Company will not like it. I noted a couple of errors in your experimental set up. The tank was open prevneting the proper degasing of the water. The water must be degased. The temp was to low (not steaming) the device needs to be pre-heated to at least 160F before it begins to operate. Fret not...we degased and pre-heated.. and still have not yet seen any anomalous energy. Yusmar Johnstown Znida rsic We still believe that there is hope for the process and we plan to do what we can. I have some key improvements in mind. For the time being, however, we are concentrating on our own cryogenic technologies. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 07:59:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13714; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:54:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:54:31 -0800 (PST) From: meyersr norand.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 09:16:50 CDT Message-Id: <9710208800.AA880047229 smtpgate.norand.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0 Resent-Message-ID: <"-F6DW3.0.7M3.qq5Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13081 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: and from here too, congrats. one most excellent presentation. but if i may? i noticed two extremes in the estimate of the 'energy density' of zpe. the energy contained in a volume the size of the earth is approximately equal to a gallon of gasoline the energy contained in a volume the size of a cup is enough to boil off all the oceans. so, can anyone provide a reference to these two estimates? steve ps: by the way, i REALLY liked the clock. (is it perhaps a generally available item ? you know, christmas coming and all ... :) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 08:18:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA05401; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:08:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:08:00 -0800 Message-ID: <3474603A.B5C65C76 ro.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:07:22 -0600 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anti grav test at NASA? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199711191319_MC2-28CB-C81D compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"307at1.0.AK1.U16Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13082 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Debbie wrote: > Patrick, > > I've been to your web site, and I know that Dr. Li is going to get > credit > from the people that count. I still find it interesting that the > article > didn't site anyone by name; Dr. Li is NOT a NASA scientist, she works > for > the University of Alabama/Huntsville, and is funded by several > organizations here at MSFC. Dr. Noever does work for NASA. So, the > implication is that this work is his (or someone else's). > > Where did you get this paper, and do you have permission to have it on > a > web page, by the way? > > Debbie Hi Debbie, Yes, I have permission to post the preprint. (I work with Dr. Noever through the Student Service Program and requested to be assigned to the project.) Also, If you'll look again at http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Physica-C.htm , on the line following Dr Li's name, you will find the reference to UAH. And just for clarification, the device we are trying to replicate is not an anti-gravity device; it is a gravity shielding device. This might seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is important. If an opaque material blocks light, is it then a 'anti-light device'? ;^} -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 08:49:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11658; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:37:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:37:05 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:36:09 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: Anti grav test at NASA? Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711201136_MC2-28E0-AAED compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA11583 Resent-Message-ID: <"mnRYE3.0.xr2.kS6Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13084 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patrick, Thanks for the clarification! I think it's great that they allowed this to be printed. And I do understand the difference between antigrav and gravity shielding...it's just easier to type antigrav. My apologies. I've corrected a lot of folks. So you're actually in Huntsville? Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 08:50:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09929; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:30:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:30:33 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971120103020.ZM14152 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:30:20 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Mike Carrell" "Re: Rmog & Smot updates" (Nov 20, 9:51am) References: <19971120150442656.AAA64 default> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rmog & Smot updates Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"PM65l3.0.3R2.eM6Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13083 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Nov 20, 9:51am, Mike Carrell wrote: > Greg wrote: > > > The CNC guys don't like my project. They get about a 50% reject rate > > due to polishing faults. I run my Dremel on a variac and control the > > RPM. I, like you, had a lot of problems polishing. > > > > I am making a male mold from one of the really good bases and plan to > > experiment with Rick's hand mixed urethane's. I have been told that > > bubbles are a problem to watch for. Any suggestions on using > > urethanes? > > I don't blame the CNC guys. Polishing without messing up the surface isn't > easy. Molding will, however, exactly duplicate a surface, virtually to the > molecular level, which is why we could have quiet LP records and now CDs. > If the object is thick, there are flow problems in injection molding that > can cause warpage of the surface and have to be worked out. I know Greg > isn't ready for mass production yet and the $7000 I recall for a mold is > within reason, even low, but perhaps not within budget. If you have your heart set on casting rather than molding your parts (which IMHO a big mistake), try switching to a Reaction Injection Mold (RIM) process. Cavity and core can be machined from Acetal or Nylon to a relatively high gloss surface finish right from the start. RIM also uses epoxy resins which IMO would be better for your application than urethanes; stable, hard and wear resistant, thermally stable, negligible warpage and shrink, tolerant of thick sections, etc. When all's said and done though, a quick and dirty aluminum insert tool shooting a lubricious material like Acetal will cost you far less (net tooling and per-piece-price) and give better results (identical ramps with low friction, self lubricating rails). I see you spending far more than $7000 and achieving only marginal results the way you are going. Just trying to save you some time and money. Good luck with your endeavors. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 08:55:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA21268; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:41:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:41:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971120104028.006ac660 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:40:28 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0 In-Reply-To: <9710208800.AA880047229 smtpgate.norand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"hZ5YF2.0.EC5.SW6Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13085 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:16 11/20/97 CDT, meyersr norand.com wrote: > and from here too, congrats. one most excellent presentation. Thanks. Hal will answer about the ZPE energy densities. > by the way, i REALLY liked the clock. (is it perhaps a generally > available item ? you know, christmas coming and all ... :) The clocks have apparently become somewhat of a collector's item. Check out: http://mall.cftnet.com/clockman/atmospge.htm and http://mall.cftnet.com/clockman/000.htm The 2nd URL indicates that the Atmos is still being made today! Prices avail upon request. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 09:24:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27767; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:11:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:11:42 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:09:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971120120954_-1843432015 mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE energy density (was Proposal for a new scientific society) Resent-Message-ID: <"WEgYD3.0.mn6.Az6Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13086 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mithcell, Wheeler summed the ZPE idea up this way. It's like there is an ocean, and on top of it are the eddies, foam, etc. It is the latter that we see. And yes, the water in the ocean is greater than all the eddies and foam visible (the ZPE energy is greater than the visible mass-energy of the universe). Hey, it's not my theory. I'm not responsible for the big numbers. It's standard QED, where quasi-infinities abound and re-normalization is rampant! Maybe QED is incorrect somehow, but I'm conservative and follow the mainstream on this issue. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 09:32:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25940; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:26:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:26:25 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:26:16 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RIAP request for donations Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KebOj.0.BL6._A7Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13087 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 14:58:53 +0200 From: vladimir neuro.kharkov.ua To: billb eskimo.com My name is Vladimir Rubtsov. I am a member of the Society for Scientific Exploration and the Director of Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena, an independent scientific- research body, established in Kharkov (Ukraine) a few years ago. We aim at scientific studies in the fields of non-traditional energy sources, the UFO problem, and the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) question. The Institute makes its investigations in strict conformity to requirements of the scientific method and in close collaboration with the CIS Academy of Cosmonautics and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Please find here attached (as Appendix I) some information on the Institute and its activities. To inform the international scientific community about the results of investigations that are being conducted by RIAP specialists and other scientists in the territory of the former Soviet Union, we have started, in 1994, a special periodical: newsletter "RIAP Bulletin" (RB). It is the ONLY serious anomalistic periodical in the Commonwealth of Independent States published IN ENGLISH. As you probably know, Ukraine is now in a difficult economic situation. It is not surprising, therefore, that scientific-research bodies do not obtain sufficient funding. This is especially true for the independent, non-governmental ones, such as our Institute is. In particular, at present we are faced with considerable difficulties, trying to publish "RIAP Bulletin" with due regularity. We have two new RB issues, that are completely ready for printing and sending to their recipients (not to mention a lot of very interesting papers, meant for future RB issues), but the institute is short of the necessary means. We have approached some Ukrainian foundations, not without success, but, unfortunately, their grants did not cover the whole sum needed. In this connection, couldn't you kindly consider a possibility to donate to publication of "RIAP Bulletin" any sum that you would consider as appropriate? I and my colleagues would be much grateful to you for such an aid! In particular, all future issues of the bulletin would be sent to you free of charge. As I hope, RB could be of interest to you. As a matter of fact, "RIAP Bulletin" is the only periodical in the territory of the former Soviet Union publishing serious, scientific works on anomalistics, and serving therefore as the only means of communications between the specialists in the CIS and in the USA. Perhaps, it is an embryo of the future international system of communications of this sort, and it would be a regret to lose it just due to the current - temporary, as I am sure - financial difficulties. With all my best wishes, I remain, Sincerely yours, Vladimir V. Rubtsov, Ph.D., Director, RIAP Appendix I: RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA, Kharkov, Ukraine Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP) has been established in 1992. It is an independent research body, aimed at scientific studies in the fields of non-traditional energy sources, the UFO problem and non-classical SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). The principal trends of researches of the Institute in the UFO field are as follows: development of methods and strategies of active monitoring of UFOs by means of radar, optical, infra- red and other detection systems; instrumental studies of supposed landing sites, impacts on biological systems and UFO samples; creation of an efficient system of reconstruction of a real anomalous event on the basis of witnesses' testimonies; creation of a unified UFO data base and a computer expert system to identify genuine UFOs (GUFOs); development of physical models of GUFOs. In the SETI field, we are realizing the program "Search for Alien Artifacts on the Moon" (SAAM). This program includes: search for sunlight reflections from flat (mirror-like) surfaces of hypothetical ET objects (say, reconnaissance devices monitoring the Earth); search for other probable artificial ET phenomena on the Lunar surface; examination of the possibility of interaction between the terrestrial and extraterrestrial civilizations on the Moon; simulation of probable ET strategies for the Moon. The Scientific Council and Advisory Board of the Institute include such Russian and Ukrainian specialists in the UFO problem and SETI field as A.V.Arkhipov (radio astronomer who has discovered supposed ETI radio sources near some distant stars), A.V.Beletsky (historian studying pre-1917 UFO waves in Russia), Dr. E.A.Ermilov (specialist in radio detection of aerial anomalous phenomena), Dr. V.N.Fomenko (investigator of the famous Vashka find, as well as other supposed ET artifacts), Yu.A.Fomin (doyen of UFO studies in Russia), Dr. L.M.Gindilis (astronomer and SETI expert), Dr. Yu.V.Platov (Vice-Chairman of the Academic UFO Study Group), Dr. V.K.Zhuravlev (investigator of the Tunguska explosion), and others. The Advisory Board comprehends also a group of well-known Western scientists, scholars and engineers - V.-J.Ballester Olmos (Spain), Dr. T.E.Bullard (USA), Dr. R.F.Haines (USA), Dr. A.Meessen (Belgium), et al. The institute publishes its newsletter - "RIAP Bulletin" (RB) - in the English language. There appear in RB research articles, short communications, book reviews, letters to the Editor, etc. RB Vol. 1, Nos. 1 - 4 and Vol. 2, Nos. 1 - 4 have been printed and sent to subscribers. They contain, in particular, the papers "Post-Soviet Ufology: a View from Inside" and "Alternative Science?" by V.V.Rubtsov; "UFOs as Objects of Study by Terrestrial Physics" by V.A.Buerakov; "Astrodynamical Aspect of Paleovisitology" and "UFOs on the Moon" by A.V.Arkhipov; "UFOs: a Possible Mechanism of Formation, Behavior and Environmental Impact" by V.I.Mazhuga; "The Petrozavodsk Phenomenon", by Dr. L.M.Gindilis & Yu.K.Kolpakov; "A Second UFO Landing on the River Mzha", by a group of RIAP scientists, and others. We have also published the first really comprehensive survey of anomalous features of the famous Tunguska explosion ("The Tunguska Meteorite: A Dead-Lock or the Start of a New Stage of Inquiry?"), written by the leading Russian specialist in this problem - Dr. Nikolay V. Vasilyev, Member of Academy. There will appear in the next RB issues, in particular, the following papers: "The Black Ball: a Supposed Extraterrestrial Artifact", by Dr. V.N.Fomenko; "New Data on Genetic Impact by the Tunguska Space Body", by N.V.Vasilyev; "UFOs: False and Genuine", by the Russian academic UFO expert Dr. Yu.V.Platov; "Supposed UFO Landing in Zaporozhye, July 23, 1994," by Yu.A.Novikov, and many others. RIAP Bulletin is published four times per year. Subscription rates: a life-long subscription - $100; 12 issues (three years) - $50; 8 issues (two years) - $35; 4 issues (one year) - $20. Airmail postage included. Back issues are still available in limited quantities ($5 per issue, $30 for the whole set). Institute mailing address: RIAP, P.O.Box 4684, 310022 Kharkov- 22, Ukraine. Internet e-mail address: vladimir neuro.kharkov.ua RIAP Scientific Council ==================== From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 10:32:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11559; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:25:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:25:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971120132119.006a2138 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:21:19 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Corrections to Jed Rothwell -- Part III Cc: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199711201008_MC2-28E6-F62F compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"yQNFr3.0.Qq2.X28Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13088 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:05 AM 11/20/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Mitchell Swartz keeps diverting the discussion into personal attacks on me This is NOT TRUE. Have only corrected some mass flow equations which Mr. Rothwell interprets as an "attack on (him)". Also, thereafter only attempted to correct the less than accurate statements which Jed Rothwell made, which he has also thereafter inferred as a personal attack. Even augmenting flea-bite information yields Jed's ad hominems. Enough already. Mr. Rothwell brought this up himself, and misstated WHAT the hypothesis was about. Every time he is corrected, and questions are posed, Jed disappears for weeks, and then emerges with the same BS. It is nearly impossible to respond to his effervescent cacophony fully and in detail except to note my posts have only attempted to get answers, and data. Thought that was the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ================================================================ >"He claimed that *I* did not calibrate the Cravens calorimeter. I did not >touch the thing. Cravens built it, operated it and calibrated it. " This is not true. My discussion, and papers, and hypothesis, and suggestions concerned VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRY, and have nothing to do with our friend from Georgia. Not even sure that Jed was mentioned in any of the papers. They are science papers. They involve equations. They involve calibrations. They refer to the fact that some equations are SIMPLIFICATIONS. Jed's response has been to attack the messenger. It would be more fruitful for Jed to examine the equations, derive them himself, and argue persuasively by numerical analysis, or logical analysis. ================================================================ >"Swartz should not repeatedly claim this >was my experiment, and I did not calibrate, or I did not do this or that or >the other. I have corrected him on this TIME AFTER TIME" This is NOT TRUE. What was stated was the VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRIC systems, for low flow, may have a problem under certain conditions. The issue is not Jed, but the CALORIMETRY. ================================================================ >"Swartz also keeps insisting that I am deliberately posting misinformation; >that I have not done my homework; or that I should master obscure fields of >science which I make no claim to knowing; or I am making up claims, even after >I post bona fide authoritative sources." This was not said, and it is obnoxious for Mr Rothwell to state this. Suggesting people read the literature more is something we all should practice. All the time. BTW studying everything one can learn about a disease such as plague or (better yet) tuberculosis, will take a student/researcher through nearly all of medicine and biomedical engineering. It is an OPPORTUNITY. Too bad to Jed it is sour grapes rather than a cornucopia. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 10:45:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10100; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:39:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:39:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:39:14 -0800 Message-Id: <199711201839.KAA16126 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Shield? Re: Anti grav test at NASA? Resent-Message-ID: <"vUDvm.0.jT2.YF8Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13089 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > And just for clarification, the device we are trying to replicate is >not an anti-gravity device; it is a gravity shielding device. This >might seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is important. If an >opaque material blocks light, is it then a 'anti-light device'? ;^} > So are you placing the device below the objects you are weighing, or above? ie, where do you think the source of the gravitational effect is coming from, Earth below, or deep space above? Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 10:49:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14854; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:46:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:46:21 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:45:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971120134505_1793451101 mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"PUfkf2.0.0e3.wL8Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13091 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a response to Larry Wharton, Vince Cockeram wrote (on Nov. 18): "When hydrogen is admitted the total heat out goes up.(Some kind of reaction occurs which does not occur with the admission of helium or pumping to a high vacuum) That, to me, is the bottom line here." I agree with Vince's bottom line, and I think that any objective observer would, too. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 10:49:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10985; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:45:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:45:37 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:45:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971120134500_106272093 mrin45.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Takahashi scooter Resent-Message-ID: <"CPX642.0.Zh2.FL8Tq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13090 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: When Takahashi started peddling his scooter, he may have been able to fool people with a new kind of powerful magnet, which used a new alloy containing neodymium. It took a while for word of the new magnets to get around. If Takahashi was one of the first to find out about them, then he may have had a window of opportunity to portray himself as an electromagnetic wizard. Samuel Ting, Nobel laureate in physics, was inspired by the new type of magnet to go ahead with a new project, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (to be mounted on the International Space Station). The catalyst for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer was a visit by Ting to the Institute of Electrical Engineering, of the Chinese Academy of Science, in Beijing in 1994. Ting had thought that he couldn't find magnets powerful and light enough for space; but he found that the Chinese had developed extraordinary magnets made of a new alloy of iron and boron and neodymium. China had a near monopoly on neodymium. See an article about some new projects in Science, Vol. 271 (12 January 1996), at p. 144, col. 1, by our old friend Gary Taubes. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 11:05:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16063; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:53:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:53:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:51:53 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711201851.MAA05217 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: A & Z & G To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: rgeorge hooked.net Resent-Message-ID: <"aRjgk1.0.tw3.PS8Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13092 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: November 20, 1997 To Vortex: There has been some conversation betweem Mike Carrel and Rich Murray about Arata & Zhang and a mention of Russ George. Suffice to say here that indeed Arata, Zhang, and George has been working together, as Mike Carrel said, to confirm each other's results. Arata & Zhang has been working with their DS-cathode, electrochemical cell. Russ George has been working with his 'Sonofusion' technology. Now they have been acquainting and working with each other's devices and mutually working together on their respective technologies. Arata & Zhang and George's respective processes and resultant excess heat and commensurate nuclear ash has been confirmed. A&Z confirmed George's nuclear ash and both of their ash products has been confirmed by a U.S. national laboratory. Furthur confirmation and development work is being planned for other laboratories to participate, collaborate, and develop the technologies together. Within the limited capital and manpower resources available to them initially, Russ George and Arata & Zhang are moving foward on a collaborative, cooperative basis. Arata recognizes Russ George's technology as the faster method. He intends to formally recommend to the(his) nation that Russ George's technology be adopted and furthur developed. This recommendation is going to be made to the various agencies that have invited him to present his/their work to them. A paper on their experiments and results are in process for submittal for publication. Mike Carrel Wrote: >Arata is, I believe, professor emeritus and so would not be listed as >current staff. The report in question was not published by Osaka >University, nor was the work done under its auspices, to my knowledge. >Russ George is working with Arata and he indicates that the resources >dedicated to this particular work are meager. I believe that the >building in which the institute is housed has Arata's name on it. The rumour that Zhang, The Younger, is doing all the work seems to be very much contradicted by Russ George's experience with Arata, the active demanding perfectionist. Arata 'works his butt off every day', is the analyst and number cruncher, sans much dependance on computers. Whatever 'hands on' work that there are, is not intensively demanding. Arata may be emeritus but he is into the collaboration with Russ George wholehartedly, intensively, and with conviction. Arata also has the cooperation and support of Osaka University albeit limited financially. It seems positive things are actively afoot. What am I in all this? I am the peanut-gallery cheering section for cf in general and specifically for palladium. Russ George has a website that is instructive of his current efforts (pre-Arata). Arata has his publication out for work he has done so far. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 11:48:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24002; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:45:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:45:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:23:27 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Corrections to . . . part III Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711201443_MC2-28F3-9534 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"r7I2h.0.xs5.HD9Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13093 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A To: Vortex; >INTERNET:mica world.std.com This is tiresome. I promise I will drop the subject, but I cannot let this nonsense pass. Swartz claims, over and over again, that *I* did not calibrate the Cravens calorimeter. Now he has the gall to deny that is what he said: This is not true. My discussion, and papers, and hypothesis, and suggestions concerned VERTICAL FLOW CALORIMETRY, and have nothing to do with our friend from Georgia. Not even sure that Jed was mentioned in any of the papers. . . . Nobody is talking about papers. Right here on this forum, on 17-Nov-97 13:55 EST, in the message "Proposal for a new scientific society," and on many previous occasions, Swartz wrote: Mr. Rothwell DOES NOT WANT to calibrate HIS vertical flow calorimetry because it amplifies the purported output. As a barker, rather than a scientist, Mr. Rothwell prefers the pseudo-large measurement that results from his failure to calibrate. Milliwatt-watt signals become "kilowatts". That must refer to the Cravens calorimeter. Nobody else has observed kilowatts. He claims I did not calibrate the Cravens calorimeter, which is true enough. I didn't; Cravens did. I suppose Swartz also claims that I did not calibrate the experiments that I personally worked on. That isn't true either; I always publish calibration curves and extensive descriptions of the work. Mr. Rothwell brought this up himself, and misstated WHAT the hypothesis was about. Every time he is corrected, and questions are posed, Jed disappears for weeks . . . No, I do not disappear. I point out that the effect is not seen during calibration. I ask for experimental proof: data from a flow calorimeter turned on its side. Swartz never does an experiment and he never addresses the fact McKubre, Cravens and I see no amplification during calibration. So the debate goes nowhere. I have no idea what the hypothesis is about and I am sure I would not understand the math. I would not attempt to read it. I say, and McKubre and everyone else says, that the experimental evidence alone proves the hypothesis must be wrong, because it predicts an error where no error is seen. We don't need to look at the math or derive equations. Swartz stated right here that he predicts as 1-watt error in McKubre's calorimeter and kilowatt errors in Cravens. The prediction fails, the hypothesis must be wrong. If Swartz does not want to discuss the calibration data and he will not explain why these errors are never detected, we have nothing to talk about. I will not address the issue again, unless he starts nattering on about it too much. Personally, I think the "sideways hypothesis" is bunk. I think it is a club that Swartz drags out to bludgeon his rivals. Maybe he is jealous. Maybe he is planning some kind of patent war, like CETI's clever attack that ruined Pons and Fleischmann's chance of getting a patent. They probably ruined their own prospects as well -- how clever! Swartz wants to spread confusion and doubts about other CF scientists, so that people will think that he alone is making significant contributions to the field. I think it is a political ploy like the bogus "entrainment" hypothesis the NHE hands reporters during press conferences. The NHE wants people to think Pons and Fleischmann's calorimetry does not work. They know damn well that entrainment cannot explain the results at IMRA or the French AEC. Swartz probably knows his sideways hypothesis is bunk. I presume that is why he refuses to spend a few hours testing it, by turning a flow calorimeter on its side. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 12:16:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26992; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:09:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:09:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:08:36 -0800 Message-Id: <199711202008.MAA23932 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: ROSS HELP:) Re: Beauty and the Machine Resent-Message-ID: <"Uuttb.0.ab6.pZ9Tq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13094 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Well, as you guessed, I don't read most of the email that comes in as 60 or so emails per day is a bit much. I check the titles first to look for private vs junkmail vs vortex messages and then select the ones that seem interesting to furthering my and others, understanding of the goings on at the sub atomic to the cosmic. >On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 MFergerson aol.com wrote: > >> Steve, you wrote: > >>>'thought-form:' is your X-Energy = to Ross' Soliton Aether? in > >>>attached depleted/clumped for connectivity (memory) or your knowing > >>>were it *needs* to go? (through the mirror). Slinkies (Coil-Toy) have an > >>>'appearance' of memory for were it wants to go, however the above doesn't > >>>seem to explain the concentration of 'the coil' (tight), nor the edges and > >>>the coils passing of X-energy to a next(?) (fully stretched) coil. Looks > >>>good though for all reactions within/between its ends. (wave). HMMM? I haven't followed the X-Energy, so cannot comment on that notion. As for my aether, it is actually quite simple. So simple in fact that most people fail to even grasp it because they are too used to complicated things like particles and forces. To me, the entire universe is an ocean of aether, period. There are no other substances anywhere, none. Everything you have ever seen, touched, smelled, thought, heard, remembered are the result of aether in motion in particular ways. Most people have seen a pot of water that has some vibrational energy buzzing it. And a lot of people have seen how the surface of the water can break into an organized dimpled structure. Waves on the ocean organize like this and many chemical reactions lead to the formation of regular patterns. When you work around computers, or alarm systems, high frequency sound energy often is in the air. It is often possible to move your head around slightly, and your ear will hear that high pitched sound when your head is in one position, but when you move slightly, the sound goes away. Then, if you move your head back again, the sound is there again. In other words, there is a 3+1 dimensional node of acoustic energy in the air near your ear. That is like a sort of spherical node in the air, where the acoustic energy of the source is constructively interfering with reflections from the walls floor, ceiling, etc. So when you position your ear in that node, the holographic (or phased array) interference pattern is constructive, and you hear a large amplitude sound located in a node in your room. So, for me, the entire universe came out of a huge explosion called the big bang. What that was, was an event where highly dense aether escaped its inertial confinement inside of the event horizon of a huge, universe sized black hole. Effectively, the aether was boiling from a dense, condensate condition to the lower density vapor condition of what we call "empty space" today. That set up acoustic energy bouncing all around just like in your room. The reflections, though, were from what in electronics are called impedance discontinuities. In optics we call them graduated index of refraction in the optical fiber industry. In other words, a change in the acoustic propogation velocity leads to reflections of that wave energy, and acts sort of like a mirror to reflect the wave energy of the boiling process as the huge ball of, yes, aether, is expanding to form our universe. The reflections, taken as a whole, formed into what we call, spacetime. The last remaining droplets of the high density state that got trapped in some of those nodes became what we call "particles" today. The wave structure around those particles, is essentially spherical close in, and then like an Escher painting, it transitions to the more cubic sort of structure of spacetime far away. The scale at which the amplitude, or intensity, of the spherical wave energy is equal to the cubic geometry of the spacetime topology for a nucleus of an atom is called the diameter of the nucleus at about E-15 meters, while the spacetime nodes and the innermost droplets of remaining aether condensate reside at the Planck scale at E-35 meters. So the Escher like transition takes 20 orders of magnitude. Look up "Light Bullets Home Page" on a search engine for some images of solitons and discussion on behaviors of non linear mediums. The aether is non linear, meaning that the sound speed is not directly related to the density. This allows a build up in energy density. Actually, this is not unlike the build up in gamma energy in nuclear reactor shielding that can manifest if the power levels are increased or rise too high. So hopefully that removes a little more of your ignorance of my aether. :-) >Hopefully Ross will read this :) Ross in the header will always work! I don't read lots of the email that runs through my computer, too many messages, too little time. > > ROSS, do you have a URL? > or suggested url for above? Not yet. But, I hope to put one up when I get enough of the images we are making for the book. The first things up will deal with black hole structures and aether motions such as the flow that heads out of stars. You see, there is one key element in my theory which differs from all other theories I have ever read, whacko or otherwise. The difference is, I have a rule number 1 for the behavior of the universe. This rule is; Aether is conserved in all interactions. This is seemingly innocuous, but when you work with solitons, the property of a soliton that corresponds to "mass" is the amount of aether confined in that wave structure. So, when you demand the conservation of aether, you simultaneously demand the conservation of mass, and that what we call empty space must be massive. The problem with that supposition is that we have stars in our universe, and the supposition directly states, in other words, "Empty space must be flowing out of stars". Today's physicists get away without expecting that because mass is not supposed to be conserved, and, because empty space is supposed to be empty. But that notion is so silly it makes me laugh. If I place a ball in a patch of empty space in our solar system, fixed relative to the distant stars in our galaxy (ie, fixed relative to the sun and nearby co-moving stars in our galaxy), but near the orbit of earth. Then I can study the behavior of that patch of space and objects in that patch of space relative to the fixed stars. Without the earth nearby, objects experience a certain acceleration due to the sun. But when the earth flies past, objects experience a changing acceleration. But are there strings attached to the earth? No. So there is some property of that patch of empty space that is changing. That demands that there is some substantive quality to that patch of empty space. Ergo, you cannot hide from the fact that you need for there to be something there to "change". What is changing, by the way, is the geometry of the spacetime nodes due to the wave energy being emitted by the earth, which acts as a filter to red shifted wave energy arriving from the distant universe. Matter acts like a band pass filter, with the local spacetime frequency being the frequency to which the soliton oscillations are coupled. But the beauty of the first rule above which leads to the conservation of mass, (and the manner in which I may actually be able to prove my theory to the establishment), is due to the fact that the flow of aether leads to a spacetime curvature. ie, the acoustic nodes are stretched down stream by the flow. They don't blow away! Try to imagine some acoustic nodes in a wind tunnel to understand this. They will just be shifted downstream slightly and that leads to the same effect as what we call spacetime curvature. So, what do you suppose would happen if you have a huge cloud, with no aether emission headed outward, and then all of a sudden the conditions change because the interior core of that huge massive cloud ignites fusion reactions? Well, you suddenly transition from no aether flow and no spacetime curvature, to aether flow and spacetime curvature along the path of that flow. But we now must consider the path of least resistance to that flow. It will head out of the oblate spheroid along the axis of rotation. And so what should we expect? Well, we went from a condition of no anamolous thrust along that line, to a condition of "some" anamolous thrust along that line. And so we should expect to find some matter being accelerated along that line in an anamolous manner. What do we find? 2 light year long jets of cold matter, anamolously shot out of stars. Hubble has made several beautiful images of that process, and the stars are called T-tauri stars. They are new borns and only emit those jets for a short time. After that, we should expect that the star would come to a rolling boil with aether flowing out everywhere as the star becomes fluidized. And so what is the next stage of stellar evolution? Flare stars. These guys suddenly break the surface with huge churning flaring behavior and change in brightness in a matter of hours to days, suddenly, as they enter the main sequence of stellar evolution. > >Admittadly, I have no idea on HIS standings with the X-energy waves being >discussed here, but, both have strikingly similar characteristics. [IF] >the addition of mind/xxx../or/..4th.5th..xxdimension(s) can concentrate >within their boundries, then the two would/could be one and the same. >(of infinite-dimensional Hamiltonian systems) > Ross' Aether theory explains very simply (once you grasp it) pretty much >everything from a Black-Hole / White hole, down to exothermic sun >emmissions (aether). And everything under the sun at that point! :) > As for X-energy waves, I don't know what geometry you use for these or what originates them or what they are intended to represent. As for mind, thought, memory, these are all wave structures. The matter in the brain is akin to the tip of a tornado where it touches the ground. What we think of as "matter" is the convergence, of a very huge standing wave. So just as the tip of the tornado is not moving under its own power, and is instead being forced to wobble this way and that by the air converging into the vortex from hundreds of miles around in the case of that standing wave, so too is the same thing happening to get a single atom to "quantum mechanically" bounce around in a seemingly bizarre manner. The way matter bounces around is really not mysterious at all. I could tell you that dust particles are mysterious because when you look at them under a microscope suspended in water, they bounce all around all on their own. But we all know that their motion is due to the Brownian interaction with the "real" water molecules. An electron is no different. It is in an ocean of aether, and it is the turbulence in that aether that is causing its unpredictability. If fact, I will wager that in the future, working with BEC's, we learn how to improve on the predicted uncertainty prescribed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. The reason is because all of that matter is filtering out some of the incident waves that are the cause of the unpredictibility of material particles, just like the air converging into a tornado is responsible for the unpredictability of the path of the tip wreaking havoc on the ground. There is no mystery here at all. The only mystery is artificial, and it is caused by our ignorance of the true nature of matter. By thinking that matter is made of particles, we assign omnipotence to them. They are the seat of "fields" and spacetime is a mathematical metric, and on and on. The instant you let go of that thinking, you realize that spacetime is turbulent, and thus that solitons will be tossed this way and that. But you also come to realize that there are no solitons that exist independent of the balance of the universe. So when the neural net in our brain forms a thought, what is really happening is that the wave energy sent out from my brain, is interacting for many light seconds out into the surrounding cosmos with wave energy sent out by all other matter, and all other thinking beings brains. And the non linear interactions lead to some of that energy returning to the source, after being processed. The return wave energy, *is* the next thought in your head. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 12:55:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA03728; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:46:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:46:47 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711201008_MC2-28E6-F62F compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:46:48 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: [Off topic] Personal attacks and SPAM Resent-Message-ID: <"hXgfX3.0.9w.r6ATq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13095 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed wrote: Dittos the crossposting of Blue and ilk. I quit the "science" forum on Compuserve (I merely sulked away, whereas you received the vastly more dignified honor of being thrown out by the Sysop) to avoid having to pick through techno-spam, or ideo-spam, or whatever you want to call it. It's not worth the time. If others want to raise issues they bring up, then why can't they make those arguments in their own words, and support it with appropriately sized quotes from the original spam-oid? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 14:19:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03511; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:14:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:14:27 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971120160108.00756388 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:01:08 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A & Z & G In-Reply-To: <199711201851.MAA05217 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"fbqhJ.0.ns.2PBTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13096 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:51 11/20/97 -0600, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > Arata & Zhang and George's respective processes and resultant >excess heat...has been confirmed. Aki this implies that A&Z have confirmed George's excess heat. Has that actually happened yet...or is it just planned? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 14:53:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28213; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:39:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:39:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971120173529.006b4ce8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:35:29 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Corrections to Misstatement made by Jed Rothwell ... Part V In-Reply-To: <199711201443_MC2-28F3-9534 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"dvycb1.0.lu6.nmBTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13097 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:23 PM 11/20/97 -0500, Jed continues on: > Jed: "Swartz wants to spread confusion and doubts > about other CF scientists, so that people will think that he > alone is making significant contributions to the field." As usual, Jed's precision (reproducibility) appears to be greater than his accuracy. First, semiquantitative corrections and noise analysis are appreciated by real scientists and engineers. To Mr. Rothwell, calibrations, equations, and the like spread "confusion" and "doubt". They do not. They strength the validity of the experiments. I am sorry if discussing the science bothers Jed. However, noise analysis and improvements in technique and analysis work to eliminate doubt and confusion. Second, several of my publications list many who have contributed in the field. Recently, Richard Murray took me to task for my choice of the first eight or so references in one paper he reviewed. Now opinions of the papers may differ, but the number of references which I did cite in my paper do show Jed's statement to be silly at best, and simple not based upon fact. Third, as editor of the COLD FUSION TIMES THE OLDEST COLD FUSION JOURNAL DEVOTED SOLELY TO THE LOADING OF ISOTOPIC FUELS INTO GROUP VIII METALS http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html which reports world-wide results of cold fusion, this appears to be yet another low wattage statement by Jed which is at variance with the facts. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 15:00:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11242; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:49:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:49:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:49:38 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ROSS HELP:) Re: Beauty and the Machine In-Reply-To: <199711202008.MAA23932 Au.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VV30F1.0.Ul2.6wBTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13098 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: >>>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 MFergerson aol.com wrote: >>> >> Steve, you wrote: Thanks Ross, It's always best from the original source. Looking foward to your book_(s) :) -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 15:12:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02911; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:04:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:04:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3474B3D4.7E20 earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:04:04 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, wireless rmii.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege fnal.gov, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.edu, shellied sage.dri.edu, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.edu, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb aol.com, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris@acs.tamu.edu, nick7@itl.net Subject: Polarized dialogue possible? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xp3CW.0.Oj.x7CTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13099 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Nov. 20, 1997 Dear all, Jed Rothwell and Rick Monteverde are angry that I have been forwarding posts to Vortex-L from sci.physics.fusion by Blue, Schultz, Droege, and Britz. I've been doing this when in my opinion such posts are of some scientific merit, even if biased toward a critical stance, and if their tone is reasonably civil. I would hesitate to forward a post that referred to someone as a "harmless crank" or "crackpot", as Jed recently termed Greg Watson, and I feel Blue's term, "Cold Fusion Lie #10" is barely acceptible. For instance, Britz recently both criticized and praised the long report by Arata & Zhang. To my mind, any praise by a committed critic is to be deemed very good praise indeed. Blue and Schultz have evidently found the concepts of lattice facilitation of nuclear reactions, and related topics, such as the relevance of the Mossbauer effect, to be at least worth discussing, and their posts have elicited from Swartz, for instance, an interesting post that the Mossbauer effect can be pretty much derived from classical electromagnetism, maybe. Spaandonk has also joined this dialogue. The cold fusion field needs this level of civil, intelligent, and polarized dialogue in order to progress. Otherwise we run the risk of turning into a swamp of insular speculations and poorly founded stories, like the various UFO communities, or Biblical geologists. Now, after a year of reviewing cold fusion reports in detail, I've evolved perforce into a pragmatic skeptic: I've found such great deficiencies in so many heralded reports, that I assume that some artifact is operating in the ones I can't find specific fault with, like Bush's skimpy report in Infinite Energy #12 on the cell seen by Huizenga last Feb. 28. Barry Merriman and Scott Little and others with the Order of the Tortoise have this week humorously expressed the dilemmas of those who are not yet convinced by the overall quality of the evidence. Those who are absolutely convinced cannot understand this position, and feel threatened by its very existence in members of the brotherhood. Yet Jed himself on Nov. 18 commented about Ed Storm's sorting out of viable samples of Pd: "As I understand it, with reasonably good palladium, 1 out 20 samples passes the triage tests, and of that winnowed-out sample, about half work." If Blue said that after nine years, an eminent CF expert can get only 1 out of 40 samples of "reasonably good" Pd to generate excess heat, would this be accepted as an impartial assessment, civily stated? Storms is working with the paradigm system of cold fusion research, palladium in heavy water, and is one of our elder statesmen. What newcomer, attracted to this field, would want to risk replicating an experiment with 39 chances out of 40 of failure? Why should it be surprising that cold fusion is not widely accepted as proven to exist? Nine years, a large fraction of life, is a long time to be living with frustrated faith. It is no wonder that signs of tension and defensiveness show up. What's the worst that can happen? Cold fusion turns out to be a dead end in fact, after all, no one to blaim? No low energy nuclear reactions, no biological transmutations? Maybe we have to get by on zillions of wind turbines and advanced fuel cells and solar cells? Space travel continues to be very expensive? Won't there still be an amazing exponential exploration of other yet barely dreamed possibilities? Who before 1960 predicted the very computers we use, or imagined the actual creativity of the world Net? I welcome any comments by the community. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 15:13:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15689; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:06:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:06:31 -0800 From: Geosas aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:05:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971120180553_446965985 mrin38> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Resent-Message-ID: <"2aGOW2.0.0r3.r9CTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13100 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard Blue has stated categorically that there ain't no such thing as neutrons from arc welders. Allow me to describe some experiments which I have carried out recently. I took a standard arc welder and rods and made large welds on some scrap steel, old farm gate hinges. I did not knock off the slag, and allowed the welds to cool naturally. I then placed the alpha window of a Geiger counter over the weld and logged the counts/min. over a period of several days. This experiment has now been done 5 times with similar results in each case. I certainly kept the counter well out of the way during the actual welding. The type used was an RM-80 from Aware Electronics (see www.aw-el.com for details), using the data logging software provided with it. Initially, the count rose to two to three times background, due obviously to the slight radioactivity of the flux on the rods. Thereafter, it rose by a further 20 - 30% over the next few days, tending to a limit exponentially with a time constant of about 100 hours. Perhaps Blue can explain why the radioactivity from a weld can change in this way. I am not able to state the type of radiation. Adding some medicinal borax powder while welding seemed to enhance the effect. Of course with the slag still present on the weld, derived from the radioactive flux, there will be some radiation observed, but why the change? George. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 15:47:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21458; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:36:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:36:16 -0800 From: Joe Kaas Message-Id: <199711202336.RAA07607 jupiter.igi.com> Subject: Rich's request for input on reposting. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:35:59 CST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.2] Resent-Message-ID: <"_93Zt3.0.CF5.kbCTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13101 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have to agree with Jed. I also lurk in SPF and find it anoying to have to skip over the same junk in email as well. I think it is a waste of bandwidth since anyone can go the the SPF news group and look at the original. JOE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 15:52:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA22880; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:43:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:43:36 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971120174318.ZM17709 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:43:18 -0600 In-Reply-To: Rich Murray "Polarized dialogue possible?" (Nov 20, 5:06pm) References: <3474B3D4.7E20 earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarized dialogue possible? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Rht_52.0.Lb5.diCTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13102 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Nov 20, 5:06pm, Rich Murray wrote: > Dear all, Jed Rothwell and Rick Monteverde are angry that I have been > forwarding posts to Vortex-L from sci.physics.fusion ...... They are not alone. PLEASE STOP CROSS-POSTING ALREADY. People that are interested in what Blue & company have to say are already subscribed to sci.physics.fusion and do not need you to forward the messages. The fact that your targeted audience isn't subscribed should tell you something. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 16:02:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24455; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:52:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:52:35 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: A & Z & G Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:50:02 -0500 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: <19971120235617479.AAB198 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"07U4t1.0._z5.1rCTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13103 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Akira, I'm very pleased with the information in your post. I'm also in the peanut gallery cheering the good guys on and taking occasional swats at people like Murray. I'm interested in prospects toward product development and it looks like George might be a winner. He tells me that the expendable in his cell is D, not Pd. I'm not sure how fussy he is about target materials. With the P&F cells, much seems to depend on the right material, which nobody knows how to specify, except to start with an expensive J&M catalog item. I think George's cell is a lot less fussy. I think the Patterson beads are a bumpy way to a product (small bumps, but bumpy nonetheless :-)). Can you identify the "national laboratory" that verified nuclear ash in both Arata and George targets? George intimated to me that an important announcement is forthcoming. Regards, Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Akira Kawasaki > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Cc: rgeorge hooked.net > Subject: A & Z & G > Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 1:51 PM > > November 20, 1997 > > To Vortex: > > There has been some conversation betweem Mike Carrel and Rich Murray > about Arata & Zhang and a mention of Russ George. > > Suffice to say here that indeed Arata, Zhang, and George has > been working together, as Mike Carrel said, to confirm each other's > results. > > Arata & Zhang has been working with their DS-cathode, > electrochemical cell. Russ George has been working with his > 'Sonofusion' technology. Now they have been acquainting and working > with each other's devices and mutually working together on their > respective technologies. > > Arata & Zhang and George's respective processes and resultant > excess heat and commensurate nuclear ash has been confirmed. A&Z > confirmed George's nuclear ash and both of their ash products has been > confirmed by a U.S. national laboratory. Furthur confirmation and > development work is being planned for other laboratories to > participate, collaborate, and develop the technologies together. > > Within the limited capital and manpower resources available to them > initially, Russ George and Arata & Zhang are moving foward on a > collaborative, cooperative basis. > > Arata recognizes Russ George's technology as the faster method. He > intends to formally recommend to the(his) nation that Russ George's > technology be adopted and furthur developed. This recommendation is > going to be made to the various agencies that have invited him to > present his/their work to them. > > A paper on their experiments and results are in process for > submittal for publication. > > Mike Carrel Wrote: > >Arata is, I believe, professor emeritus and so would not be listed as > >current staff. The report in question was not published by Osaka > >University, nor was the work done under its auspices, to my knowledge. > > >Russ George is working with Arata and he indicates that the resources > >dedicated to this particular work are meager. I believe that the > >building in which the institute is housed has Arata's name on it. > > The rumour that Zhang, The Younger, is doing all the work seems to > be very much contradicted by Russ George's experience with Arata, the > active demanding perfectionist. Arata 'works his butt off every day', > is the analyst and number cruncher, sans much dependance on computers. > Whatever 'hands on' work that there are, is not intensively demanding. > > Arata may be emeritus but he is into the collaboration with Russ > George wholehartedly, intensively, and with conviction. Arata also has > the cooperation and support of Osaka University albeit limited > financially. > > It seems positive things are actively afoot. > > What am I in all this? I am the peanut-gallery cheering section for > cf in general and specifically for palladium. > > Russ George has a website that is instructive of his current > efforts (pre-Arata). Arata has his publication out for work he has done > so far. > > -AK- > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 18:23:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA05231; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:18:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:18:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:16:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711210216.UAA08132 dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: A & Z & G To: Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"e86v73.0.bH1.NzETq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13104 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: November 20, 1997 Mike, you wrote: > >Can you identify the "national laboratory" that verified nuclear ash >in both Arata and George targets? George intimated to me that an >important announcement is forthcoming. I am sure Russ will identify the laboratory soon. He mentioned some abbreviated letters but I'd rather be sure and let it come from him. I did clear this post with Russ prior to release here on the Vortex so the reference to a 'national laboratory' is not a figment of my omagionation. Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 19:02:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA10734; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:54:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:54:32 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Submersed Hot-Wire Experiment (A Fuse) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:51:11 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf628$53a9e860$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Sn_a21.0.ed2.cVFTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13105 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Running a current through a nichrome, nickel, or palladium wire while it is submersed in water might be of interest. A short piece of glass or metal tubing fitted with a cork a each end with a hole large enough to carry a 1/4" diameter current feed-thru would be suitable.These would supply current to about a 1" length of the wire to be heated by pulse or continuous current. 30 gauge (0.0103" dia)or 36 gauge (0.005" dia) wires would be of interest. ohms/inch (room temp) Gauge Nichrome Nickel 30 0.5625 0.039 36 2.25 0.157 The thought is that these might produce the equivalent of a sonoluminescent bubble and display a blue-white light that would be visible to the dark-adapted eye or a telescope-prism set up as a crude spectrometer with the aide of some color film. Dumping a capacitor through these, once it is established that they are not acting as an electrical fuse, might help things along. Right, Frank S? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 19:05:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25958; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:01:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:01:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:00:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711210300.VAA16204 dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: A & Z & G To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: little eden.com Resent-Message-ID: <"O8oiJ1.0.QL6.JcFTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13106 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: November 20, 1997 Scott, you wrote: >Aki this implies that A&Z have confirmed George's excess heat. Has >that actually happened yet...or is it just planned? The ash of a sample was confirmed initially. Then running of another (ordered by Arata) of Russ's setup delivered to Japan has occurred with excess heat, right along with ash confirmation. Arata's quadrapole mass spectrometer system was used, as adapted, to Russ's setup. Remember, I am just the peanut gallery. Best if you hear from the man on the stage himself, if he actually has the time to do so right now, meaning no offense. -Akira- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 20:00:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19891; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Rich Murray's Actions and Consequences Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:48:21 -0500 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: <19971121035555033.AAA118 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"2ERwg1.0.hs4.GMGTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13107 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have for some time concerned about the consequences of Rich Murray's posting his critiques to his audience of 40+ names. His critiques have themselves often contained serious errors and reached insupportable conclusions. Yet, because of their length and detail, they have a semblance of careful work and apparent credibility. The conclusions then get quoted as facts to other audiences. A specific illustration of this is contained in Rich's post of 11/19/97, "Fourth Arata errata and Carrell response and Britz post". To save bandwidth I will quote relevant statements, readers can look at the full text themselves. Rich: I am quoting this comment by Dieter Britz [db kemi.aau.dk] about the Arata & Zhang report, since it shows I am not alone or clearly incompetent in finding some faults in a long paper by an eminent, highly qualified scientist, that makes very important and controversial claims of excess energy with He-3 and He-4 production. Dieter Britz: And while the papers of Arata & Zhang are maybe full of internal contradiction and certainly written in a very messy style and a lot of detail is missing, I have not seen competent criticism of their very interesting mass spec results, where they found 4He and, more recently, 3He as well. This is the reverse Joe Blow effect: I had never heard of the pair before but their work has forced me to take notice. I thought this curious, so I asked Dieter where he got the ideas of "internal contradiction", "messy style" and "lot of details missing". Had he actually studied the paper? Dieter's reply: I have all A&Z papers, I think (hope), and got a real reprint of that long one. I am not sure which of my comments you are talking about, but to sum it up, I am impressed, but puzzled as a skeptic, by the mass spec stuff, and wish someone expert in MS would look at it; but I find the A&Z papers repetitive (talk about recycling!), confusing and lacking in important detail. I myself never did see any inconsistencies in them and I'll admit to citing Murray on that count, if that's what you mean...I do this stuff as a distinct sideline, being rather busy with real work, so I don't feel like taking the time to read all A&Z papers in that sort of detail. So: Dieter is a busy man, has all the A&Z papers, but hasn't studied them in detail. Taking his papers as a whole, Arata may be repetitive. It is not at all uncommon for academics to take a body of experiments and generate many papers from it, with slightly different emphasis, for different venues. It adds to the CV and citation list. Dieter saw no inconsistencies in them himself, but they must be there because Rich Murray said they were in his critique. Then Rich quotes Dieter as supporting his findings, when what actually happened was that Dieter accepted Rich's comments as facts. Smoke and Mirrors, gentlemen. Well known to mythmakers, propagandists, and disinformation artists. Plant misinformation and then quote it. Now note that the "some faults" Rich found were not trivial but included the pejorative and categorical rejection of the calorimetry data, and with it the relevance of the QMS data. Dieter himself "never did see any inconsistencies in them". I'm not saying that Rich Murray is being deliberately malicious in what he is doing. But I don't think he realizes the consequences of his actions as spreading misinformation. He has been symmetrical in posting my critiques to his audience. The trouble is that mine are painstaking and detailed, long reading for busy people. It is much easier to grab the pejorative conclusions and go with them. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 20:03:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21143; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:00:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:00:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:55:55 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Polarized dialogue possible? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711202258_MC2-28FC-96E1 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Gz5uZ3.0.DA5.RTGTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13108 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net Rich Murray writes: I would hesitate to forward a post that referred to someone as a "harmless crank" or "crackpot", as Jed recently termed Greg Watson . . . That's a cheap shot. Don't take my words out of context! That was a hypothetical statement. I said I will consider him those things at some future date if he does not deliver the SMOT machines. And after all, the man took my money, he is months late delivering, and he has not given me a new ship date or apologized for the delay. I'd be justified calling him a crook, here or anywhere. I said we should cut him some slack. I am being nice to him. Blue and Schultz have evidently found the concepts of lattice facilitation of nuclear reactions, and related topics, such as the relevance of the Mossbauer effect, to be at least worth discussing . . . Good. Let them post messages here if they want to. We ask that you refrain from doing so on their behalf. Look, Rich, think about it. What is the point of duplicating large sections of text from one forum to another? Why do you think we established the rule here asking people not to do that? It is like printing half the New York Times in the pages of "Seventeen" magazine. People organize different forums for different purposes and to express different points of view. We post messages in different groups to organize and categorize information. Blue does not want to post messages here. I do not want to post messages in his group. Republicans do not invite Democrats to give speeches at their convention. Ford does not advertise Chevy cars. Nobody is hurt. Nobody misses messages they want to see. People in the market for a new car are free to look at ads from Ford and Chevy. People who want to read all points of view about CF can subscribe to both groups. Subscriptions are free. The cold fusion field needs this level of civil, intelligent, and polarized dialogue in order to progress. I don't think so. None of the CF scientists I know thinks so. We think that Blue, Britz and you, for that matter, know nothing about the field, and you have nothing to contribute. As proof, I would point to your analysis that Britz praised. Mike Carrell showed that it was riddled with elementary mistakes, misunderstandings and blunders. You even thought the electrolyte circulates! If I posted anything with that many mistakes I would be mortified. I would withdraw from the field in shame. Scott Little praised you, but I think he has a double standard. He is mild and meek with "skeptics" who make terrible blunders, but he would never let me get away with it. If "intelligent dialog" means we have to tell you that no, the electrolyte does not circulate; yes, they do monitor the flow rate; yes, they did calibrate, and on and on, correcting mistake after mistake, then I say to heck with it. I don't have time. What you want is for Arata, Carrell and me to spoon feed you calorimetry, electrochem, and mass spectroscopy. You want every journal paper to be a tutorial. Forget it! Do your own homework. Why should Miley, Bockris or Arata do you favors and be civil with you, when you circulate absurd mistakes and gratuitous insults, and compare these people to blind Beethoven or what-have-you? Otherwise we run the risk of turning into a swamp of insular speculations and poorly founded stories. . . Only from people like you, who think that people do flow calorimetry without measuring the flow. Now, after a year of reviewing cold fusion reports in detail, I've evolved perforce into a pragmatic skeptic: I've found such great deficiencies in so many heralded reports . . . You have found nothing. You mixed up a 16% error with a 3% error in Miley's work. Carroll shot your analysis of Arata into shreds. You have raised dozens of nitpicking objections, but NOT ONE of them has survived analysis by Carroll, and before him I pointed out a dozen errors which you never responded to or corrected. If Blue said that after nine years, an eminent CF expert can get only 1 out of 40 samples of "reasonably good" Pd to generate excess heat, would this be accepted as an impartial assessment, civilly stated? No, it would be an absurd distortion of the truth. It would be making up numbers, and lying with statistics. And even if it were true, in many industries that success rate would make people jump for joy. At worst, it would mean we have to manufacture 4000 cathodes for every 100 in the final product. The rest of the precious metal would go back in the hopper to be remanufactured. So what? What newcomer, attracted to this field, would want to risk replicating an experiment with 39 chances out of 40 of failure? Any newcomer who would be afraid of that should stay away. It is a good litmus test. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 20 20:10:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06753; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:06:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:06:03 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971121115319.0073bab4 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:53:19 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Lamb Shift & zitterbewegung (ZPE) In-Reply-To: <3474774a.29371452 mail.eisa.net.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"NyMP53.0.If1.fYGTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13109 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >I was (perhaps wrongly) under the impression that the Lamb shift was >due to the magnetic field of the nucleus. Could you perhaps explain >how ZPE of the vacuum enters into this? G'day Robin, Was reading a book "The Enigmatic Electron" recently and thought that the following snippit might answer your question :- "The physical idea behind the Lamb shift is that the electron continually interacts with the background radiation field and is buffeted back and forth in space. It exhibits zitterbewegung motion. Thus is does not appear as a point charge, but rather as a charge that is smeared out in space over a distance that is comparable to the Compton wavelength of the electron ~4x10e-11cm. The S-state electrons, which pass very close to the atomic nucleus, have atomic Coulomb forces that are decreased due to this smearing out of the charge, so these electrons have weaker binding energies. The P-state electrons, on the other hand, have wave functions that vanish at the origin. These electrons never approach the nucleus, and their Coulomb potentials are essentially unaffected by the radiative recoils. Hence the S states are shifted upward in energy relative to the P states, in agreement with Pasternack's hypothesis." The section includes lots of refs but I guess you just wanted the basic idea. Where in Aussieland are you by the way. I am at UWA. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 02:01:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA03400; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:56:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:56:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3475773C.2B80 keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:57:48 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------76127D2C6315" Resent-Message-ID: <"XjE-W2.0.1r.2hLTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13110 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------76127D2C6315 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gnorts! What hath John S. wrought.......? --------------76127D2C6315 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <347576E6.72A0 keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:56:22 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Awesome PPM References: <01bcf686$e0a08cc0$a6dcdbcd john-bedini> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folks! Shane Hall found a site in Japan which has pictures of the Minato PPM and its variants....I left a note asking if they could provide a file or URL which would give construction details to build a self-running bicycle wheel version....the idea being if a lot of folks could build this and it works, it would set fire to imagination and draw major attention to their other devices which are claimed to actually put out excess power....check it out; http://japan.co.jp/stag/minphot.html pictures http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/curtis.htm text file 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 --------------76127D2C6315-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 02:40:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA06934; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:35:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:35:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3475807D.79AF keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:37:17 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Shareware for Inventions References: <199711162230.OAA01577 mail1.halcyon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"f-e7w1.0.Gi1.UFMTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13111 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! In an attempt to induce inventors with WORKING devices to share their information, I wrote a document which has recently been updated to show other ways they could make money from their discovery, even with a free release of information on how to build a working prototype. I would appreciate it if folks who are interested could check it out and email any additions, corrections or positive suggestions to improve it. Thanks!! -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 02:49:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA05869; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:38:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:38:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3475811C.1A89 keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:39:56 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Invention Shareware Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zbwvU2.0.bR1.WIMTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13112 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! Sorry, neglected to add the URL for the Shareware proposal... http://www.keelynet.com/share.htm In an attempt to induce inventors with WORKING devices to share their information, I wrote a document which has recently been updated to show other ways they could make money from their discovery, even with a free release of information on how to build a working prototype. I would appreciate it if folks who are interested could check it out and email any additions, corrections or positive suggestions to improve it. Thanks!! -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 03:15:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA11342; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:12:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:12:15 -0800 Message-Id: <199711211112.FAA07849 dsm7.dsmnet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: , vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:12:18 (-050 Subject: Re: JED - Back to Basics Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199711191756.JAA23018 mail1.halcyon.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"JcG5i3.0.8n2.EoMTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13113 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Fred, > From: "Fred Epps" > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:35:40 -0800 > According to the vast majority of psychic predictions (Cayce and Gordon > Michael Scallion come to mind) theses cataclysms should have already > happened. Nope. Cayce said the warmup period was from 1957 through 1997, so 1998 is the year his 'Earth Changes' start happening on a large scale. Scallion has been saying he wasn't sure when or how severe these changes would be -- up until about 2 months ago. Now he's expecting the first of the *noticable* major changes to occur next month, with much larger changes in 1998 and the following years. The volcano on Montserrat bears watching. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 03:59:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA14966; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:54:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:54:02 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Bubble Formation Mechanism? Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:51:02 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf673$be1a5540$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"u0Tpg2.0.cf3.PPNTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13114 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To:Vortex In the bubble chamber the liquid is heated above its boiling point (superheated)under pressure. When a charged particle enters the liquid, bubbles form along the particle path leaving a visible trail. This implies that the molecules of the liquid which possess an electrostatic polarization ie.,dipole moment are attracted to the charges freed by the passing particle and coalesce around it causing a void between this nucleation site and the surrounding liquid. This tends to be borne out with water charged with CO2 (or beer) where the CO3^2- and H+ ions can align and compress the water and form countless numbers of bubbles when the beer (or soda pop) bottles are opened, which in effect is letting a superheated H2O-CO2 mix expand as in the bubble chamber or the Wilson Cloud Chamber. >From this, it would seem that shaking and opening a bottle of warm beer would be as effective in creating sonoluminescence as a $10,000.00 Ultrasonic Generator. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 04:45:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA18785; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:39:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:39:00 -0800 Message-ID: <34757311.372C earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:40:01 -0600 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 Subject: No reposting repostes from sci.physics.fusion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"twtnP1.0.Rb4.Z3OTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13115 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 21, 1997 Dear all, In addition to Rothwell and Monteverde, Carrell, Steck, Little, Kaas, and Sevior prefer, with various degrees of vehemence, that I cease reposting full posts from sci.physics.fusion, and no one has wanted me to continue, so I will stop, but will of course sometimes follow Rothwell's reasonable suggestion that I take the extra time to extract or summarize any hidden gems in these posts. Despite acknowledged errors in my critiques, I have received much encouragement from competent players, and, naturally enough, I am confident that they are right on, including my nine critiques of Miley's work. Sevior is right in saying that reports are not required to answer in "forensic" detail. Cravens has pointed out that journals impose space limits. However, researchers can easily enough make available additional packets of supplemental information to be sent to those willing to wade through them. I still want the full data for seven of Arata & Zhang's eight runs, and I still want the before and after SIMS data for four of five of Miley's runs. The background information that I obviously need about typical instrumentation is equally needed by most scientists who take a few minutes of their time to consider cold fusion research: could introductory reviews about SIMS, QMS, etc, be posted on Logajan's or Merriman's sites? Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 04:53:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA19859; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:52:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 04:52:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3475E681.5050 itl.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:52:33 -0800 From: Nick Palmer X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FoE and CF References: <971119124728_-2041725016 mrin39> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ukity3.0.Cs4.0GOTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13116 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > > What examples are there of OU energy device inventors who attracted $10 > million in commercial sponsorshop? I actually said large sponsorship (by implication here, commercial means "to make money" . The history of OU/PMM is replete with examples of inventors taking plenty of money for "development" off investors who subsequently regretted it. It is happening today. We have only just heard unconfirmed stories that Takahashi has been defrauding people. Try looking at http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis4.html or http://www.chem.unsw.edu.au/staff/hibbert/perpetual/default.html > What official support has Patterson attracted? You more or less answer your own question in your message > But has that translated into any financial support or in-kind support >from any governmental agency for either the remediation or the energy >work? Jed would be more precise here than I. If you're on this forum, surely you must be familiar with this stuff? > (By the way, does FoE stand for Friends of the Earth?) Yes Nick Palmer - Media spokesman (change of job!) Jersey Friends of the Earth From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 05:27:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22509; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:23:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:23:14 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Scott Little's Vortex Test Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 06:20:18 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf680$361abce0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"7mgLQ3.0.dV5.1jOTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13117 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott's Yusmar experiment shown on the TV segment showed an open barrel where the air could readily mix with the circulating water. This would load the water with air (N2, O2, Ar) as well as CO2, and possibly inhibit the formation of the desired type of bubbles. >From the sonoluminescence information the air-CO2 concentration and water temperature is critical, and for some reason lower temperatures give better sonoluminescent bubbles. This may be due to a lower vapor pressure of water (20 mm Hg at 20 deg C, 4 mm Hg at 0 deg C) which would result in a longer collision mean free path MFP in the bubble. It would seem that a closed circulating system that could be pre-vacuumed and possibly pressurized with CO2 and/or inert gases would be desirable. On the other hand, the higher the temperature of the water the higher the concentration of H+ and OH- (autoionization) which would tend to nucleate bubbles, but, lowers the surface tension (59 dyne/cm at 100 C) thus "weaker" bubbles. Inorganic salts,(K2CO3 etc.) acids,(H2CO3) and bases (KOH) raise the surface tension,but require up to 30% by weight of some of these to increase from 75 dyne/cm to 100 dyne/cm. What I see in this, in comparison to the ultrasonic driver is the inability to control concentration of the energy that is required for triggering the creation of the sonoluminescent bubbles. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 05:38:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23047; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:28:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:28:47 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Polarized dialogue possible? Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:24:53 -0500 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: <19971121133153175.AAB244 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"HMOwl.0.0e5.CoOTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13119 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rich wrote: > Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 5:04 PM > > Nov. 20, 1997 > > Dear all, Jed Rothwell and Rick Monteverde are angry that I have been > forwarding posts to Vortex-L from sci.physics.fusion by Blue, Schultz, > Droege, and Britz. I've been doing this when in my opinion such posts > are of some scientific merit, even if biased toward a critical stance, > and if their tone is reasonably civil. Rich finds "scientific merit" in posts from Blue etc., which he distributes without comment and thereby implied endorsement. He must find a lack of "scientific merit" in the papers and reports which he so routinely dissects and castigates. Rich's tone has been pejorative toward reports, although he has not attacked individuals themselves. > I would hesitate to forward a > post that referred to someone as a "harmless crank" or "crackpot", as > Jed recently termed Greg Watson, and I feel Blue's term, "Cold Fusion > Lie #10" is barely acceptible. Blue's "Lie" post was indeed barely acceptable and its content of negligible "scientific merit". I looked through a lot of Jed's posts about Watson and did not find the phrases. He may have said that if Watson doesn't ship something, he is acting like ...., which is different than saying he "is". > For instance, Britz recently both criticized and praised the long report > by Arata & Zhang. To my mind, any praise by a committed critic is to be > deemed very good praise indeed. As I have noted in another post, Britz found no inconsistencies himself in the A&Z paper, but he believed there must be some because he had taken Rich Murray's critique at face value. Blue and Schultz have evidently found > the concepts of lattice facilitation of nuclear reactions, and related > topics, such as the relevance of the Mossbauer effect, to be at least > worth discussing, and their posts have elicited from Swartz, for > instance, an interesting post that the Mossbauer effect can be pretty > much derived from classical electromagnetism, maybe. Spaandonk has also > joined this dialogue. The discussion of the Mossbauer effect is several years old and was raised, I believe, by Robert Bass as an instance where energy can be coupled to a whole lattice; thus energy from localized LENR sites can be distributed as heat instead of emission of high energy radiation. That discussion predated Rich's activities. > The cold fusion field needs this level of civil, intelligent, and > polarized dialogue in order to progress. Polarized? Let's you and him fight? Progress? Progress comes from people making discoveries and reporting them to the community as best they can without fear of attack and ridicule. I now quote from Distinguished Professor Bockris' letter to Rich, which he distributed: ---------------- Re many of your heroic attacks on some of the people in the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction field, I would like to say a few words from personal experience, which may help you and those who listen to you. ........... What has all this got to do with your diatribes? Well, I leave it to you to feel whether you perhaps think that the emotional nature of your attacks, the fact that you find nothing good in any of it, - has a message about you yourself.......... So, now, having said that I believe that softly, softly is the way to get to the New, and also that I am never quite sure of anything except perhaps the 1st and 2nd Law of thermodynamics, allow me to give one more preliminary, before I suggest a few gentle and tentative answers to a few of your combative rushes.......... So, I hope, Rich, that these remarks from above the fray (I retired June 30) may pour oil and etc. LENR is a strange and wild field. Without you, it has enormous difficulties in growth and staying alive in an environment which is full of fear. -------------------- I read that last sentence as (Even) without you.... > Otherwise we run the risk of > turning into a swamp of insular speculations and poorly founded stories, > like the various UFO communities, or Biblical geologists. How does Rich help when he quotes and distributes as truth "poorly founded stories" such as Blues "lies" and "myths" posts? How does he help with his description of CF workers as superstitious chickens produced by a Skinner experiment designed to confuse? There is a sharp distinction between musings on Vortex and published reports and papers. Rich has shown that he is not able to understand the content of these papers and so attacks them. > Now, after a year of reviewing cold fusion reports in detail, I've > evolved perforce into a pragmatic skeptic: I've found such great > deficiencies in so many heralded reports Are the deficiencies in the reports or in Rich's understanding of the reports? > that I assume that some > artifact is operating in the ones I can't find specific fault with, like > Bush's skimpy report in Infinite Energy #12 on the cell seen by Huizenga > last Feb. 28. In other words, there ***MUST*** be something wrong with a positive report. Barry Merriman and Scott Little and others with the Order > of the Tortoise have this week humorously expressed the dilemmas of > those who are not yet convinced by the overall quality of the evidence. > Those who are absolutely convinced cannot understand this position, and > feel threatened by its very existence in members of the brotherhood. Note that neither Miley nor Bockris have asserted infallibility, nor has Fleischmann, nor Jed, nor I. The threatened ones, who lash out, are the adamant believers in received opinion, whose worlds would be shattered if LENR were real. Quoting Bockris again: ------------- You'd have to admit that acceptance would be paradigm shifting in the extreme. Tens of thousands of jobs. Billions of dollars and ribald laughter reaching the Congo. To admit it could be right would be a national disaster for the coterie round a magazine such as Science or Nature. ------------ > Yet Jed himself on Nov. 18 commented about Ed Storm's sorting out of > viable samples of Pd: "As I understand it, with reasonably good > palladium, 1 out 20 samples passes the triage tests, and of that > winnowed-out sample, about half work." If Blue said that after nine > years, an eminent CF expert can get only 1 out of 40 samples of > "reasonably good" Pd to generate excess heat, would this be accepted as > an impartial assessment, civily stated? Storms is working with the > paradigm system of cold fusion research, palladium in heavy water, and > is one of our elder statesmen. What newcomer, attracted to this field, > would want to risk replicating an experiment with 39 chances out of 40 > of failure? Why should it be surprising that cold fusion is not widely > accepted as proven to exist? Rich fatally confuses two different kinds of proof, which I touched on earlier, but did not develop into an essay. We are discussing EXISTENCE proof, not ENGINEERING proof. If one cathode in 1000 worked, it is enough to establish existence of the phenomenon. Reproducibility has been achieved in P&F experiments, and the Patterson cell, despite determined efforts to deny it. Fox has reproduced CG transmutation in ten of ten sequential trials, but Rich ignores this. Wide acceptance requires easier replication and many devices in many hands. No one disputes this, and Jed has been hammering on this theme for years. The difficulty with getting good cathodes for a P&F experiment has to do with a lack of understanding of the active sites where the reactions occur. It is an engineering problem linked to a lack of good theory. Nine years, a large fraction of life, is a > long time to be living with frustrated faith. It is no wonder that > signs of tension and defensiveness show up. Yes it is, and Rich's critiques do not help at all and do not move the field forward. All he has accomplished is to disseminate his own confusion as facts, dressed up in his elaborate critiques. There is no progress, for his own position as a skeptic has not softened, even when confronted with the evidence in the A&Z paper and Britz's praise of it. He has not retracted his pejorative rejection of the A&Z calorimetry. > What's the worst that can happen? That the emergence of new energy sources beneficial to the future of mankind is suppressed by the creation and distribution of a myth that the phenomena do not exist. > Cold fusion turns out to be a dead end in fact, after all, no one to blaim? And Rich Murray's critiques and distribution of half-truths played no role in the creation of the myth? > No low energy nuclear reactions, no biological transmutations? Nature knows, it is for men to discover. > Maybe we have to get by on zillions of wind turbines and advanced fuel cells and solar cells? Is this the future Rich wants? A minimalist civilization inhibited by diffuse energy collection systems? A fear of a dynamic civilization with portable sources of concentrated energy? > Space travel continues to be very expensive? We may yet need it. > Won't there still be an amazing exponential exploration of other yet barely dreamed > possibilities? Who before 1960 predicted the very computers we use, or > imagined the actual creativity of the world Net? Of course. The realm of intellectual exploration is hardly limited by the energy issue. Advances in many other sciences can be as explosive as that of new energy sources. In the long run, the problems of an exploding population can, in principle, be solved by a mixture of technology and wisdom. IF THERE IS ENOUGH ENERGY, and that is what our discussion and quest is about. Mike Carrell > I welcome any comments by the community. > > Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 05:42:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22945; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:25:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:25:39 -0800 Message-ID: <3475FC29.23F1 itl.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:24:57 -0800 From: Nick Palmer X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: John - FoE and CF] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"G2jzL.0.Mc5.IlOTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13118 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <3475F423.55A6 itl.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:50:43 -0800 From: Nick Palmer X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Sevior Subject: Re: John - FoE and CF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I repeat, from my private email to you. "The problem with nuclear power is that the raw materials that you (Martin S.) mention are even more unevenly distributed around the world than fossil fuels. A future global nuclear power supply, even if waste/discharge issues were solved, would still leave the resources and the technology all in the hands of a very few nations/corporations." (edited version) You didn't understand what I said. If we extrapolate and say that all the fissile material in the world was only to be found in Saddam Hussein' mum's camel grazing patch, you should begin to see what I mean that unevenly distributed resources in the hands of a very few are not helpful to the development of a stable world. Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:54:23 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM] References: <3475773C.2B80 keelynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"V9Ngr.0.zc6.AAPTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13120 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jerry, I forgot to thanks to you for introducing Minato machine(s). I had not time to fully examine the patent, but the placement look like very to the "Chevron" design that we earlier discussed for long time in SMOT context. Indeed what is the difference we never tried, is the progressively increasing angle on orientatio n of magnets. (like "||//--") I never tried such a placement, but its become naturally when one try to stack magnets inside a circumference with poor mechanical supports. Even an easier experiment can be done while swapping rotor with stator. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 06:53:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA05236; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 06:44:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 06:44:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:36:56 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: No reposting repostes from sci.physics.f Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711210940_MC2-2906-3D95 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"zWzJG1.0.iH1.ruPTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13121 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net Dear Rich, You wrote: I will stop [spamming], but will of course sometimes follow Rothwell's reasonable suggestion that I take the extra time to extract or summarize any hidden gems in these posts. Good! Thank you. It isn't an iron clad rule. I don't mind seeing occasional short messages from s.p.f. here. I've posted a few myself. Despite acknowledged errors in my critiques, I have received much encouragement from competent players . . . Do you include the pat-on-the-head messages from Miley and Bockris? Read them again. They are telling you, politely, that you missed the boat and your critiques have no merit. Carrell and I tell you the same thing, with a bit more vinegar. Look sharp! This is damning with faint praise: Murray has done a dedicated job of pouring through my two conference papers and has raised some good points-- e.g. as he states, more needs to be done to understand product distributions in the bead bed. However 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. . . . 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. [Miley's response] You have not acknowledged errors in the critiques. You never retracted. You never told Morrison in plain English that the main thrust of your critiques is incorrect and he should please forget what you said. From now on, Morrison, Britz and the others will say "Murray proved Miley is wrong." Morrison will say that to reporters from the New York Times whenever he gets a chance. These people never question the judgement of a fellow skeptic. In the hundreds of thousands of messages on Vortex, you will not find a single one from a hard core skeptic like Morrison or Blue criticizing another skeptic or pointing out an error in his posting. They never read original sources or think for themselves. They act in unison like a school of fish. When you tell them something negative, no matter how contrived or incorrect, they instantly believe it and they repeat it forever. You keep circulating these critiques without corrections, even after people like Miley and Carrell take the time to correct you. You remind me of Steve Jones. He still claims that all cold fusion claims, including McKubre's, are caused by recombination. When a person ignores corrections and circulating the same mistakes for years, I suspect he is not interested in the truth. Mike Carrell describes these tactics: "Smoke and Mirrors . . . Well known to mythmakers, propagandists, and disinformation artists. Plant misinformation and then quote it." Mike concludes: "I'm not saying that Rich Murray is being deliberately malicious in what he is doing. But I don't think he realizes the consequences of his actions as spreading misinformation." Although I cannot read your mind, I happen to think you are being deliberately malicious, but what difference does it make? The damage you do is the same in any case, no matter what your motivation is. . . . and, naturally enough, I am confident that they are right on, including my nine critiques of Miley's work. Oh, right. Sure. Except that you mixed up 3% with 15% and all of the other points you made were mistakes too. *Not one* salient point in any of your critiques survived first round peer review. Not one! You lose every round, but after the prizefight you say you won. If you had any guts, you would retract. You would rewrite the critiques from top to bottom, eliminating everything you have at one time or other acknowledged is wrong. (Acknowledged, but later conveniently forgot or ignored.) You should eliminate statements comparing Arata to Beethoven, all claims that the instruments and techniques are obsolete or untrustworthy, all critiques of the English style (bearing in mind that your Japanese and Chinese is much worse than Arata and Zhang's English), and other ad hominems. You will reduce the critiques to a few paragraphs of nit-picking irrelevancies. You will find no content worth preserving. You have never discovered any significant reason to doubt the research results from Miley, Arata or anyone else. You do not even understand the basics of calorimetry. I still want the full data for seven of Arata & Zhang's eight runs, and I still want the before and after SIMS data for four of five of Miley's runs. The background information that I obviously need . . . Need for what? As Carrell pointed out to you, you do not even understand the calorimetric data, which is much easier the mass spec data. As he said: . . . why do "we" need these details? Rich dismissed the referees work on the basis of a literary judgment, which has no scientific merit. Rich has complained of a "data stew", yet he asks for more and more data which will lead to more and more questions, all to avoid reaching a conclusion. How will he evaluate the data if he had it? He is effectively asking for a detailed tutorial, which it is not the business of A&Z to give him. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 07:35:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11053; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:27:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:27:25 -0800 From: Geosas aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:25:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971121102532_1153737295 mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: herman antioch-college.edu cc: vortex-L eskimo.com, boardmanb@aw-el.com, Geosas@aol.com Subject: Re: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Resent-Message-ID: <"IIVGF2.0.ai2.RXQTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13123 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 21/11/97 03:13:21, you write: << Read the post on the welding. Very interesting. You can do some simple spectroscopy: a] alphas will not go through 2 or 3 sheets of aluminum foil. b] betas will not go through 8 or 10 sheets c] most gammas will not go through 1/8 " roofing lead THEN: [I have to look this up again] I think if you interpose silver foil between source and counter that neutrons knock out some other particle that can be detected. Let me know what you find, I dig out the books. If you can give me full model, serial and so on and address of counter mfg I will call thm and spec out the device and then I can suggest the best fit series of spectroscopic filters. If you want. I replicated the work of Wm A Barker on accelerated decay of alpha emitters, so I know this is a good area. ALSO: Full specs on the wlding rods and I will find about them. >> Dear John, The radiation is not stopped by a piece of paper (60 gms/m^2) but is stopped by 1/16" thick Al. Possibly other types of radiation are present but too little to detect reliably at the low radiation levels. I will try various thicknesses of kitchen Al foil. The detector is made by Aware Electronics Corp., Wilmington DE, type RM-80. Details are available on www.aw-el.com. I am in Scotland near sea level and this gives about 40 counts/min. background corresponding to 9 micro- Roentgens/hr. It is a pancake-type tube with mica alpha window about 1.8" diameter. The main guy at Aware Electronics is Bryan Boardman, boardmanb aw-el.com tel. (302) 655-3800, P O Box 4299, Wilmington DE 19807. The RM-80 will apparently detect neutrons but the manuals are not very clear on this matter. Maybe Bryan can give more information. The welding rods are some I have had for several years and made by the Welding Rod Co. in Sheffield, England. I would like to start another decay experiment and would be grateful for any suggestions. What was the work of Wm A Barker on accelerated decay of alpha emitters? Sounds v. interesting. Regards, George. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 07:38:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12817; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:34:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:34:08 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:30:30 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Sorry for misspelling "Carrell" Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711211033_MC2-290D-EC55 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"DCdM13.0.B83.ldQTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13125 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I apologize to Mike Carrell for misspelling his name in various postings. This is the modern classic "dog ate my homework" excuse, but I found out Ver. 8 Word Perfect has been doing that behind my back. I correct things but they flip back. When you make a mistake it is sometimes preserved and repeated automatically by this berserk spelling correction feature. I had to fix the user word data bases. I found other garbage hidden in there. It turns out Word Perfect's main word list and I both have both been misspelling "fluorescent" wrong for years. (I had it "flou..." instead of "fluo...," not to be confused with "florescent;" flowering.) That mistake made it into Infinite Energy, I am embarrassed to report. (Message for W.P. users. You may find problems lurking in three places under Tools: 1. Spell Correct - options - user word list; 2. QuickCorrect; 3. QuickWords. QuickWords can be used to convert "h2o" into "h[subscript]2O".) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 07:38:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11905; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:30:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:30:13 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971121092155.007482bc mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:21:55 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: science history tidbit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"2c69a1.0.rv2.3aQTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13124 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's the last sentence of the article on hydrogen in the section entitled 'The Elements' of the 51st edition (1970-1971) of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: "Of current interest is a newly discovered form of water, a polymer, known as polywater." If anyone has newer/older copies of this Handbook, I'd be interested in finding out how long that statement persisted. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 07:41:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA14689; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:26:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:26:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971121091311.007482bc mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:13:11 -0600 To: "vortex" From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test In-Reply-To: <01bcf680$361abce0$LocalHost default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"KIAWZ.0.Pb3.LWQTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13122 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:20 11/21/97 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >It would seem that a closed circulating system that could be pre-vacuumed >and possibly pressurized with CO2 and/or inert gases would be desirable. I believe that both Mallove and Znidarsic have tested the Yusmar with closed systems. Perhaps they can tell us if they tried degassing and/or specific gas additions. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 08:26:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA24137; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:20:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:20:18 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-L eskimo.com, boardmanb@aw-el.com, Geosas@aol.com Subject: Don't jump In-Reply-To: <971121102532_1153737295 mrin46.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kLPd8.0.ru5.0JRTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13127 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear George, [to the rest of VO: Don't jump crazy if I got ome penetertion data wrong... just give us the right answers if you know them!] Off hand I would say alpha. If the detector is the one I am thinking of it is very good. Now all we have to do is bone up on neutrons ... as I recall the GM tubes would be wrapped in silver foil. It sounds like alpha. Any way to melt down just a rod, say into carbon crucible? Save at least two rods. What happens if you use different rod, or raw metal to weld with?? J On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 Geosas aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 21/11/97 03:13:21, you write: > > << > Read the post on the welding. Very interesting. You can do some > simple spectroscopy: > > a] alphas will not go through 2 or 3 sheets of aluminum foil. > b] betas will not go through 8 or 10 sheets > c] most gammas will not go through 1/8 " roofing lead > > THEN: [I have to look this up again] I think if you interpose > silver foil between source and counter that neutrons knock out some other > particle that can be detected. > > Let me know what you find, I dig out the books. If you can give > me full model, serial and so on and address of counter mfg I will call > thm and spec out the device and then I can suggest the best fit series of > spectroscopic filters. If you want. > > I replicated the work of Wm A Barker on accelerated decay of > alpha emitters, so I know this is a good area. ALSO: Full specs on the > wlding rods and I will find about them. > >> > > Dear John, > > The radiation is not stopped by a piece of paper (60 gms/m^2) but is stopped > by 1/16" thick Al. Possibly other types of radiation are present but too > little > to detect reliably at the low radiation levels. I will try various > thicknesses of > kitchen Al foil. > > The detector is made by Aware Electronics Corp., Wilmington DE, type RM-80. > Details are available on www.aw-el.com. I am in Scotland near sea level and > this gives about 40 counts/min. background corresponding to 9 micro- > Roentgens/hr. It is a pancake-type tube with mica alpha window about 1.8" > diameter. The main guy at Aware Electronics is Bryan Boardman, > boardmanb aw-el.com tel. (302) 655-3800, P O Box 4299, Wilmington DE > 19807. > > The RM-80 will apparently detect neutrons but the manuals are not very > clear on this matter. Maybe Bryan can give more information. > > The welding rods are some I have had for several years and made by the > Welding Rod Co. in Sheffield, England. > > I would like to start another decay experiment and would be grateful for any > suggestions. > > What was the work of Wm A Barker on accelerated decay of alpha emitters? > Sounds v. interesting. > > Regards, George. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 08:28:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25237; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:19:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:19:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3475B417.224F ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:17:27 -0600 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frederick J. Sparber" CC: vortex Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test References: <01bcf680$361abce0$LocalHost default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Es-4g.0.AA6.NIRTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13126 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >From the sonoluminescence information the air-CO2 concentration and water > temperature is critical, and for some reason lower temperatures give better > sonoluminescent bubbles. > > This may be due to a lower vapor pressure of water (20 mm Hg at 20 deg C, 4 > mm Hg at 0 deg C) which would result in a longer collision mean free path > MFP in the bubble. Hello! I'm not really qualified to talk science, but I do make beer. Cold Beer absorbs a LOT more CO2 than warm beer. Could this have something to do with the increased effect at lower temperatures? Craig From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 08:34:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA26426; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:31:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:31:08 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971121101250.ZM24241 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:12:50 -0600 In-Reply-To: Scott Little "science history tidbit" (Nov 21, 9:37am) References: <3.0.1.32.19971121092155.007482bc mail.eden.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: science history tidbit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"am4q21.0.kS6.BTRTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13128 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Nov 21, 9:37am, Scott Little wrote: > Here's the last sentence of the article on hydrogen in the section entitled > 'The Elements' of the 51st edition (1970-1971) of the CRC Handbook of > Chemistry and Physics: > > "Of current interest is a newly discovered form of water, a polymer, known > as polywater." > > If anyone has newer/older copies of this Handbook, I'd be interested in > finding out how long that statement persisted. Not a lot of information out there, but someone did some looking on the web already: -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 08:42:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28597; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:38:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:38:41 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:38:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971121113803_-894073948 mrin52.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0 Resent-Message-ID: <"43bXa1.0.k-6.FaRTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13129 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 11/21/97 4:24:20 PM, you wrote: <> The first (incorrect) estimate was an off-the-cuff remark by Steven Weinberg, made during an interview for the PBS showing of the Scientific American Frontiers program on Nov 19. The second (correct) is an oft-quoted remark made by John Wheeler. Now why would Weinberg make his remark? He was speaking as a cosmologist who is dealing with the problem as to why, if the ZPE energy density is so large, it does not curl up space into a small ball for general relativistic reasons. Since space is not curled up, voila, the ZPE cannot be there. As is often the case, the mistake is in the assumption. The stress-energy tensor on the right hand side of Einsteins's equations does not contain a contribution from the ZPE, only from the mass-energy distributions that depart from the homogeneous ZPE background. An oversimplified explanation by analogy is this. When one is at the center of the earth, one does not experience the force of gravity from the earth (does not experience a spacetime curvature) because the homogeneous distribution of the earth's mass tugs in all directions equally so as to cancel out any net effects. A similar argument can be made for the surrounding homogeneous ZPE distribution. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 09:00:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00382; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:45:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:45:56 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:44:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971121114431_-2062351392 mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Murray on R. Bush's Work Resent-Message-ID: <"na8Mr3.0.u5.2hRTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13130 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In his critique of Nov. 19 re Robert Bush, Dash, and others, Rich Murray wrote, with reference to Bush's work, as described in INFINITE ENERGY, No. 12, January-February 1997: "I agree that at this power level, recombination cannot be an issue." Good, that removes one distraction from the discussion of R. Bush's work. Rich asked why, "after eight years of work by this team, the excess power is only 14%." Good question. Maybe Bush will favor us with an answer some day. But he did say in that same issue of INFINITE ENERGY, at p. 25 col. 1, that the cell Huizenga saw had shown "a significantly-enhanced performance" since his visit. Alas, the material in the issue didn't say by how much or why. Rich also asked "why should a nuclear process be limited to only 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 excess power ratios?" It shouldn't be, which is one more piece of evidence in favor of the proposition that the excess heat wasn't being generated by any nuclear process. Rich went on to say, "I don't know what the artifacts might be...any suggestions, gang?" Yes. There weren't any artifacts. Bush is one of the few people in the world who has built a simple Ni/H2O system that produces excess heat beyond recombination. Rich concluded, "It would help to have really complete information on the cell's size, composition, and chemical changes over time, but proprietary concerns once again may impede the CF community's evaluation process." Bull's-eye. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 09:00:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00422; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:46:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:46:08 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:44:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971121114426_-289131680 mrin47> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Murray on Mills' Current Work Resent-Message-ID: <"YoNr_2.0.T6.DhRTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13131 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In his critique of Nov. 19 re Bush, Dash, Stolper, Shkedi, Rich Murray wrote the following riposte to my comments on Shekdi, et al., and J. Jones, et al.: "Since I am posting this whole post to Zvi Shkedi himself [shkedi bose.com], perhaps he can be stirred to reluctantly reenter the fray. My answer is timely. After all these years, is Mills still doing electrochemical experiments, which seemed so promising in the reports you cited? Is Hydrocatalysis Corporation, after all these years, still poised to market kilowatt water heaters based on light water-nickel reactions?" Judging by the material available to all on the website of Mills' company, BlackLight Power (BLP), Mills is no longer working on electrochemical cells, because he has invented a more powerful and durable gas-phase system. Judging by the same material, BLP (formerly known as HydroCatalysis Power Corp.), is aiming at the market for power generation, which is even bigger than the market for residential and commercial hot water heating. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 09:04:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00087; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:56:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:56:17 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971121115240.0069d754 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:52:40 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Murray on R. Bush's Work In-Reply-To: <971121114431_-2062351392 mrin41.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Uo6oI1.0.A1.mqRTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13132 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:44 AM 11/21/97 -0500, Tom wrote: > >Rich also asked "why should a nuclear process be limited to only 10, 100, >1000, or 10000 excess power ratios?" It shouldn't be, which is one more >piece of evidence in favor of the proposition that the excess heat wasn't >being generated by any nuclear process. > Neither the former statement, nor the latter - based upon the former - seem necessarily so, or proven. Any proof to either? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 09:14:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05764; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:11:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:11:16 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Cc: "vortex" Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:05:49 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf69f$b7695da0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"HHGI1.0.wP1.n2STq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13133 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Craig Haynie To: Frederick J. Sparber Cc: vortex Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> >From the sonoluminescence information the air-CO2 concentration and water >> temperature is critical, and for some reason lower temperatures give better >> sonoluminescent bubbles. >> >> This may be due to a lower vapor pressure of water (20 mm Hg at 20 deg C, 4 >> mm Hg at 0 deg C) which would result in a longer collision mean free path >> MFP in the bubble. > >Hello! > >I'm not really qualified to talk science, but I do make beer. Forget the science,make the beer! That's the whole problem with the World, too many scientists, not enough Beer! I only drink O'Douls myself. Spent too many years around 10 million gal/year ethanol plants. :-) Cold Beer >absorbs a LOT more CO2 than warm beer. Could this have something to do >with the increased effect at lower temperatures? Good Question, but it's going to require some experiments to find out (with water). The more CO2 the more carbonate ion CO3^2- and bicarbonate ion HCO3^- and H+ ions, to act as nucleation sites and possibly play a role in hydrino-electrino formation and subsequent release of a bunch of energy that causes sonoluminescence. In other words something initiates the hydrino-electrino which makes a very hot cavity-bubble and this is what pits hydrofoils or propellers when it hits them. As I stated earlier a disc capacitor used as a hydrophone should pick out the sound pulse from the rapid collapse of these hot cavity-bubbles. The residual "self charge" of a cermamic disc capacitor aligns water molecules on the outside insulated surface of the capacitor when these "external" dipoles are disturbed due to phonon movement in the water. This puts a signal on the capacitor plates that can be detected with a suitable amplifier. A 25 cent nanofarad capacitor makes a great hydrophone. The electronics are a bit more tricky-expensive. :-) Cheers, Frederick > >Craig > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 09:58:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21909; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:54:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:54:01 -0800 Message-Id: <3475C5E8.90122380 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:33:28 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM]] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4616E4EE4F4FAC4CF5A2B086" Resent-Message-ID: <"m7JqC2.0.8M5.tgSTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13134 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4616E4EE4F4FAC4CF5A2B086 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------4616E4EE4F4FAC4CF5A2B086 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3475847F.15A3F7B0 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:54:23 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM] References: <3475773C.2B80 keelynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry, I forgot to thanks to you for introducing Minato machine(s). I had not time to fully examine the patent, but the placement look like very to the "Chevron" design that we earlier discussed for long time in SMOT context. Indeed what is the difference we never tried, is the progressively increasing angle on orientatio n of magnets. (like "||//--") I never tried such a placement, but its become naturally when one try to stack magnets inside a circumference with poor mechanical supports. Even an easier experiment can be done while swapping rotor with stator. Regards, hamdi ucar --------------4616E4EE4F4FAC4CF5A2B086-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 10:05:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25555; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:00:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:00:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199711211857.MAA01782 gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com> X-Sender: lcreech gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:11:35 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: lcreech gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com (Larry Creech) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM] Resent-Message-ID: <"9Wg8c2.0.DF6.2nSTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13135 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From what I've seen from Kohei Minato's patent drawings and explainations, all his devices use an electro-magnet and swiching mechanism to achive mechanical rotation. Is the Phillipine PPM different? >Jerry, > >I forgot to thanks to you for introducing Minato machine(s). > >I had not time to fully examine the patent, but the placement look like very to the "Chevron" design that we earlier discussed for long time in SMOT context. Indeed what is the difference we never tried, is the progressively increasing angle on orientation of magnets. (like "||//--") >I never tried such a placement, but its become naturally when one try to stack magnets inside a circumference with poor mechanical supports. > >Even an easier experiment can be done while swapping rotor with stator. > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 10:09:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16543; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:03:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:03:46 -0800 (PST) From: Geosas aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:00:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971121130056_260159097 mrin54.mail.aol.com> To: herman antioch-college.edu cc: vortex-L eskimo.com, boardmanb@aw-el.com Subject: Re: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Resent-Message-ID: <"qtHyv1.0.P24.xpSTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13136 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 21/11/97 16:20:22, herman antioch-college.edu writes: << [to the rest of VO: Don't jump crazy if I got ome penetertion data wrong... just give us the right answers if you know them!] Off hand I would say alpha. If the detector is the one I am thinking of it is very good. Now all we have to do is bone up on neutrons .... as I recall the GM tubes would be wrapped in silver foil. The tube is type 7313, calibrated to Cs 137. 3.546 counts/min. per microroentgen/hr. It sounds like alpha. I now have 4 thicknesses of Al kitchen foil interposed, density 3.16 mg/cm^2, and no visible reduction in reading so probably not alpha. Any way to melt down just a rod, say into carbon crucible? Don't have facilities for this! Save at least two rods. I could airmail you some. What happens if you use different rod, or raw metal to weld with?? Haven't tried. Could I use something like galvanised steel fence wire? Plenty lying around here. It is a farm environment. I tried some of a friend's rods, don't have their details, with a dark pink flux coating, and these gave the same result. >> I have sent you file WELDGIFS.ZIP with GIF files of radiation curves from fresh welds. If anyone else wants them geosas will send individually. According to my book, KNOLL Glenn F, Radiation detection and measurement, the usual way of detecting slow neutrons is with Boron-10 (present at 19.8% in natural Boron). 10B5 + n --> 7Li3 + alpha 2.792 or 2.310 MeV. With the lower-energy alpha the Li us in an excited state and rapidly returns to ground state, emitting a 0.48 MeV gamma ray. I can't find any reference in the book to the use of silver foil for neutrons. Does anyone know what happens when iron is bombarded with neutrons? I understood that the purpose of the neutron bomb was to make iron objects (e.g. tanks) radioactive. Cheers, George. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 10:34:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00147; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:29:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:29:17 -0800 Message-Id: <3475CE3A.F86FFD11 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:08:58 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM] References: <199711211857.MAA01782 gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KgQVX1.0.C2.xBTTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13137 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Creech wrote: > >From what I've seen from Kohei Minato's patent drawings and explainations, > all his devices use an electro-magnet and swiching mechanism to achive > mechanical rotation. Is the Phillipine PPM different? Rotors of both design (patent and Bicycle wheel) appears having same magnet placement style. This was not Philippine, Korea. See later postings of Jerry. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 11:14:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08594; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:07:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:07:25 -0800 Message-Id: <199711212004.OAA01842 gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com> X-Sender: lcreech gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:18:25 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: lcreech gpspc-sw6.comsys.rockwell.com (Larry Creech) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM] Resent-Message-ID: <"fC3II.0.762.ilTTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13138 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Yes, your are right it Korea, and not the Philippines. But the patents of his devices all have electro-magnets. The Korean demo did use a permanent magnet but it was handheld. It remains to be seen if this device will operate by hard mounting the permanent magnet. I suspect it probably would not, otherwise it would have been demo'd that way. >Larry Creech wrote: >> >>From what I've seen from Kohei Minato's patent drawings and explainations, >> all his devices use an electro-magnet and swiching mechanism to achive >> mechanical rotation. Is the Phillipine PPM different? > >Rotors of both design (patent and Bicycle wheel) appears having same magnet placement style. > >This was not Philippine, Korea. See later postings of Jerry. > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 11:15:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09119; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:10:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:10:38 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:12:02 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Note on electron capture and nuclear remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"mUfm11.0.OE2.ioTTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13139 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:22 PM 11/19/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:23:01 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >[snip] >>Makes *my* head spin! Yes, without some way to spin up, would the nuclei >>ever catch up? Then there is the problem of heat. Would all that >>"rattling around" cause too much heat? If the nuclei are atoms in an >>insulator, like quartz, then at least the microwaves shouldn't heat them up >>too much. If "rattling around" does not cause much heat loss, then this >>could possibly be an energy storage device? >[snip] >Horace, I think your "rattling" already exists. At least to some >extent it must be a consequence of normal heat, especially when random >thermal vibrations combine to cause a particular atom to vibrate more >strongly than it's neighbours. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Based on my hypothesis, decay times should decrease with increased heat. However, heat would be a very ineffective way to accomplish this, and results would be difficult to measure. The reason for this is that an average kinetic energy of only 1 eV = 11,600 Deg. K. Further, atoms in a high state of thermal excitement would not have their nucleii exposed to maximum electron density for the full cycle either. For this reason it is more desireable to use an electrostatic method vs a thermal method, preferably in a steady state condition, to achieve higher electron concentrations in the nucleus. It seems to me the trick is to create strong electrostatic conditions without creating heat. I suggesed one means to think about for achieving this may be to oscillate an entire electon matrix together simultneously in phase. Another method is simply to attempt to maximize an electrostatic field gradient. Here is my prescription for achieving enhanced decay rates using a static field gradient: (1) Use an electrolytic cell with the reactant dissolved in the electrolyte (2) Pump the electrolyte through the cell slowly and use primarily diffusion of the cell to carry the reactant the final small distance to the electrode insulator surface and to carry away byproducts from that surface. (3) Use electrodes covered with the highest dielectric strength material available. (4) For best energy utilization use a DC cell with small or no current. The electrodes are fully insulated, so there is no current with the exception of leakage. (5) Use the thinnest possible coating that provides a reliable uniformity of breakdown potential in the environment (6) Operate the cell at the highest voltage that does not break down the electrode surface insulation. (7) The distance between electrodes has no effect on the gradient achieved at the insulator surface, but still should be minimized in order to achive maximum effect per cell volume (8) When the above is achieved the volume of material that can be processed per unit time is then just a linear function of area, so electrode area per cell volume should be maximized. (9) When the above is achieved, additonal stimulation from heat, etc., to the extent it does not affect any of the above adversely, can only add to the effect. However, the benefits should be minimal in comparison to the field gradient method. OK, Fred Sparber, that' my magic formula. So what's your magic formula you said you had for creating super dialectric strength thin films on metal surfaces? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 11:25:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11558; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:23:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:23:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:23:08 -0800 Message-Id: <199711211923.LAA27888 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: science history tidbit Resent-Message-ID: <"kfJeK1.0.Uq2.Z-TTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13140 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Here's the last sentence of the article on hydrogen in the section entitled >'The Elements' of the 51st edition (1970-1971) of the CRC Handbook of >Chemistry and Physics: > >"Of current interest is a newly discovered form of water, a polymer, known >as polywater." > >If anyone has newer/older copies of this Handbook, I'd be interested in >finding out how long that statement persisted. It's not in 79 - 80 edition From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 11:57:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04298; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:44:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:44:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:45:14 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Re: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0, and other things. Resent-Message-ID: <"Z3z2r.0.431.IIUTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13141 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I've been away a bit due to various pressing things, and can't believe the number of vortex posts there are to wade through! I'll never catch up! Hopefully they are all friendly or useful. Thanksgiving Holidays are here so now I begin the annual ritual of moving my lab to the crawl space so we can use the extra kitchen for cooking turkey. I took my son to Anchorage to catch the red-eye special last night. He's on his way to Washington DC to compete as an international finalist in the ThinkQuest competition (a distance cooperation team competition in developing a web site. Yeah, I'm a proud Dad!) Well, I was amazed at the lack of (or ineffectiveness of) a hatchet job on Earthtech. Sci. Am. still took their pot shot using Weinberg, but it was feeble. Scott Little especially did a great job. He has, as they say in the broadcast business, "a great set of pipes." It wouldn't be as fun, but, if he wanted, with a voice like that, Scott could have a future as a media person! (IMHO) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 12:32:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26282; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:26:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:26:29 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:26:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199711212026.MAA13466 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Electron capture - some questions Resent-Message-ID: <"7hBpX2.0.UQ6.pvUTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13142 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Some things are bothering me about the fact E.C. does not occur where C of >E forbids it, To say that energy conservation forbids something is to forget that the sea within which all matter exists is turbulent and has particles of all different energies in it. To conserve energy, all you need is for an energetic particle to interact, and you get an endothermic reaction as an electron capture. This could be a colision of an e with the innermost e in the valences, bouncing the innermost e into the nucleus for the ec process and the other e ricocheting out and away allowing the cascade of x-ray emission from the other e's falling into the lower valences. That the environment of the atoms seems otherwise calm, is misleading. Cosmic rays pass through us all the time. So we live inside a huge particle accelerator called the universe. and even some cases where it does not. What are the >mechanics of this conservation? If an e and p are within range of >operation of the weak force, then what mechanism prevents the reaction? It >seems the reaction might take place within the boundaries of the time in >which borrowed energy is available from the uncertainty principle, but that >would be an extremely short period of time - and there is the problem of >that escaping neutrino. Borrowed smarrowed. Particles don't borrow energy from some mystical virtual quantum vacuum. They exist in a turbulent ocean and are bashed about all the time. Brownian motion is the macroscopic version of the same thing. Our error in physics today is to treat spacetime as some magical mathematical metric. It isn't. It is a turbulent acoustic structure of standing waves. the proton is a composite standing wave formed by 9 muon resonances 3 at 0 degrees, 2 at 90 degrees, 2 at 180 degrees, and 2 at 270 degrees phase angle relative to spacetime. It is a sort of quadrature vortex donut that is tightly coupled. The "weak" force is simply a process whereby you bounce one of the above resonances out of the vortex, and replace it with another one. Each of the resonaces are muon resonances and 90 and 270 degrees are neutral while 0 is positive and 180 is negative. Rather than annihilate, the positive negative and neutral resonances wind up coupled together into the vortex which is a bit like a barber pole bent into a donut torus. So three muons form a "quark" and the three quarks wrap around the torus 2 times. To get the weak reaction to manifest, the electron in the ec process must blast into the vortex with enough momentum to bump one of the 0 degree phase angle resonances backward to a 270 degree position relative to spacetimes manifold of oscillations. That makes 3 resonances at a neutral charge, at 270 degrees, and 2 each at all other phase angles. Thus, there is a single excess and thus a net charge of 270 degrees, which we today call neutral. To re-arrange the geometry of the entire vortex takes time, and that is why the weak force is slow. To couple two nucleons doesn't require the individual composite vortices to change their geometries, so the reaction is fast (ergo strong force). But the mumbo jumbo about how long things must be in contact with one another is simply statistical smoke and mirrors. That is accounting for the fact that each reaction only has a certain probability, and so you will have a bunch of failed mergers and a few successful mergers or re-arrangements. The "amount of time they must be in contact" is BS. That simply is a measure of the probability that the particles will have the proper trajectory and sufficient momentum to induce the nuclear reaction. Don't mistake probability of an event happening, with the process involved. One is a statistical measure of the likelyhood of something happening. That is what QM is all about, nothing more and nothing less. It is an excellent tool for telling us what ratios of events we ought to see. It is not even a tool for telling us why those events happened or why they happened in those ratios. Just because QM succeeds at giving us a zillion digits of accuracy does not mean that the principles underlying it are correct. ie, things don't need to be intrinsically uncertain, for us to be unable to certainly determine a given reaction. You can have real processes, but they can be unobservable to us giants composed of tremendous numbers of the vortices we are trying to observe. Just because we cannot observe which way an electron went through a two slit experiment doesn't mean that the thing didn't have a trajectory. And when you work with solitons, the trajectory IS both ways and right through the metal of the slit too. But the wave energy becomes delayed along various paths due to the change in c in the medium of the metal plate, and so it is no longer coherent with the electron soliton wave. All of QM principles are derived after the fact, and none of them are predictive. IOW, the principles are made up because we could not determine things to better than a certain accuracy, and so it was supposed that we could not determine things to better than a certain accuracy. To think that matter itself is inherently uncertain, however, is silly. But to realize that the universe is a huge ocean of wave energy leads you to the realization that solitons in that ocean will behave in uncertain ways because you cannot know the future geometry of wave energy that has not yet arrived here from the distant universe. That wave energy, when it arrives, will alter the behavior of the electron in the two slit experiment, and in the ec process, and of nuclei in beta decay and all other sub atomic processes from nuclear to electric to gravitational interactions. It is all waves, period. The notions of particles and QM conservation accounting schemes are going to be replaced as soon as; 1) We acknowledge the fact that mass is conserved and that empty space is massive. 2) That spacetime is an acoustic, turbulent, deformable manifold of standing wave nodes in quadrature, and not a mathematical metric that curves. 3) That "particles" are soliton wave structures, the wave structures being what we call force fields, and not, point particles with up to 4 separate force fields surrounding them. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 12:50:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA31512; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:46:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:46:45 -0800 From: aki ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <34774549.5EA2 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:49:13 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320 (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: science history tidbit References: <3.0.1.32.19971121092155.007482bc mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2gZzm1.0.Fi7.pCVTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13143 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott wrote: > 'The Elements' of the 51st edition (1970-1971) of the CRC Handbook of > Chemistry and Physics: > "Of current interest is a newly discovered form of water, a polymer, >known as polywater." > > If anyone has newer/older copies of this Handbook, I'd be interested in > finding out how long that statement persisted. The 52nd (1971-1972) Edition still contained that last sentence on polywater. The 56th(1975-76) edition is missing any reference to polywater. The 44th edition(1962-1963) has not begun to mention polywater. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 13:31:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07156; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:26:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:26:50 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:27:28 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Re: EarthTech 1, Hawkeye 0, and other things. Resent-Message-ID: <"Kkp3i1.0.Ll1.OoVTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13144 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: > It wouldn't be as fun, but, if he wanted, with a > voice like that, Scott could have a future as a > media person! (IMHO) Scott was great! I was getting distinct Al Borland vibes there, the beard, the shirt, the slightly bashful confident/competent down-homesy attitude, the trip to his Mom's house and everything. They really ought to film a weekly fringe science show at EarthTech. Hal "The Energyman" Puthoff? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 13:44:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25134; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:37:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:37:33 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: science history tidbit Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:33:52 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf6c5$2a15e740$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"zDZ0B2.0.b86.RyVTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13145 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: aki ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 1:49 PM Subject: Re: science history tidbit >Scott wrote: >> 'The Elements' of the 51st edition (1970-1971) of the CRC Handbook of >> Chemistry and Physics: >> "Of current interest is a newly discovered form of water, a polymer, >known as polywater." >> >> If anyone has newer/older copies of this Handbook, I'd be interested in >> finding out how long that statement persisted. > >The 52nd (1971-1972) Edition still contained that last sentence on >polywater. >The 56th(1975-76) edition is missing any reference to polywater. >The 44th edition(1962-1963) has not begun to mention polywater. There is a Goldwater mentioned in the history books around 1964, but that's a different story. Maybe Barry or Joe Champion could help you there. :-) Actually the polywater episode didn't start until 1968 when some Russian scientists "discovered" it. Things had pretty well quieted down by the mid-70s when it was determined to be water molecules strongly enough attached to mineral ions in the water to change its physical properties. One explanation was the sodium from fingerprints on the glass test vessel. Regards, Frederick > >-AK- > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 14:52:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29982; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:46:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:46:36 -0800 X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971121133153175.AAB244 default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:14:33 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Polarized dialogue possible? Resent-Message-ID: <"R9Az63.0.vJ7.8zWTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13146 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts - Rich Murray misinterprets me as being "angry". I'm not. I'm just BUSY. Don't have time to read several posts from other forums when I come to this one to read the posts here. The posts here, including Rich's *own* comments, comprise the content I come here to see. I chose not to view the content on SPF, so please don't repost big chunks of it here if you can help it. Ok? :) <- See? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 15:28:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06472; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:20:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:20:49 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34761747.D6D math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:20:39 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: science history tidbit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3WrRG3.0.ya1.FTXTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13147 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > >Scott wrote: > >> from the 51st CRC Handbook: > >> "...a newly discovered form of water...polywater." > >> > >>[ any other CRC mentions of polywater?] > > There is a Goldwater mentioned in the history books around 1964, > but that's a different story. Maybe Barry or Joe Champion could > help you there. :-) > You are right on taget, in fact: I was named after Barry Goldwater, as I was born 2 days after he lost the 1964 presidential election. Given my investigation of alchemy, perhaps it was prescient :-). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 15:52:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16095; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:46:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:46:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:45:13 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: science history tidbit Sender: Debbie To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Message-ID: <199711211845_MC2-2927-31FE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id PAA16057 Resent-Message-ID: <"LpiAS2.0.Mx3.brXTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13148 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry, Happy belated birthday! Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 16:48:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25232; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:44:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:44:37 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: science history tidbit Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:40:50 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf6df$485c9c20$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"HPtSI2.0.9A6.nhYTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13149 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 4:24 PM Subject: Re: science history tidbit >Resent-Message-ID: <"3WrRG3.0.ya1.FTXTq" mx1> >Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13147 >X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com >Precedence: list >Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 23:20:50 +0000 >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 23:20:39 +0000 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: Text/Plain; > charset=us-ascii > >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> > >> >Scott wrote: >> >> from the 51st CRC Handbook: >> >> "...a newly discovered form of water...polywater." >> >> >> >>[ any other CRC mentions of polywater?] > >> >> There is a Goldwater mentioned in the history books around 1964, >> but that's a different story. Maybe Barry or Joe Champion could >> help you there. :-) >> > >You are right on taget, in fact: I was named after Barry Goldwater, >as I was born 2 days after he lost the 1964 presidential election. >Given my investigation of alchemy, perhaps it was prescient :-). "Au-H20 '64" is a hard act to follow. I think his quip on National TV, "most secretaries in Washington are huntn-peckers" cost him the election. :-) Regards, Frederick > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 19:23:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14056; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:18:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:18:57 -0800 Message-ID: <3476B194.1EE9 itl.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:19:00 -0800 From: Nick Palmer X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, mikec@snip.net CC: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: John - FoE and CF] References: <19971121151040668.AAA182 default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lWMEd.0.YR3.WyaTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13150 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrel wrote: (a lot of sensible stuff) Hi Mike, I, agree with all you wrote excerpt that I cannot yet bring myself to believe in Blacklight Power or the Correa's PAGD. If they truly have something, then their respective technologies obviously are nowhere near being turned into a product that can be sold as a serious source of power. Such a product is what is needed for us to change our campaigning - when/if it happens we will be right there in the forefront. Nick Palmer - spokesman Jersey FoE From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 19:30:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19161; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:25:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:25:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34766D08.60A1 keelynet.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:26:32 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Awesome PPM]] References: <3475C5E8.90122380 verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rIiwU2.0.Ih4.F2bTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13151 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Hamdi! No need to thank me, it was Henry Curtis who shared his information...we sure need a lot more of that....then Shane with the Photos.....I love it! -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 21:46:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA01101; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:39:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:39:58 -0800 Message-ID: <34766230.9DF earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:40:16 -0600 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 Subject: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders, second post, civil, informative, useful Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"RrkCO2.0.2H.j0dTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13152 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from pilot004.cl.msu.edu (pilot004.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.104]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA27010 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (blue localhost) by pilot004.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA19730; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:47:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199711211547.KAA19730 pilot004.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders] To: rmforall earthlink.net Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:47:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <3474B6C4.5247 earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Nov 20, 97 04:16:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Let's consider George's observations in two steps. What he actually claims to observe is activity of some sort with a puzzling time dependence well removed from the actual operation of the arc welder. If the arc were actually producing a significant neutron flux the definitive experiment would surely involving real-time detection and detection that is more specifically sensitive to neutrons. Because of the strong interference between the welder's arc and any form of electronic detection system this is likely difficult to achieve, especially on a limited budget. The next best thing would be to select a target material for neutron activation that gives rise to an activity with a very specific signiture not likely to be confused with other activities. It is a technique that is frequently employed in neutron physics, and there is an extensive literature on the subject available to anyone seriously interested. Without either a real-time measurement of radiation to show that the phenomena is time correlated to the operation of the arc or a activation scheme that is specific to neutrons, George (and others) simply have no basis for asserting that there are any neutrons being produced. The second step, perhaps, is to address the question as to what is the nature of the observed activity and what accounts for its presence in samples of welded materials such as old gate hinges. George's puzzlement over the apparent rise in activity over some time period following the welding could be laid to rest if he would just take the time to read an elementary text on the subject he seeks to investigate. Look for the topic of "secular equilibrium". Your problem, George, is that the activity you detect is not that of a single isotope but involves a cascade of decays for isotopes that have what is known as a mother-daughter relationship. Initially there is little of the daughter present, but as the mother decays there is more of the daughter formed that can then add to the observed level of activity. The activity builds up until the sample reaches secular equilibrium with the daughter (or daughters) decaying at a rate matching their rate of formation. With a little work you could probably determine the time dependence of the activity with sufficient precision to perhaps identify just what decay chain you are observing. As I noted in an earlier post it certainly is not the result of neutron capture in boron. It more likely involves something heavier, and I would suggest that you consider thorium as a possibility. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 21:50:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02195; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:47:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:47:57 -0800 Message-ID: <3476640E.2923 earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:48:14 -0600 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, blue@pilot.msu.edu Subject: Blue: He-4 questions re Arata & George Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7Mq_T3.0.DY.C8dTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13153 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 21, 1997 Dear all, Part of a post from Dick Blue: As I understand it, Arrata's contribution to CF involves the assertion that helium formed in the process remains tightly bound in the palladium and is not released until the sample has been heated to perhaps 1000 C. It's been awhile since I read the George claims, but I don't recall any mention of a similar process to free the helium. While we are on the topic of helium as the product of a CF reaction, has there yet been one experiment in which the identification helium involves anything other than mass spectrometry? I wonder why the technique of choice for all these experiments is one in which there is a known significant interference with molecular ions of the hydrogen isotopes at mass 3 and 4. There are, I think, better ways to make these measurements. Dick Blue From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 21 22:38:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11002; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:34:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:34:52 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Does Murray suffer from Attention Deficet Disorder? Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:32:33 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf710$6a4b7a00$a891410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"AbUqz2.0.lh2.BqdTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13154 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex Seems so doesn't it? FJS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 04:16:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA13225; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:08:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:08:48 -0800 Message-ID: <3476CB1A.A0C2778F microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:37:54 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Rmog, Return Flux and "Wings" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1AwzD3.0.TE3.FjiTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13156 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have added more Rmog data on some of the design elements of the Rmog's flux gate. Its Return Flux and "Wings" where its all at. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 04:16:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12939; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:06:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:06:12 -0800 Message-ID: <3476CA7D.7FC3CA15 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:35:17 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Permanent Magnet Force Alternator data up Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"28btY3.0.u93.ngiTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13155 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I have updated the Rmog page with data on Peter Aldo's Permanent Magnet Force Alternator and its reducing current as output power is delivered is detailed. I am doing a series of QField sims to further investigate Peter's device. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 05:49:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09823; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:42:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:42:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:31:42 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711220835_MC2-2934-8CD compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"AiPvO1.0.PP2.Y5kTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13157 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> I believe that both Mallove and Znidarsic have tested the Yusmar with closed systems. Perhaps they can tell us if they tried degassing and/or specific gas additions. << Surely your not still considering the Yusmar as a practical possibility! It was supposed to be installed in thousands of Moldovian homes and monasteries etc so there is no need to add or subtract any component to make it work, or so we are led to believe. IMHO if it does produce any heat, which it must by the normal laws of physics, then its only advantage is probably of similar nature to the Griggs rotary stirer. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 06:02:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA11347; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:59:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:59:35 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Sound Pressure and Power Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:55:24 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf74e$47cc1c80$a891410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"XNoNr.0.Dn2.5LkTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13158 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here you go, Horace. An exercise to help you wile away the hours till the Sun comes back next Jan 23rd? :-) The acoustic power in watts (W): W = 1.0E-6*P^2/2*po*vs, where P is pressure in dynes/cm^, po is the density of the medium(grams/cm^3) and vs is the velocity of sound in the medium (cm/second). For air po = 0.00122 grams/cm^3, vs = 3.46E4cm/sec , thus for 1 watt/cm^2; P = [2*1.22E-3*3.46E4/1.0E-6]^1/2 = 9.188E3 dynes/cm^2 * 1.45E-5 = 0.133 psi For water po = 1.0 grams/cm^3, vs = 1.462E5 cm/sec, thus for 1 watt/cm^2; P = [2*1*1.462E5/1.0E-6]^1/2 = 5.406E5 dynes/cm^2 * 1.45E-5 = 0.784 psi. Given that the human ear can percieve sound down to less than 1.0E-17 watts/cm^2 and the pain threshold is about 1.0E-6 watts/cm^2, I don't it would be wise to be under water where there's a 10 kw sound generator running(say a whale blasting fish with a louden-boomer). So much for the easy part. How fast can water molecules get with a 30 kilohertz ultrasonic generator pushing them with a longitudinal (compression) wave at 10 watts/cm^2? Only thing that I ever did close to this was sprinkle some salt on a 4" speaker and hit it with 6.3 volts A.C.60 Hz, makes a nice "salt spray" (sort of a salt trampoline). :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 06:11:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23180; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:06:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:06:32 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: , "Vortex Mail" Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:04:13 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf74f$837521e0$a891410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"T9zCT1.0.6g5.dRkTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13159 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 6:51 AM Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test >Scott, > >>> I believe that both Mallove and Znidarsic have tested the Yusmar with >closed systems. Perhaps they can tell us if they tried degassing and/or >specific gas additions. << > >Surely your not still considering the Yusmar as a practical possibility! Hi Norman,Since I asked Scott the question about entrained gases, let me say that although the device may have no "practical possibilites" (at 10 cents/kw-hr it would have to be about a thousand percent ou to compete with natural gas) it still may provide some insight into "non-visible" sonoluminescent heat production without being anywhere near ou. Best Regards, Frederick > >It was supposed to be installed in thousands of Moldovian homes and >monasteries etc so there is no need to add or subtract any component to >make it work, or so we are led to believe. > >IMHO if it does produce any heat, which it must by the normal laws of >physics, then its only advantage is probably of similar nature to the >Griggs rotary stirer. > >Norman > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 06:29:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA13818; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:25:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:25:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711221420.JAA25501 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: science history tidbit Date: Sat, 22 Nov 97 09:27:39 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id GAA13792 Resent-Message-ID: <"v3hrl.0.qN3.1jkTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13160 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ah, there is yet another "linkage" between Mallove and Merriman! Barry wrote: >You are right on taget, in fact: I was named after Barry Goldwater, >as I was born 2 days after he lost the 1964 presidential election. >Given my investigation of alchemy, perhaps it was prescient :-). At the moment I find myself growing increasingly Libertarian, and might well even join the party (switching from nominally GOP, though I'm pretty disgusted with the entire "mainstream" of politics, especially the farce of Gortex and Quinton who boost HF, ignore CF, and particiapte in this upcoming Kyoto absurdity‹making international policy on the most tenuous of scientific findings and projections.) But in 1964 as a brash 16-year-old high-school science "nerd" I was mighty in favor of Barry Goldwater. Ma ybe the chemical formula attracted me! In fact, I attended Barry's famous Madison Square Garden rally in NYC along with a bunch of other Norwich Free Academy (Connecticut) AuH2O supporters. Little did I know that a young alchemist was about to be born (to be named after THE Barry) with whom I would later cross paths. So, when Barry (Merriman) was just entering the diaper phase (I assume his parents were FOR the other Barry, otherwise why name him such), there was already a premonition of cold fusion in my life: Not just the intense controversy over (Barry) Goldwater (which is quite similar to the antagonism against CF --actually nothing in science since 1609 may come close to the intensity of the "Cold Fusion War"). It also turns out that some people, such as M itch Swartz and Ohmori, are finding astonishing things -- excess heat and transmutaitons in -- Yes, AuH2O!!! And, Barry Merriman is finding remarkable -- *apparent* (not-confirmed or published) positive results in transmutation, even though he is doing hi s best to play down his obsession with what he is seeing, e.g. his quoted statement above. Cheers, Barry! You're likely going to be the #2 alchemist on the planet. Joe's #1. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 07:30:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26719; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:24:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:24:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3476F009.9984805C verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:45:29 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Moon Gravity Map by NASA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-uKQj1.0.OX6.7blTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13161 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Stanley V. Byers Gravity, Inertia and Radiation Home page (http://pw1.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html) there is link to Moon Gravity map. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 07:36:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA28438; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:33:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:33:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:31:45 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711221531.JAA23182 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test Resent-Message-ID: <"7_Pyz.0.Gy6.PjlTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13162 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:31 AM 11/22/97 -0500, Norman wrote: >Surely your not still considering the Yusmar as a practical possibility! It's so far down on the list that I'm not planning to work on it anymore but, as with every other positive claim in this "field", we have to leave open the possibility that it works provided the conditions are just right....i.e. the Experimenter's Lament. >It was supposed to be installed in thousands of Moldovian homes and >monasteries etc so there is no need to add or subtract any component to >make it work, or so we are led to believe. The evidence is certainly stacked against it. >IMHO if it does produce any heat, which it must by the normal laws of >physics, then its only advantage is probably of similar nature to the >Griggs rotary stirer. Bingo! 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 08:03:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02969; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:00:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:00:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3477009A.40CC interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:56:10 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power References: <01bcf74e$47cc1c80$a891410c default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0mBWb2.0.Jk.56mTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13163 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > How fast can water molecules get > with a 30 kilohertz ultrasonic generator pushing them with > a longitudinal (compression) wave at 10 watts/cm^2? > Naw, Fred, this is peanuts. What we need is a HE shaped-charge aimed at a goldfish bowl. I'm sure some pyro-exploso-bango-Bill Nye-fusion- guy has tried this with heavy water. If any ATF guys are watching, I havent tried it and I never will - I promise!! One thing I would like to try - make a pellet of D2 loaded porous Ni with a thermocouple inside. Place on an anvil and wack with a 35 oz hammer swung at the hernia limit. Watch the recorder monitoring the tc and see if any heat-after-wack shows up after the rise due to the wack energy. You could do this in you're living room, Fred. Frank S. (Also known as FJS - Fred, were we put here for a reason? Maybe we are only a pair from the "FJS-fast jump start" series of first penetration androids deployed to earth to confuse the technical commumity - I know my confusion level is pretty high!) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 08:20:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06415; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:17:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:17:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347704A4.3884 interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:13:24 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Moon Gravity Map by NASA References: <3476F009.9984805C verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gTJq43.0._Z1.7MmTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13164 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: (URL for NASA Moon gravity map) Thanks, Hamdi - interesting map! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 10:17:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00771; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:38:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971122123848_1726979421 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Arata's Credentials? Resent-Message-ID: <"yM60q.0.vB.s2oTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13165 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just what are Arata's credentials? They don't affect the excellence of his experimental work, but they may have affected where he and Zhang published their 56-page-long 1997 paper. If Arata didn't have a Ph.D. in physics, that would have provided a physics journal with an excuse for rejecting an article the results of which must have been hard for physicist referees to accept. Arata is a professor emeritus currently listed as being with the Joining and Welding Research Institute, The Group of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University. Was he a professor of engineering or a professor of physics? Maybe Jed Rothwell knows about this. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 10:42:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA05682; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:35:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:35:24 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:11:11 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf772$0478f6a0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Vo3bI3.0.YO1.eNoTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13166 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Francis J. Stenger To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> > How fast can water molecules get >> with a 30 kilohertz ultrasonic generator pushing them with >> a longitudinal (compression) wave at 10 watts/cm^2? >> >Naw, Fred, this is peanuts. What we need is a HE shaped-charge aimed >at a goldfish bowl. I'm sure some pyro-exploso-bango-Bill Nye-fusion- >guy has tried this with heavy water. Probably some lithium-deuterium-tritium spheres also. :-) > If any ATF guys are watching, I >havent tried it and I never will - I promise!! They are "still" in Appalachia looking for better ethanol technology. >One thing I would like >to try - make a pellet of D2 loaded porous Ni with a thermocouple >inside. Place on an anvil and wack with a 35 oz hammer swung at the >hernia limit. Back to the Hot Fusion approach(a bigger hammer), Frank? Watch the recorder monitoring the tc and see if any >heat-after-wack shows up after the rise due to the wack energy. >You could do this in you're living room, Fred. Seeing as how you are in the remodel mode, you can rig up a drop tower and have at it, but don't use a mercury thermometer. > >Frank S. (Also known as FJS - Fred, were we put here for a reason? > Maybe we are only a pair from the "FJS-fast jump start" > series of first penetration androids deployed to earth to > confuse the technical commumity - I know my confusion level > is pretty high!) Non of that sinister stuff, Frank. People will think that you are a COMMUMIST! :-) Actually I was trying to visualize how an ultrasonic driver that has an amplitude of a micron or so can rattle the molecules in water to create the sonoluminescent bubble and how fast the molecules are going. If the driver velocity is frequency*amplitude, at 2 microns 2E-4 = a*f, at 3E4 Hz the driver velocity is 6 cm/sec? But, the velocity of sound in water is 1.46E5 cm/sec. If you can figure that one out, more power to you, so to speak. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 11:44:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19385; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:38:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:38:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:28:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"a7Tt82.0.nk4.bIpTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13167 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., In recent work an "accidental reaction product" was found. It is possible this method could be licensed to help pay for further gravity work. The original work and series of experimental runs was directed toward materials applications and the "accidental product" was postulated as being possible but not really expected. Call it semi-accident. This is one of the reasons I like material science. Any leads are appreciated. Please respond directly. I will keep Vo informed of any future successes and-or developments. I will be out getting some more equipment to try to meassure size and yield more accurately and try to come up with a coherent 'harvesting' method. Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:16:18 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: John Schnurer Subject: Saturday 22 November 1997 D From internal report: In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 11:49:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21310; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:46:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:46:41 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:38:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971122123842_541811933 mrin85.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Posts from SPF Resent-Message-ID: <"Ihj5E3.0.fC5.JQpTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13168 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The volume of material on sci.physics.fusion (SPF) is large; and for all the irrelevant electromagnetic overunity stuff that has been posted here, the amount of irrelevant stuff on SPF is even greater. For those reasons, I stopped subscribing to SPF. It was good to read that Rich plans to adopt Jed Rothwell's reasonable suggestion to extract or summarize any hidden gems in SPF posts. I think that Dieter Britz's comments in particular are always worth reading (in spite of his blind spot where Mills is concerned), so Rich Murray was doing readers of Vortex-L a service by forwarding them here in full, and I hope he'll continue doing that. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 12:45:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02854; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:39:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:39:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19971122203653.15642.qmail hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [206.150.170.115] From: "Peter Aldo" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet Force Alternator data up Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:36:52 PST Resent-Message-ID: <"_5yPx.0.Ui.-BqTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13169 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Greg, Thanks for posting my generator data and graphing it. It may help to know that the apparent ant-Lenzian behavior occurs no matter if the coils are in parallel or in series or if only one coil is loaded. The anomalous behavior also occurs if one disk is removed. In this case, the power generated decreases, however. It may not be clear from the picture, but the four ferrite flux gates on each disk are offset from each other 90 degrees (so when two flux gates on one disk pass between the magnets and two faces of the armature, the other two faces of the armature do not have any flux gates between them and the magnets). If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I'm looking forward to see your simulations. Thanks again. Pete >From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 04:16:15 1997 >Received: (from smartlst localhost) > by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA12939; > Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:06:12 -0800 >Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:06:12 -0800 >Message-ID: <3476CA7D.7FC3CA15 microtronics.com.au> >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:35:17 +1030 >From: Greg Watson >Organization: Greg Watson Consulting >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: List Server Freenrg >CC: List Server Vortex >Subject: Permanent Magnet Force Alternator data up >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Resent-Message-ID: <"28btY3.0.u93.ngiTq" mx1> >Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13155 >X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > >Hi All, > >I have updated the Rmog page with data on Peter Aldo's Permanent >Magnet Force Alternator and its reducing current as output power is >delivered is detailed. > >I am doing a series of QField sims to further investigate Peter's >device. > >-- >Best Regards, > Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 13:03:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA06974; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:58:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:58:21 -0800 (PST) From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711222056.OAA03894 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: science history tidbit In-Reply-To: <199711221420.JAA25501 mercury.mv.net> from "E.F. Mallove" at "Nov 22, 97 09:27:39 am" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:56:15 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BWZza1.0.pi1.dTqTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13170 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gene Mallove wrote: > At the moment I find myself growing increasingly Libertarian Of course, there is no where else for a rational person to go. :-) > Not just the intense controversy over (Barry) Goldwater (which is quite > similar to the antagonism against CF Goldwaters's line after losing in a landslide to LBJ, but winning his senate seat back a few years later was, "I feel like the only kamikaze who came back." And finally, another link ... Goldwater's speech writer, the late Karl Hess, who penned such historic lines as "Extremism in defensive of liberty is no vice, modertation in defense of liberty is no virtue", himself dropped out of the Republican party and became ... drum roll please ... a leading Libertarian advocate, and remained one up until his death due to heart problems just a few years ago. -- - 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 13:31:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13337; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Posts from SPF Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:28:36 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf785$36247040$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"eNek41.0.FG3.0tqTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13171 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Tstolper aol.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 12:49 PM Subject: Posts from SPF >The volume of material on sci.physics.fusion (SPF) is large; and for all the >irrelevant electromagnetic overunity stuff that has been posted here, the >amount of irrelevant stuff on SPF is even greater. For those reasons, I >stopped subscribing to SPF. It was good to read that Rich plans to adopt Jed >Rothwell's reasonable suggestion to extract or summarize any hidden gems in >SPF posts. > >I think that Dieter Britz's comments in particular are always worth reading >(in spite of his blind spot where Mills is concerned), so Rich Murray was >doing readers of Vortex-L a service by forwarding them here in full, and I >hope he'll continue doing that. I disagree, Tom. If you want SPF diatribe then I suggest that you subscribe to it. We are all grown folks with the tools to visit SPF if, and when, we want. I DO NOT want "information" second-hand or UNSOLICITED! Regards, Frederick > >Tom Stolper > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 13:32:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14864; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:30:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:30:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34774EC7.497A interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:29:44 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power References: <01bcf772$0478f6a0$LocalHost default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cTQ2B1.0.5e3.WxqTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13172 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > If the driver velocity is frequency*amplitude, at 2 microns > 2E-4 = a*f, at 3E4 Hz the driver velocity is 6 cm/sec? > But, the velocity of sound in water is 1.46E5 cm/sec. > Fred, my reference mentions that ultrasonic fatique testers can reach linear strains of as much as .006 in what looks like a specimen about 1 cm long. If this means an amplitude of order .006 cm or 60 microns, then the velocity would up to about 30 X 6 = 180 cm/sec., right? Not much more impressive. Maybe acceleration's the thing! Six cm/sec X 30,000 /sec is 180,000 cm/sec^2 - or, 180,000/980 = 184 g's or, if the fatique tester could run at 30 kHz, about 5510 g's! That's a pretty good kick in the butt! Check this out - you're better at calcs than I am. Framk S. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 17:05:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA15151; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:57:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:57:34 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:53:17 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf7aa$2fb7b1c0$d291410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"yt7W13.0.fi3.zztTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13173 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Francis J. Stenger To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> > >> If the driver velocity is frequency*amplitude, at 2 microns >> 2E-4 = a*f, at 3E4 Hz the driver velocity is 6 cm/sec? >> But, the velocity of sound in water is 1.46E5 cm/sec. >> > >Fred, my reference mentions that ultrasonic fatique testers can reach >linear strains of as much as .006 in what looks like a specimen about >1 cm long. If this means an amplitude of order .006 cm or 60 microns, >then the velocity would up to about 30 X 6 = 180 cm/sec., right? >Not much more impressive. >Maybe acceleration's the thing! Six cm/sec X 30,000 /sec is 180,000 >cm/sec^2 - or, 180,000/980 = 184 g's or, if the fatique tester could run >at 30 kHz, about 5510 g's! That's a pretty good kick in the butt! >Check this out - you're better at calcs than I am. My tour into ultrasonics leads me to believe that the primary effect of the ultrasonic energy input is boosting of the lattice vibrations ie., storing the heat (specific heat)in the material. The acoustic "jiggling" is an agitating bonus. :-) With 4.187 joule/gram/deg K you can pour lots of ultrasonic watts into 500 grams of water before the temperature gets to the boiling point. Going by this, I think a high energy (fast)pulse into a short resistance wire immersed in water would probably be an efficient and simpler way to create a sonoluminescence bubble. Easy in short bursts to get 200 watts/cm^2 or so. Should be an acoustic pulse along with this too. Regards, Frederick > >Framk S. > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 18:26:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA31045; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:21:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:21:41 -0800 Message-ID: <34778545.1827 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:22:13 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, ceti@msn.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, dennis@wazoo.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege fnal.gov, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, "76002 1473"@compuserve.com, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris@acs.tamu.edu, jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, JNaudin509@aol.com, nick7 itl.net, shkedi@bose.com, lentin@imaginet.fr, ceti_gcollins msn.com Subject: Murray: 1993 CETI cells; Order of the Tortoise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UYfS83.0.wa7.pCvTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13174 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 22, 1997 Dear all, This was at the end of a very long post on Nov. 19, so I am reposting it, along with information about The Order of the Turtoise. Murray critique of CETI patent, # 5,372,688, granted Dec. 13, 1994, filed Dec. 2, 1993: This was before Dennis Cravens started working with CETI in late 1994. The patent is published in full in pages 3-13 in Green's "Cold Fusion" #7. Data were given for seven cells, with about a dozen points at intervals of 2 minutes. Although the cells used Pd, Pt, and Au cathode films on the beads, and light or heavy water, the results are surprisingly similar, as this list of typical high heat output data shows (two lines of data for each run): Pt, light water, 14.7 psi, Table I, Fig. 8: 7.7V .30A .60 ml/min 33.0 delta 18.0W Power 2.31W Power 779% " " 1.11 22.0 T 24.4 Out " In=VXA 1056 Pd, light water, 14.7 psi, Table II, Fig. 9: 8.5 .30 .62 38.5 23.4 2.55 597 " " .48 61.0 29.3 " 1149 Pd, heavy water, 14.7 psi, Table III, Fig. 10: 9.7 .40 .89 37.0 32.9 3.88 1277 " " .85 46.0 39.1 " 1008 Au, light water, 180 psi, Table IV, Fig. 11: 5.7 .50 .55 29.0 15.9 2.85 558 5.8 .60 " 36.0 19.8 3.48 569 Pd, light water, 180 psi, Table V, Fig. 12: 6.6 .60 .59 59.0 34.8 3.96 879 " " " 62.0 36.6 " 924 Pd, light water, 180 psi, Table VI: 7.3 .60 .58 63.0 36.54 4.38 834 7.5 " 1.10 44.0 48.40 4.50 1076 Pd, heavy water, 180 psi, Table VII: 7.7 .50 .58 54.0 31.32 3.85 814 7.3 " " 53.0 30.74 3.65 842 If there is any recombination of H2 and O2, as is likely in the dense bed of closely packed beads, then the excess power ratios would be even higher. However, the high output power ratios for Au or Pt in light water indicate that some artifacts are responsible, since no other reports reliably suggest that these metals are effective in producing excess power ratios in electrolysis experiments. For Pt, almost doubling the flow rate with no change in voltage, current, or Input Power makes a much smaller change in output power ratio, which is counterintuitive if the source is nuclear, but makes sense if there is a flow-dependent artifact. For Au, a small increase in Input Power makes a much smaller increase in output power ratio, which at least is consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in light water, Table II, shows no sign of producing a higher excess power ratio than did Pt for almost identical levels of voltage, current, flow rate, and Input Power, but again, shows a large change in output power ratio for a small change in flow rate, consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in light water, Table V, shows about a 5% change in output power ratio with no change in voltage, current, flow rate, or input power: this perhaps indicates the overall accuracy of measurements and acceptible fluctuations in the system. Pd in light water, Table VI, again shows a 29% increase in output power ratio for almost a doubling of flow rate, with small changes in voltage and input power: this again is consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in heavy water, Table III, shows a 21% decrease in output power ratio with a small change in flow ratio, with no change in voltage, current, or input power: this also is consistent with flow-dependent artifacts. Pd in heavy water, Table VII, shows no evidence of greater output power ratio than Pt in light water, even though the Pd has much greater Input Power. With no changes in any of the inputs, the output power ratio is almost unchanged: this again indicates acceptible uncertainties in the basic measurements and in the system fluctuations. I find no evidence to support the radical hypothesis that nuclear reactions are responsible for the apparent ten-fold increase in output power ratio. The voice of the data suggests flow-dependent artifacts. This indicates that other, similar experiments using electrolyte or cooling flow with similar impressive power output ratios are also not convincing evidence of nuclear reactions, until the nature and scope of the possible flow dependent artifacts are understood. Many experiments could be tested by running them with Pt or Au cathodes: if the apparent excess power ratios remain high, then it is likely time to search for some artifacts. The nuclear hypothesis, if not backed up by measurements of nuclear products or radiation, is tenable only if other physical and chemical artifacts are carefully eliminated. The Order of the Tortoise: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/ We are a group of conventional scientists and engineers who wish that Cold Fusion, Free Energy Devices, and Alchemy were real. The plodding Tortoise---making painfully slow progress but undaunted and un-discouraged---symbolizes mankind's enduring quest for these elusive goals. Charter: The primary function is to unite conventional scientists who wish these phenomena were real, but feel proof is lacking, and want to see rigorous scientific investigation. Administrivia: We are a professional society, but with no dues, meetings or organizational structure of any kind. In fact, the only function performed by the Society is to promote the idea, through its mere existence, that its OK for professional scientists and engineers to be interested in such things. Membership is open to any professional scientist or engineer now or previously engaged in conventional research and development, who agree with our stated charter. Eligible scientists and engineers who actually believe Cold Fusion, Free Energy or Alchemy are real are welcome, but it is understood that members are much more likely to believe the opposite, in accord with conventional scientific opinion. "Cranks" and "True Believers" who routinely accept or espouse things well beyond the limits of scientific knowledge and empirical verification, or are hostile towards conventional science, are not welcome , as the whole Internet is their Society. Regular Members 1.Dr. Barry Merriman , Assistant Professor, UCLA Dept. of Math, Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program 2.Dr. Paul Burchard , Research Fellow, Computer Science Dept., Princeton University. 3.Fredrick J. Sparber, (frederick.sparber worldnet.att.net) Inventor-Scientist, Sandia National Labs (Retired); (patented inventions used on pioneer-voyagers etc., listed at www.uspto.gov, keyword Sparber); Conceiver of our revered Tortoise icon and motto 4.Horace Heffner, (hheffner corecom.net), Operation Research Analyst, member of the ACM and IEEE, now retired. Holder of a US patent in the communications field. 5.Dr. Scott Chubb, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, (chubb ccf.nrl.navy.mil or chubb@neptune.nrl.navy.mil). 6.Rich Murray, B.S. physics and history, MIT, 1964; Boston U. Graduate School, M.A. Psychology, 1967 (rmforall earthlink.net). 7.Scott R. Little , Experimentalist, EarthTech International; 20 years experience designing XRF analyzer systems; B.S. Engineering-Physics, University of Texas, Austin. 8.Dr. Hal Puthoff, Research physicist/Director, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin Texas. (Puthoff aol.com) Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall earthlink.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 20:14:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA08813; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:07:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:07:53 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:04:07 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf7c4$d8df6120$d291410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"muEfy2.0.c92.OmwTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13175 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A thought, Frank S. If you still have that 4" diameter aluminum billet 6061T6 in your garage, you might still consider cutting off about 1 1/2" and rotating it at about 24,000 RPM in a glass pipe with water, with about 0.002" clearance to put the water in shear. Again, I think that this "rotating drum viscometer" will do the tribo-sonoluminescence thing, bubbles and all. I can't predict how much pitting of the rotor or glass there will be, but if you plate the rotor with U-238 you might end up with a sort of breeder reactor or LENR in your garage. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 20:25:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA10265; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:23:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:23:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:17:52 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"7fl_M.0.JW2.J_wTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13176 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:28:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Dear Vo., In recent work an "accidental reaction product" was found. It is possible this method could be licensed to help pay for further gravity work. The original work and series of experimental runs was directed toward materials applications and the "accidental product" was postulated as being possible but not really expected. Call it semi-accident. This is one of the reasons I like material science. Any leads are appreciated. Please respond directly. I will keep Vo informed of any future successes and-or developments. I will be out getting some more equipment to try to meassure size and yield more accurately and try to come up with a coherent 'harvesting' method. Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:16:18 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: John Schnurer Subject: Saturday 22 November 1997 D From internal report: In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 20:59:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13531; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:50:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:50:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3477A802.43B3 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:50:26 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, jdunn@ctc.org, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, wireless@rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73@aol.com, jlagarde cyberaccess.fr, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, shellied sage.dri.edu, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim physics.purdue.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, 76002.1473 compuserve.com, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris@acs.tamu.edu, jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, nick7@itl.net, shkedi bose.com, rooster@mail.utexas.edu, lentin@imaginet.fr, ceti_gcollins msn.com Subject: corrected Murray: 1993 CETI cells; Order of the Tortoise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4EQCb3.0.LJ3.FOxTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13177 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 22, 1997 Dear all, This is from a long post of Nov. 19, with corrections of numerical errors and comments, plus information on The Order of the Tortoise. Murray critique of CETI patent, # 5,372,688, granted Dec. 13, 1994, filed Dec. 2, 1993: This was before Dennis Cravens started working with CETI in late 1994. The patent is published in full in pages 3-13 in Green's "Cold Fusion" #7. Data were given for seven cells, with about a dozen points each at intervals of 2 minutes. Although the cells used Pd, Pt, and Au cathode films on the beads, and light or heavy water, the results are surprisingly similar, as this list of typical high heat output data shows (two lines of data selected for each run): Pt, light water, 14.7 psi, Table I, Fig. 8: (VXI) Volts Amps ml/min Delta T Power Out Power In Power Ratio 7.7 .30 .60 33.0 18.0W 2.31W 779% " " 1.11 22.0 24.4 " 1056 Pd, light water, 14.7 psi, Table II, Fig. 9: 8.5 .30 .62 38.5 23.4 2.55 918 " " .48 61.0 29.3 " 1149 Pd, heavy water, 14.7 psi, Table III, Fig. 10: 9.7 .40 .89 37.0 32.9 3.88 848 " " .85 46.0 39.1 " 1008 Au, light water, 180 psi, Table IV, Fig. 11: 5.7 .50 .55 29.0 15.9 2.85 558 5.8 .60 " 36.0 19.8 3.48 569 Pd, light water, 180 psi, Table V, Fig. 12: 6.6 .60 .59 59.0 34.8 3.96 879 " " " 62.0 36.6 " 924 Pd, light water, 180 psi, Table VI: 7.3 .60 .58 63.0 36.54 4.38 834 7.5 " 1.10 44.0 48.40 4.50 1076 Pd, heavy water, 180 psi, Table VII: 7.7 .50 .58 54.0 31.32 3.85 814 7.3 " " 53.0 30.74 3.65 842 If there is any recombination of H2 and O2, as is likely in the dense bed of closely packed beads, then the excess power ratios would be even higher. However, the high output power ratios for Au or Pt in light water indicate that some artifacts are responsible, since no other reports reliably suggest that these metals are effective in producing excess power ratios in electrolysis experiments. For Pt, almost doubling the flow rate with no change in voltage, current, or Input Power makes a smaller (136% = +36%) change in output power ratio, which is counterintuitive if the source is nuclear, but makes sense if there is a flow-dependent artifact. For Au, a small increase in Input Power makes a much smaller increase in output power ratio, which at least is consistent with a flow-dependent artifact. Pd in light water, Table II, shows no sign of producing a higher excess power ratio than did Pt for almost identical levels of voltage, current, flow rate, and Input Power, but again, shows a large change in output power ratio for a small change in flow rate, consistent with a flow dependent artifact. Pd in light water, Table V, shows about a 5% change in output power ratio with no change in voltage, current, flow rate, or input power: this perhaps indicates the overall accuracy of measurements and acceptible fluctuations in the system. Pd in light water, Table VI, again shows a 29% increase in output power ratio for almost a doubling of flow rate, with small changes in voltage and input power: this again is consistent with a flow dependent artifact. Pd in heavy water, Table III, shows a 119% increase in output power ratio with a small decrease in flow ratio, with no change in voltage, current, or input power: this also is consistent with flow dependent artifacts. Pd in heavy water, Table VII, shows no evidence of greater output power ratio than Pt in light water, even though the Pd has much greater Input Power. With no changes in any of the inputs, the output power ratio is almost unchanged: this again indicates acceptible uncertainties in the basic measurements and in the system fluctuations. I find no evidence to support the radical hypothesis that nuclear reactions are responsible for the apparent ten-fold increase in output power ratio. The voice of the data suggests flow dependent artifacts. This indicates that other, similar experiments using electrolyte or cooling flow with similar impressive power output ratios are also not convincing evidence of nuclear reactions, until the nature and scope of the possible flow dependent artifacts are understood. Many experiments could be tested by running them with Pt or Au cathodes: if the apparent excess power ratios remain high, then it is likely time to search for some artifacts. The nuclear hypothesis, if not backed up by measurements of nuclear products or radiation, is tenable only if other physical and chemical artifacts are carefully eliminated. The Order of the Tortoise: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/tortoise/ We are a group of conventional scientists and engineers who wish that Cold Fusion, Free Energy Devices, and Alchemy were real. The plodding Tortoise---making painfully slow progress but undaunted and un-discouraged---symbolizes mankind's enduring quest for these elusive goals. Charter: The primary function is to unite conventional scientists who wish these phenomena were real, but feel proof is lacking, and want to see rigorous scientific investigation. Administrivia: We are a professional society, but with no dues, meetings or organizational structure of any kind. In fact, the only function performed by the Society is to promote the idea, through its mere existence, that its OK for professional scientists and engineers to be interested in such things. Membership is open to any professional scientist or engineer now or previously engaged in conventional research and development, who agree with our stated charter. Eligible scientists and engineers who actually believe Cold Fusion, Free Energy or Alchemy are real are welcome, but it is understood that members are much more likely to believe the opposite, in accord with conventional scientific opinion. "Cranks" and "True Believers" who routinely accept or espouse things well beyond the limits of scientific knowledge and empirical verification, or are hostile towards conventional science, are not welcome , as the whole Internet is their Society. Regular Members 1.Dr. Barry Merriman , Assistant Professor, UCLA Dept. of Math, Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program. 2.Dr. Paul Burchard , Research Fellow, Computer Science Dept., Princeton University. 3.Fredrick J. Sparber, (frederick.sparber worldnet.att.net) Inventor-Scientist, Sandia National Labs (Retired); (patented inventions used on pioneer-voyagers etc., listed at www.uspto.gov, keyword Sparber); Conceiver of our revered totrtoise icon and motto. 4.Horace Heffner, (hheffner corecom.net), Operation Research Analyst, member of the ACM and IEEE, now retired. Holder of a US patent in the communications field. 5.Dr. Scott Chubb, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, (chubb ccf.nrl.navy.mil or chubb@neptune.nrl.navy.mil). 6.Rich Murray, B.S. physics and history, MIT, 1964; Boston U. Graduate School, M.A. Psychology, 1967 (rmforall earthlink.net). 7.Scott R. Little , Experimentalist, EarthTech International; 20 years experience designing XRF analyzer systems; B.S. Engineering-Physics, University of Texas, Austin. 8.Dr. Hal Puthoff, Research physicist/Director, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin Texas. (Puthoff aol.com). Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall earthlink.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 21:12:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA17203; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:10:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:10:06 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:08:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123000849_87838742 mrin85.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: scott you look good on TV Resent-Message-ID: <"TABva1.0.cC4.fgxTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13178 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Z., In a message dated 11/22/97 6:03:46 AM, you wrote: <> It was meant in the form "wish it would go so overunity it would melt!" Hal From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 21:15:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23348; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:10:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:10:59 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971123050941.008f36fc freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:09:41 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"EyHqt.0.ii5.XhxTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13179 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:28 PM 11/22/97 -0500, John Schnurer wrote: > > > From internal report: > > In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized >diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut >on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at >or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. > On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. > > If the product is formed in air at 1,000 C why does it revert back to graphite when heated in air? Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 21:21:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18469; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:16:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:16:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3477AE2C.5975 earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:44 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73@aol.com, jlagarde cyberaccess.fr, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, dennis@wazoo.com, ghlin greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, shellied@sage.dri.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, jjones@ebs.330.eb.uah.edu, simonb post.queensu.ca, nick7@itl.net, shkedi@bose.com, rooster mail.utexas.edu, ceti_gcollins@msn.com Subject: Murray: correct two lines Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zOYwV2.0.VW4.qmxTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13180 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 22, 1997 Dear all, I don't know why I can't get the first two lines of the CETI cell data to come out right in the long post, so here they are, again: Pt, light water, 14.7 psi, Table I, Fig. 8: (VXI) Volts Amps ml/min Delta T Power Out Power In Power Ratio 7.7 .30 .60 33.0 18.0W 2.31W 779% " " 1.11 22.0 24.4 " 1056 Rich From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 22:01:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA30979; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:54:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:54:58 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 05:54:21 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3477ab38.24964592 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hKyzL2.0.yZ7.nKyTq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13181 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:28:44 -0500 (EST), John Schnurer wrote: [snip] > Any leads are appreciated. Please respond directly. I will keep >Vo informed of any future successes and-or developments. I will be out >getting some more equipment to try to meassure size and yield more >accurately and try to come up with a coherent 'harvesting' method. [snip] > In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized >diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut >on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at >or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. > On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. [snip] John, What can you tell us about the process? (It is going to be very hard to even guess what is going on, without some sort of indication). Why was the possibility of diamond production postulated? 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 22 22:04:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23331; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:55:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:55:38 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 05:54:24 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3479bd69.29622230 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <01bcf53d$e0d1fe80$LocalHost default> In-Reply-To: <01bcf53d$e0d1fe80$LocalHost default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fHLEv2.0.Oi5.OLyTq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13182 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:52:57 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >>On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:15:36 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>[snip] >>>I think you can calculate the potential energy from W = k*q^2/r. Since one >>>of the"quarks" >>>in a proton has a rest mass of about 312 Mev it's radius r is k*q^2/w = >>>4.61E-18 meters. >>> >>>Then by a leap of faith since a 13.6 ev electron "orbits" at 5.29E-11 >meters >>>the >>>magic number 137^3 (1/alpha^3)times 13.6 ev >>>gives an energy of 35 Mev and a "coupling radius" of 4.11E-17 meters. The >>>binding energy of 35 Mev for a 312 Mev "quark" in a proton >>>seems about right. >>> >>>In other words a "swallowed" Light Lepton or >>>electron will have a relativistic mass of: >>>Mrel = Mo[(q*V/Mo*c^2)+1] = 6.31E-29 Kg. This is basically just Mrel = Mo + q*V/c^2. Since q*V/c^2 >> Mo, Mrel ~= q*V/c^2. >>> >>>Equating Fc = Mrel*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/R^2 Substituting in this equation gives: Fc = (q*V/c^2)*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/R^2. & with k*q/R = V we get Fc = q*V/r = Fes = V*q/R, IOW 1 = 1. :) >>> >>>Fc = 5.682E-12/4.11E-17 = 1.38E5 nt. >>> >>>Fes = 2.3E-28/4.11E-17 = 1.36E5 nt So the "close match" here is no real surprise. It is a direct consequence of calculating relativistic mass based on potential energy, and assuming a velocity of c for the orbiting particle. In fact as Mrel = (pot. energy)/c^2 + Mo, and Mo is never = 0, Fc will always be slightly greater than Fes. So the only way to get a stable orbit is to allow the particle to orbit at a speed slightly less than c, to compensate for the rest mass. In fact if we set Fs = (lower velocity)/c, then Fs = sqrt[q*V/(Mo*C^2+q*V)]. As Mo approaches 0, this approaches 1 (i.e. the velocity approaches c). (Note, Fs is "stable fraction", or fraction of c required for a stable orbit, not Frederick Sparber :) [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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 02:55:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA30345; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 02:47:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 02:47:47 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:44:26 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf7fc$c5b00e00$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"5akvD3.0.3Q7.Id0Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13183 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Edwin Strojny To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 10:15 PM Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) >At 02:28 PM 11/22/97 -0500, John Schnurer wrote: >> >> >> From internal report: >> >> In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized >>diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut >>on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at >>or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. >> On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. >> >> Hate to rain on John's parade, but there are a few patents on this approach. www.uspto.gov search keywords; diamonds AND production. Los Alamos and Sandia came across something like this using CH4 (or such)to make "Fullerenes", had a picture of the "microdiamond" dust in the paper a few years back. Regards, Frederick >If the product is formed in air at 1,000 C why does it revert back to >graphite when heated in air? > >Ed Strojny > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 03:08:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA00254; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:05:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:05:52 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 04:03:29 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf7ff$6e934e40$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"zTLdz2.0.p3.Fu0Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13184 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Cesium-Hydrogen-Hydrino Thermionic Converter > >This is basically just Mrel = Mo + q*V/c^2. >Since q*V/c^2 >> Mo, Mrel ~= q*V/c^2. > >Substituting in this equation gives: > >Fc = (q*V/c^2)*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/R^2. & with k*q/R = V > >we get Fc = q*V/r = Fes = V*q/R, > >IOW 1 = 1. :) Are you a "Unitarian"? :-) > >So the "close match" here is no real surprise. It is a direct >consequence of calculating relativistic mass based on potential >energy, and assuming a velocity of c for the orbiting particle. >In fact as Mrel = (pot. energy)/c^2 + Mo, and Mo is never = 0, Fc will >always be slightly greater than Fes. >So the only way to get a stable orbit is to allow the particle to >orbit at a speed slightly less than c, to compensate for the rest >mass. >In fact if we set Fs = (lower velocity)/c, then > >Fs = sqrt[q*V/(Mo*C^2+q*V)]. As Mo approaches 0, this approaches 1 >(i.e. the velocity approaches c). >(Note, Fs is "stable fraction", or fraction of c required for a stable >orbit, not Frederick Sparber :) > BTW the potential V of a point is kq/r, so since energy W = kq^2/r q*V = W :-) I think if you pin down gamma, 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 you will find that the electrostatic force Fes will equal the centrifugal force Fc without question for the "orbiting" relativistic particles. I was a bit sloppy on that one. I don't think that the alkali metals and hydrogen were used at the same time in the thermionic converters. That would be stupid. :-) Regards, Frederick >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! >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 03:23:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA03354; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:19:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:19:57 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:20:22 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199711231120.MAA05444 imaginet.fr> X-Sender: lentin mail.imaginet.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jean-Pierre Lentin Subject: Polywater - science history tidbit ? Resent-Message-ID: <"eff0_.0.Kq.S51Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13185 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all ! Interesting, this tidbit When "polywater" was found to be just a soup of ordinary water and silica dissolved from the quartz capillaries' surfaces, not only did it disappear from the handbooks, but it began a new life as a symbol, the perfect modern example of The Science Blunder. Looking at the various items compiled at http://www.wlu.edu/~hblackme/physics/polywater/ it's interesting to see that most recent references to polywater are in the context of "delusion in science", "pathological science", "pseudoscience", and, guess what, cold fusion. Curiously, two important points are missing in all those texts : 1 / The negative new findings and their publication were done in August 1973 by the discoverer himself, Boris Deryagin (sometimes spelled Derjaguin), main proponent of polywater since 1965, 2 / The water molecule's ability to dissolve quartz in very small capillaries was in itself an intriguing property. Sadly, after the embarassment, there was no further research. Typical BGWBW syndrome (Baby Goes With Bath Water). I had long wondered what became of Deryagin. Answer came one week ago in a Vortex-L post about "fracto-fusion" (thanks to Dieter Britz/SPF/Murray) with 3 Deryagin abstracts. The first was : "High-energy processes accompanying the fracture of solids". ** Shot small pellets at LiD crystals and observed energetic radiation emitted, presumably from the micro-cracks resulting from the stress. The authors assume the possibility of cold nuclear fusion in these cracks." The year was 1986. Right on, Boris ! : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Pierre Lentin 1 rue de Prague, 75012 PARIS, France phone 33 1 43 47 00 63 fax 33 1 44 67 90 56 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 03:53:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA19337; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:47:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:47:46 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "George Sparber" , Subject: Re: Polywater - science history tidbit ? Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 04:44:46 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf805$32722e80$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"nWq0j1.0.3k4.XV1Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13186 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Pierre Lentin To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sunday, November 23, 1997 4:28 AM Subject: Polywater - science history tidbit ? Hi Jean-Pierre! It's been a while. I thought that you would have your eye on polywater. :-) The water cluster-memory phenomena are right in there, aren't they? Actually, the 4 deg C density of water (above or below this temperature water is less dense) tends to support a "polymer" hypothesis. I often wonder if the arrangement is what the sensors (that aquatic creatures have) can discriminate between different cluster configurations, the same as olefactory discernment. Best regards, Frederick >Hi all ! > >Interesting, this tidbit > >When "polywater" was found to be just a soup of ordinary water and silica >dissolved from the quartz capillaries' surfaces, not only did it disappear >from the handbooks, but it began a new life as a symbol, the perfect modern >example of The Science Blunder. > >Looking at the various items compiled at >http://www.wlu.edu/~hblackme/physics/polywater/ >it's interesting to see that most recent references to polywater are in the >context of "delusion in science", "pathological science", "pseudoscience", >and, guess what, cold fusion. > >Curiously, two important points are missing in all those texts : > >1 / The negative new findings and their publication were done in August 1973 >by the discoverer himself, Boris Deryagin (sometimes spelled Derjaguin), >main proponent of polywater since 1965, > >2 / The water molecule's ability to dissolve quartz in very small >capillaries was in itself an intriguing property. Sadly, after the >embarassment, there was no further research. Typical BGWBW syndrome (Baby >Goes With Bath Water). > >I had long wondered what became of Deryagin. Answer came one week ago in a >Vortex-L post about "fracto-fusion" (thanks to Dieter Britz/SPF/Murray) with >3 Deryagin abstracts. The first was : > >"High-energy processes accompanying the fracture of solids". >** Shot small pellets at LiD crystals and observed energetic radiation >emitted, presumably from the micro-cracks resulting from the stress. The >authors assume the possibility of cold nuclear fusion in these cracks." > >The year was 1986. > >Right on, Boris ! > > >: > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Jean-Pierre Lentin >1 rue de Prague, 75012 PARIS, France >phone 33 1 43 47 00 63 >fax 33 1 44 67 90 56 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 04:11:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA07715; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 04:02:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 04:02:48 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971123005911.006c01a4 postoffice.ptd.net> X-Sender: revtec postoffice.ptd.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:59:11 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: jeff fink Subject: in defense of Tinsley and Takahashi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"FwZCW2.0.Tu1.dj1Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13187 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I was at the cold fusion seminar in Boston in Feb 96 and heard Chris Tinsley's report on his test drive of the Takahashi scooter. As I recall he said he drove it for half an hour at speeds up to 75 mph with numerous jack rabbit starts and panic stops. He further said that at the conclusion of the ride that the brakes were hot and the motor was cold! I own a Honda Helix 250 cc scooter. I had it up to 70 mph once. I don't think it will go 75 on the level without a bit of tail wind. From my experiance, the performance Mr. Tinsley reported was far beyond anything you could achieve with the single battery the Sciex scooter was apparently equipped with. If you packed every nook and cranny in that scooter with battery stuff I still dont think you could do it. Also, that model of scooter is much smaller than a Helix. The Helix is a beast by comparison. Perhaps Gene would post a transcript of the report since the entire event was video taped. The bottom line is this: The reported performance as I recall it makes the Sciex scooter anything but fraudulent. Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 05:07:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12477; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 05:04:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 05:04:06 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971123080007.006a9aec world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:00:07 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: science history tidbit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"kRZAA1.0.o23.4d2Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13188 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:20 PM 11/21/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >> There is a Goldwater mentioned in the history books around 1964, >> but that's a different story. Maybe Barry or Joe Champion could >> help you there. :-) >> > >You are right on taget, in fact: I was named after Barry Goldwater, >as I was born 2 days after he lost the 1964 presidential election. >Given my investigation of alchemy, perhaps it was prescient :-). > >-- >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 > gulp... Seems I was struggling with dielectric spectroscopy of ice 1h and other ice phases (including preparing them by zone refining and pressurization), and ice doped with select impurities (CO2, Na, NH3, K, F) including the "art" of vacuum depositing three terminal (guard-ring) gold electrodes onto the ultrapure ice at MITs Laboratory of Insulation Research (then examining the complex permittivity between ~ 10^-3 and 10^7 Hz), and had made a functioning electric Kerr cell from aqueous solubilized collagen which I had obtained from rats' tail tendons, had grown ruby and sapphire boules by oxygen-hydrogen flame, and was just constructing molecular oxygen detectors by depositing human and horse hemoglobin onto vibrating piezoelectric crystals, when our Dr. Barry Merriman was only in diapers. Now a small portion of this struggle seems much seems clearer. Thanks for sharing that update, Barry. [ Why is it that many VOCAL critics of cold fusion are, well, young. At cf the meetings, it has appeared at some that the populations seems older, more experienced grey-haired types, and with a paucity of representation by younger types. Any thoughts you historians???? ] Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 06:15:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02468; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 06:10:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 06:10:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:04:14 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3477ab38.24964592 mail.eisa.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-fk-w.0.Sc.za3Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13189 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Robin and Vo., I have been working in materials sciences for several years. I have been active in patenting and reducing to practice in more than one area. The diamond production is spin off of ceramic work. We were able to do it 2 years ago on similar basis for films. We picked the film work up again and again produced the micro diamonds. This is not postulation of diamond growth, it is the intent of the work. It is well known diamonds are commercially made for abrasives at well over 15 million carats a year. Diamond films and diamond like coatings are commercial products. In general the abrasives are formed at high pressures with metal catalyst and films a low pressures with chemical vapor depositions, or CVD. There are many variations. We are one in the higher temperature area. The metal catalysis is different which is why we are keeping it trade secret. On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:28:44 -0500 (EST), John Schnurer wrote: > [snip] > > Any leads are appreciated. Please respond directly. I will keep > >Vo informed of any future successes and-or developments. I will be out > >getting some more equipment to try to meassure size and yield more > >accurately and try to come up with a coherent 'harvesting' method. > [snip] > > In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized > >diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut > >on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at > >or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. > > On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. > [snip] > John, > > What can you tell us about the process? (It is going to be very hard > to even guess what is going on, without some sort of indication). Why > was the possibility of diamond production postulated? > > > 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! > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 06:16:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02714; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 06:12:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 06:12:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:11:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711231411.IAA14681 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: 1993 CETI cells Resent-Message-ID: <"aloUZ.0.Kg.qc3Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13190 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:50 PM 11/22/97 -0600, Rich wrote: >This was before Dennis Cravens started working with CETI in late 1994. >Volts Amps ml/min Delta T Power Out Power In Power Ratio >7.7 .30 .60 33.0 18.0W 2.31W >779% If this data is correct, I can see one of the things that Cravens taught them about flow calorimetry! I have criticized Cravens et al for using such low flow rates as 14.3 ml/min because the fluid velocity is so low. But the above data indicates a flow velocity that is absolutely ludicrous! In a 1/4" ID tube, 0.60 ml/min would produce a flow velocity of only 0.3 mm/sec! At such a crawl, it would be impossible to measure the true average delta-T across the cell. The temperature probes would respond to a combination of the liquid temp and ambient temp and would be influenced by direct conduction from the apparatus through the walls of the tubing, etc. etc. If the cell was oriented vertically, I would expect severe thermal stratification effects as such a low flow rate. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 07:51:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03695; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:47:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:47:11 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34784FE9.458B math.ucla.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:46:49 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cells References: <199711231411.IAA14681 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Q8bD13.0.ev.-_4Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13191 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 09:50 PM 11/22/97 -0600, Rich wrote: > > >Volts Amps ml/min Delta T Power Out Power In Power Ratio > >7.7 .30 .60 33.0 18.0W 2.31W >779% > > the above data indicates a flow velocity that is > absolutely ludicrous! > I agree---this was also the first thing I noted when I studied their patent. In fact, their original method of calorimetry (tiny flow rate and T probes imbedded in plaster around the cell, or some such thing) to this day suggests to me that they should not have discovered anything but artifacts. If there is anything to their technology, which I doubt, it was discovered entirely by luck. Flows of 10 ml/min are like a steady drip-drip-drip from a faucet. That is the Cravens rate. Flows of ~ 0.5 ml/min is like one drip every minute! Ridiculous. Also, its worth noting that we approach the two year anniversary of the infamous Powergen CETI demo, yet CETI has still produced basically nothing since then, aside from patent applications, hyped Demo's on TV, and a demonstration kit does not demonstrate and heat production at all. Makes one wonder, no? I suspect they will be going out of business not too long from now...then we can probably get some CETI beads real cheap :-). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 08:35:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10276; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:32:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:32:04 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:27:27 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: 1993 CETI cells Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711231129_MC2-2956-ECD3 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"vyp-D.0.TW2.3g5Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13193 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: If this data is correct, I can see one of the things that Cravens taught them about flow calorimetry! I have criticized Cravens et al for using such low flow rates as 14.3 ml/min because the fluid velocity is so low. But the above data indicates a flow velocity that is absolutely ludicrous! Patterson knew that. As I have pointed out here many times, he did not do flow calorimetry in 1993. He used static calorimetry. The measure of power out was based on the cell temperature alone. The electrolyte was circulated through the cell to keep the bead pack working. Heat lost in the flow was ignored. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 08:40:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10234; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:31:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:31:56 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:27:41 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: in defense of Tinsley and Takahashi Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711231131_MC2-2958-F172 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"p3Tvu.0.lV2.xf5Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13192 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Jeff Fink writes: I was at the cold fusion seminar in Boston in Feb 96 and heard Chris Tinsley's report on his test drive of the Takahashi scooter. As I recall he said he drove it for half an hour at speeds up to 75 mph with numerous jack rabbit starts and panic stops. He further said that at the conclusion of the ride that the brakes were hot and the motor was cold! . . . From my experiance, the performance Mr. Tinsley reported was far beyond anything you could achieve with the single battery the Sciex scooter was apparently equipped with. . . . Yes, that is what he concluded. The performance was intriguing and inexplicable. However, he was not allowed to disassemble the machine or subject it to intensive independed laboratory tests. Without such tests you cannot make any final judgement about the machine. That is what Chris said all alone. We talked about the scooter many times. I am sure that was his conclusion. He never fully endorsed it or concluded that it must be producing anomalous energy. Since Takahashi refuses to demonstrate the scooter, motors or magnets to other people, and he refuses to allow independent confirmation, the performance of the machine will remain a mystery forever. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 08:44:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11660; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:43:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:43:20 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:27:52 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Encouragement for Murray Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711231131_MC2-2958-F173 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Jk2CH1.0.1s2.dq5Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13194 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net Rich Murray writes: Well, Jed, Over the year, a number of qualified cold fusion participants have explicitly approved of my critiques, and asked me to keep sending them. Mostly, they don't want to be put in the limelight of your attention. However, three other than myself are members of The Order of the Tortoise. Of course, also Blue, Morrison, Droege, Shkedi, J. Jones, and sometimes Britz-- I've never heard from Stephen Jones. Four active researchers have requested I keep sending critiques. That is because people like Blue, Morrison and Droege are as ignorant and misinformed as you are. They will accept anything you say. They never think for themselves. You pat yourself on the head for a job well done, and you tell me about how these authorities love you. You are ignoring the fact that *every single technical point in every paper you wrote* has been proved wrong. Miley and Carrell blew you out of the water. You mixed up 3% and 15%, you thought the electrolyte flows, you concluded that Arata's equipment is obsolete. Blue, Morrison and Droege will now take as the gospel truth that Miley had 15% error bars. They automatically believe anything that another "skeptic" says. But just because they repeat your mistakes that does not make you right. You refuse to rewrite your critiques. You know they are filled with errors. You have admitted that! But you keep circulating them uncorrected. You fool gullible people like Morrison and Blue with them from time to time. Now you claim that some idiot has asked you to peer review a paper. This is a new definition of scientific "peer:" a person who admits he has never done a single experiment; a person with no relevant scientific degree; a person who publicly made dozens of absurd mistakes and has never found a single valid flaw in any paper; a person so ignorant of the fundamentals that he thinks that people do flow calorimetry without measuring the flow. This is a peer?!? Your mistakes prove that you are not qualified to peer review a sixth grade science fair project. If I made one-tenth as many stupid mistakes as you make, every scientist on this forum would tell me I'm out of my head. They ignore you. They have seen Miley, Bockris and Carrell waste time trying to set you straight. You don't listen, or -- more infuriating -- you admit you are wrong one minute but the next minute you blithely repeat the same mistakes. People here ignore you. You take their silence as acquiescence. Some of the people you have fooled praise you and go around repeating your mistakes. You claim their praise is evidence that you are doing something right! You cite Britz. He admitted to Carrell that he took your word for it, he never read the paper, and he is only repeating your evaluation. As Carrell put it, this is smoke and mirrors. It is a classic example of a propaganda and disinformation campaign. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 09:14:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15447; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:07:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:07:17 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCF7F7.F0AD18F0.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: 1993 CETI cells Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:09:51 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"roD1f.0.Fn3.3B6Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13195 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: >Makes one wonder, no? I suspect they will be going out of business not too long from now...then we can probably get some CETI beads real cheap :-). Barry, I wouldn't be too sure of them going out of business. Chris (a CETI employee) contacted Dan York and me last week in an attempt to license precious metal technology. They want to produce ounces of gold to make more beads and payroll. Who knows, maybe they want to gold plate them (the beads, not the payroll)! BTW - Barry, the final numbers are in on the 3.5 hour run of the large reactor that you observed in Henderson, Nevada. Total precious metals produced was 58.5 troy ounces (1,819 grams). Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 09:26:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22503; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:19:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:19:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:13:36 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971123050941.008f36fc freeway.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"aTUiM3.0.WV5.YM6Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13196 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., Ed brings up a very good point. I would have to be doing something else during the process to prevent reversion to graphitic state at 1,000 C. I am. That is part of the process. J On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Edwin Strojny wrote: > At 02:28 PM 11/22/97 -0500, John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > > From internal report: > > > > In recent examination of reaction products there are microsized > >diamonds. The material is in the form of grit. It makes clean easy cut > >on ruby and glass. The process takes about 4 hours and is conducted at > >or below 1,000 C in air at atmospheric pressures. > > On heating in air the particles revert to graphite. > > > > > If the product is formed in air at 1,000 C why does it revert back to > graphite when heated in air? > > Ed Strojny > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 09:52:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26613; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:45:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:45:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <01BCF7FD.425D7960.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: John -- Regarding diamonds Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:47:54 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OyYIx.0.kV6.Ll6Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13197 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, There was an interesting article in Life Magazine in 1993-94 (?) where a high school student named Lea Potts produced diamonds for a science fair. She tried several sources of carbon, but found that peanut butter mixed with ants (it did not say if the ants were alive or dead at the time of mixing). She placed the mixture in a clay dish and melted it with an acetylene-oxygen torch. She then took the material and pulverized it and using a kitchen sieve washed the excess carbon and soot away. What remained was micro size diamonds. In the article there were statements from de Beer and Company confirming her production. They also stated that it was not a commercial process (I assume this is based on the cost of peanut butter). She received a scholarship and at this time has probably finished her under graduate studies on her way to becoming a great scientific investigator. Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 09:52:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20290; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:48:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:48:47 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:48:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123124809_1981060308 mrin84.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray on R. Bush's Work Resent-Message-ID: <"Lwttf.0.xy4.-n6Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13199 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In commenting on Robert Bush's excess heat work, Rich Murrray asked "why should a nuclear process be limited to only 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 excess power ratios?" I commented that it shouldn't be, and asserted that that was "one more piece of evidence in favor of the proposition that the excess heat wasn't being generated by any nuclear process." Mitchell Swartz wrote, "Neither the former statement, nor the latter - based upon the former - seem necessarily so, or proven. Any proof to either?" It depends on what one considers proof. Mitchell and I agree that the reality of excess heat has been proven, but that's a minority position in the scientific community, to put it very mildly indeed, as we're both all too aware. As to what's producing the heat, I think that the weight of the evidence favors a nonnuclear explanation, but I realize that Mitchell has reached a different conclusion. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 09:54:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20259; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:48:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:48:40 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:48:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123124803_851683540 mrin79> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Shkedi's Letter to FUSION FACTS Resent-Message-ID: <"iWF_y1.0.Oy4.sn6Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13198 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rich Murray recently forwarded Steve Jones' 1996 post to sci.physics.fusion of the full text of Zvi Shkedi's letter dated 14 December 1995, which originally appeared in FUSION FACTS, Vol. 7, No. 6 (December 1995), pp. 20-21. Shkedi said that "almost" every alleged success in producing excess heat with a Ni/H2O experiment was based upon the assumption of 100% Faradaic efficiency (0% recombination). Shkedi said that he and his team had proven that assumption to be wrong. Ah, yes, "almost." Shkedi had avoided the post-1991 excess heat results of Mills and Good, results that were well beyond recombination, by the simple expedient of not consulting Mills and Good, even though Mills was the inventor of the Ni/H2O/K2CO3 system, and even though Shkedi and his team consulted many others; and by the further expedient of not mentioning the January 1994 FUSION TECHNOLOGY article that Mills and Good had written with Shaubach. In his letter to FUSION FACTS, Shkedi continued to avoid the exceptional excess heat results of Mills & Good. Here is all that Shkedi had to say about the Mills & Good article published in the same issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY (November 1995) as the article by Shkedi and his team: "the excess heat claimed to be found by Mills and Good is predicated on the assumption stated following equation (7): 'The net Faraday efficiency of gas evolution is ASSUMED to be unity.'" (The all-caps emphasis is Shkedi's.) Shkedi neglected to mention that the excess heat results reported by Mills & Good in their 1995 article were so far beyond recombination that they would have been impressive even if their Faradaic efficiency had been zero. The 1995 Mills & Good results were all the more impressive given that even Shkedi wasn't able to do worse than 66% Faradaic efficiency. Mills & Good put 5.72 MJ of electrical energy into their Ni/H2O/K2CO3 experiment and got 29.8 MJ of heat out. The uncorrected power in (V*I) was 4.73 W, and the heat power out was 24.6 W. See their Table I on p. 1701. One can't explain away results like that by invoking recombination problems, so Shkedi just avoided the results. To sum up, Shkedi did show that his own experiments were of poor Faradaic efficiency, but that's all he was able to show. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 10:41:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA02128; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:36:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:36:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <01BCF804.476B1910.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Pictures Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:38:10 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8q-91.0.AX.VU7Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13200 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For those interested, I have placed a couple of pictures of our large reactor at: http://www.transmutation.com You will even see a picture of Barry! Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 11:02:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06736; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:58:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:58:01 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Off Topic Credit Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:54:50 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf841$47c6b9e0$3983410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"acAD72.0.Af1.ro7Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13201 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Looking in on CNN news www.cnn.com, One news item: "Male cadet leaves Citadel after sex charge". Can't get anything for free these days,can you? There is always American Express if they won't take Visa. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 11:52:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12692; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:47:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:47:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34788802.7BFF interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:46:10 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sound Pressure and Power References: <01bcf7c4$d8df6120$d291410c default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EEFV93.0.463.pW8Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13202 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > A thought, Frank S. > > If you still have that 4" diameter aluminum billet 6061T6 in your garage, ............) snip Let's see, at 24,000 rpm that's about 415 fps shear velocity - Fred, this sounds like a major water-lubed, high-speed plane bearing research job! BTW, my billet is only 3" in dia. - and yes, I have had bouts with "billet envy" of late. How about a face-shear kind of thing? This would be easier to set up but the centrifugal dynamics might be too weird to handle. The water might be pumped out of the gap? You think the shear might be the magic in the process? Frank S. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 11:54:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13103; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:50:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:50:20 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:48:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123144858_-1927867411 mrin42.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: znidarsic tells what he has been up to. Resent-Message-ID: <"5ucIU1.0.cC3.sZ8Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13203 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: znidarsic tells what he has been up to. Date: 97-11-22 20:35:14 EST From: FZNIDARSIC To: GeorgeHM,76570.2270 compuserve.com To: 72240.1256 compuserve.com To: zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil,Puthoff To: fstenger interlaced.net To: 101544.702 compuserve.com To: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro To: mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov To: reed zenergy.com,noever@webtv.net To: JEFFJ ep.state.az.us To: marc.g.millis lerc.nasa.gov To: herman college.antioch.edu To: Lentin imaginet.fr To: barry math.ucla.edu To: kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp To: bssimon helix.ucsd.edu To: david.noever msfc.nasa.gov To: claytor_t_n lanl.gov To: vortex-l eskimo.comrbrtbass@pahrump.com To: dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu To: jdunn ctc.org,wireless@rmii.com To: bhorst loc100.tandem.com To: g-miley uiuc.edu To: mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp To: Design73 To: little eden.comjlagarde@cyberaccess.fr To: blue pilot.msu.edu To: jonesse astro.byu.edu To: drom vxcern.cern.ch,droege@fnal.gov To: halfox slkc.uswest.net To: ine padrak.com To: mike_mckubre qm.sri.com To: shellied sage.dri.edu To: sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su To: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil,TCHUBB To: yekim physics.purdue.edu To: jaeger eneco-usa.com To: cincygrp ix.netcom.com To: storms ix.netcom.com To: nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil To: rdeagleton csupomona.edu To: perkins3.llnl.gov italy.it.earthlink.net To: 76002.1473 compuserve.com To: biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr To: reeber aro-emh1.army.mil To: Bennett.Miller mailgw.er.doe.gov To: bockris acs.tamu.edu,JNaudin To: jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu ZNIDARSIC TELLS ALL Nov 22, 1997 I have decided to go public with my work and my claims this time. I am doing this for two reasons. (1) I have a now have a patent on file (filed Oct 19 ,1997) for the process and (2) The results to date have been less than expected. I could use some feedback. Background: Cold fusion electrodes are room temperature superconductors. Ref Physical review Letters vol 35 # 2 14 July 1975. Refer to the work of work of Cenlani in Italy. Refer Patent No 4043809 by Ruvalds The process of cold fusion produces energy due to the vibration of a superconductor. Ref the work of CETI and the preheater they use to start the process. The thermal energy of the preheater vibrates the beads in the IR spectrum at 1 x 10ex13 MHz. The process requires superconductive structures of a certain size. CETI's beads run in the IR spectrum and the films are about 1,000 angstrums thick. Chubb has just announced that fine grins structure palladium produces energy. The larger the superconductive structure the lower the frequency of operation. I have found this relationship. Freq of oper MHz = 37/ (length of superconductor in inches) I believe that NASA's Marshall's work on the "Downshifting of the Frequencies Theory" is related to these low frequency vibrational modes. My patented process involves vibrating a ceramic disk of superconductive material in the radio frequency range. The RF energy is extracted and converted directly into electrical energy. The process absorbs vars and produces watts. Tests were done with a resonant coil set adjacent to a superconductive disk. This resonant circuit was excited with a spark gap system similar to a spark gap transmitter. The tuneable range of its operation was from 1.5MHz to 50 Mhz. (changing taps and capacitors) The disk and coil were placed in a dewer. A circulating current of a few amps was induced in the disk. This circulating current was induced by passing one pole of an electromagnet through a hole in the center of the disk. This was done a number of times. The electromagnet was switched on upon insertion and off during withdraw. After the circulating current was established in the superconductor, the interaction of the circulating current and the external current in the RF circuit induced mechanical vibrations in the superconductive disk. The EM field was monitored with in O'scope near the superconductive disk as the RF energy was applied. In two instances an anomaly was observed just above the noise level at 11 Mhz with a 3.5 inch disk. This anomaly showed up as a change in the decay constant of the ringing RF coil. We cannot now repeat this. The latest tests showed no anomalous energy. Is anyone else trying this? Anything in print about cold fusion, superconductivity, or vibration. If you run into any material related to these things please forward it to me. Is there any therory or any calculations on the subject. Has anyone else done or is doing this? Am I the first to file? Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com  From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 12:14:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12942; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:09:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:09:49 -0800 Message-ID: <34788D98.3FA7 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:10:00 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: (off topic) EXPANDING UNIVERSE DEMO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"m-Rkx2.0.3A3.Cs8Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13204 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hey, all you perceptive psychologists out there - are you familiar with the optical illusions resulting from prolonged viewing of a rotating spiral? I stumbled on the neat expanding universe effect (probably well known) that you folks or your kids might get a kick out of. Using the old wrapping-up-a-thread-around-a-small-nail-to-guide-a-pen trick, draw a spiral on a disk of typing paper about 4" or 5" in dia. Double-sided tape the disk to a rotating wheel of some sort so you can rotate it at a couple of hundred rpm. When you watch the rotating spiral for about 1 min., look up at a near-by object and see the object seem to: a. expand if the rotation gave the illusion of an inward flow of circles, or b. contract if the rotation was the reverse. This must be what the expanding universe looks like to a "god" being on the outside looking in! Watching his spinning spiral with glee ------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 13:04:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24013; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:00:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:00:39 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3478996E.1966 math.ucla.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:00:30 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: science history tidbit References: <3.0.1.32.19971123080007.006a9aec world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"eCkWC3.0.3t5.rb9Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13205 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Barry Merriman wrote: > > >I was born 2 days after he lost the 1964 presidential election. Mitchell Swartz wrote: > I was struggling with dielectric spectroscopy > of ice phases...had made a Kerr cell from > aqueous solubilized collagen...grown ruby and sapphire > boules...was constructing molecular oxygen detectors by > depositing hemoglobin onto piezoelectric crystals, when > our Dr. Barry Merriman was only in diapers. Its true I was in diapers, but why do you assume I was not engaged in similar activities at the time :-). > > Now a small portion of this struggle seems much seems clearer. > Senility? Yes, that explanation has crossed my mind as well :-). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 13:22:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26120; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:17:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:17:17 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Sound Pressure and Power Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:13:41 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf854$ac8b8fa0$4391410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"SFNJw1.0.1O6.Sr9Uq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13206 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Stenger wrote: >and yes,I have had bouts of "billet envy" of late. Hmmm, interesting. I've heard something similar with toddlers. :-) >How about a face-shear kind of thing? You come up short, so to speak, on surface area and you have too many velocities to consider. The Rotating Drum "Visocometer" approach eliminates these artifacts. You might consider spinning the whole billet at 24,000 RPM (314 fps for a 3" billet)inside a glass or metal tube while maintaining the 0.002" shear layer of water. >You think the shear might be the magic in the process? Not really, it is a means of getting water molecules to move past one another at high velocity and set up turbulence that may be as effective as ultrasonics in promoting cavitation bubbles. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 13:58:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02503; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:52:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:52:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:37:44 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Scott Little's Vortex Test Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711231640_MC2-295F-B749 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6Jws1.0.1d.6MAUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13207 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott, >> It's so far down on the list that I'm not planning to work on it anymore << Glad to hear it! Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 14:26:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05737; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:24:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:24:10 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:21:37 -0500 From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: in defense of Tinsley and Takahashi Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Message-ID: <199711231723_MC2-2960-D1EA compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"dyxtE.0.RP1.8qAUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13209 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jeff, >> The bottom line is this: The reported performance as I recall it makes the Sciex scooter anything but fraudulent. << As I recall, Chris was not allowed to inspect the innards of the scooter, and as his testing was in a suburb of London with plenty of traffic and other obstructions, not to mention the police, I very much doubt that he even approached 70 mph even for a moment. Chris weighed at least 16 stone (224 pounds) so the acceleration rate with him on it would be very low, restricting the maximum speed in built-up suburbia still further. I saw the scooter with Chris before he did his test run, and spent some time with Takahashi and Sawai, viewing their video of the motor/generator with the headlights all aglow and no apparent current feed from outside. It looked good - just like Stan Meyer's demo of H2 production. If the magnets have now been shown to be fraudulent, then the motor cannot have been genuine, since its performance was supposed to be dependent on the ultra- high magnetic field density of the magnets. Norman P.S. I've just read Jed's reply to Jeff's post and can confirm his description of Chris's reaction to the scooter. The recent disclosure by Sawai of the unethical activities of Tak would seem to put that baby to bed. BTW there is no doubt about the technical abilities of Tak but he seems to have gone off the rails somewhat. N.H. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 14:26:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04740; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:20:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:20:47 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:20:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711232220.QAA21067 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cells Resent-Message-ID: <"y7QWO2.0.t91.zmAUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13208 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:27 AM 11/23/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Patterson knew that. As I have pointed out here many times, he did not do >flow calorimetry in 1993. He used static calorimetry. The measure of power >out was based on the cell temperature alone. The electrolyte was circulated >through the cell to keep the bead pack working. Heat lost in the flow was >ignored. Thanks, Jed. So my fuzzy recollection may be correct after all...Cravens DID introduce Patterson et al to flow calorimetry, no? OK, Rich, that means none of the 1993 stuff was done with flow calorimetry! Was there something in the patent that led you to assume flow calorimetry? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 15:24:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17085; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:18:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:18:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971123181353.006ac2e0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:13:53 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: science history tidbit In-Reply-To: <3478996E.1966 math.ucla.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19971123080007.006a9aec world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_M1an1.0.tA4.rcBUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13210 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:00 PM 11/23/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >> >> Barry Merriman wrote: >> >> >I was born 2 days after he lost the 1964 presidential election. > >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >> I was struggling with dielectric spectroscopy >> of ice phases...had made a Kerr cell from >> aqueous solubilized collagen...grown ruby and sapphire >> boules...was constructing molecular oxygen detectors by >> depositing hemoglobin onto piezoelectric crystals, when >> our Dr. Barry Merriman was only in diapers. > >Its true I was in diapers, but why do you assume I >was not engaged in similar activities at the time :-). > You are correct. Poor assumption on my part. No wonder you have progressed to the fine art of transmutation of lead to gold. No doubt you will soon have it fusion-powered. ================================================================ >> Now a small portion of this struggle seems much seems clearer. >> > >Senility? Yes, that explanation has crossed my mind as well :-). > >-- >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 > No. Senility would never hit one as young as thou. Perhaps Hutchinson's Progeria more likely. ;-)X Actually, Zack Widup's comments may be closer. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 15:42:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA22252; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:38:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:38:54 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:38:44 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: (off topic) EXPANDING UNIVERSE DEMO In-Reply-To: <34788D98.3FA7 interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IYeov2.0.ZR5.CwBUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13211 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >>Hey, all you perceptive psychologists out there - are you familiar with >>the optical illusions resulting from prolonged viewing of a rotating >>spiral? I stumbled on the neat expanding universe effect (probably well >>known) that you folks or your kids might get a kick out of. >> >>Using the old wrapping-up-a-thread-around-a-small-nail-to-guide-a-pen >>trick, draw a spiral on a disk of typing paper about 4" or 5" in dia. >> >>Double-sided tape the disk to a rotating wheel of some sort so you can >>rotate it at a couple of hundred rpm. >> >>When you watch the rotating spiral for about 1 min., look up at a >>near-by object and see the object seem to: >> a. expand if the rotation gave the illusion of an inward flow >> of circles, or >> b. contract if the rotation was the reverse. >> >>This must be what the expanding universe looks like to a "god" being >>on the outside looking in! >> >>Watching his spinning spiral with glee ------- Frank Stenger >> >> Neat! Frank, this spinning effect is what a 747 Airliner pilot is saying he uses to understand "Crop Circles". Appears a picture of any crop circle when cut out and adhered to a spinning disk will at (some low rpm) (variable) viewing appears 3-D in nature. He is sure that each diffent circle is a message from the sender on a PART needed for a 'machine' for us to be using to communicate with THEM (the circle makers). Have you tried this? (now that you have the spinning unit) ... Could be interesting in what you see there.. if you do/have.. report please if it goes 3-D.. thanks. -=se=- 1 source (of many) for PIC's is at web page. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 16:00:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25456; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:58:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:58:46 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Saturday 22 November 1997 D (fwd) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:58:01 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3478acf6.5475673 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UDfZl3.0.LD6.nCCUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13212 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:04:14 -0500 (EST), John Schnurer wrote: > > > Dear Robin and Vo., > > I have been working in materials sciences for several years. I >have been active in patenting and reducing to practice in more than one >area. The diamond production is spin off of ceramic work. We were able >to do it 2 years ago on similar basis for films. We picked the film work >up again and again produced the micro diamonds. This is not postulation >of diamond growth, it is the intent of the work. > It is well known diamonds are commercially made for abrasives at >well over 15 million carats a year. Diamond films and diamond like >coatings are commercial products. In general the abrasives are formed at >high pressures with metal catalyst and films a low pressures with >chemical vapor depositions, or CVD. There are many variations. We are >one in the higher temperature area. The metal catalysis is different >which is why we are keeping it trade secret. > > > >On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:28:44 -0500 (EST), John Schnurer wrote: >> [snip] >> > Any leads are appreciated. Please respond directly. I will keep ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ John, this was part of your original message. Was this part intended for us? You now give the impression that you have the process completely under control, which makes me wonder why you are asking for help. If you are not asking for help, then what was the original intent of the post? 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 16:00:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25491; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:58:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:58:53 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: science history tidbit Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:58:03 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3479af4c.6072987 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <3.0.1.32.19971123080007.006a9aec world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971123080007.006a9aec world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"QLuEC1.0.eD6.qCCUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13213 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:00:07 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > Thanks for sharing that update, Barry. > > > [ Why is it that many VOCAL critics of cold fusion are, well, young. > At cf the meetings, it has appeared at some that the populations seems >older, >more experienced grey-haired types, and with a paucity of representation >by younger types. Any thoughts you historians???? ] > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > > I am now 44. In the last decade, I have changed from having complete faith in the "laws" of thermodynamics, to a position of almost complete uncertainty. I think this is partly due to having seen other possibilities, and partly due to having seen other "certainties" crumble. Generalising, I am inclined to say that as one ages, one becomes more aware of the fact that all "knowledge" is subject to interpretation, and that interpretations change with the times. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 16:05:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23502; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:59:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:59:33 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fwd: znidarsic tells what he has been up to. Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:58:05 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <347abb35.9123227 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <971123144858_-1927867411 mrin42.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <971123144858_-1927867411 mrin42.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hck0k.0.zk5.SDCUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13214 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:48:59 -0500 (EST), FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: [snip] > Is anyone else trying this? Anything in print about cold > fusion, superconductivity, or vibration. If you run into any > material related to these things please forward it to me. Is > there any therory or any calculations on the subject. Has > anyone else done or is doing this? Am I the first to file? > > Frank Znidarsic > fznidarsic aol.com >  > It does seem somewhat reminiscent of the Podkletnov antigravity experiments. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 16:05:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25944; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:00:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:00:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3478B5D6.6B5 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:01:42 -0600 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, db@kemi.aau.dk Subject: Carrell: Arata & Zhang QMS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zJKvz.0.HL6.nECUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13215 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 23, 1997 Dear all, Here are comments from Mike Carrell [mikec snip.net] on Diok Blue's questions about the Arata & Zhange QMS measurements of He-3 and He-4. [blue pilot.msu.edu] Let's look again at Blue's exact phrase: "molecular ions of the hydrogen isotopes at mass 3 and 4" What does this mean? H2 is a molecular ion, mass 2. DH is a molecular ion, mass 3 -- one atom of deuterium chemically coupled to one atom of hydrogen. DD is also a molecular ion, mass 4, chemically coupled. All are chemically similar to hydrogen. Now if you look at my previous post, and look at the A&Z paper again, there is clear evidence that the D, DH, and DD ions are gradually swept from the QMS input by the getter chamber, which scavanges these but leaves the 4He and 3He isotopes alone. Thus Blue's comments are without merit with respect to the A&Z paper. It is now so obvious from the data in the paper that there is no need to bother Zhang. Are you expecting me to prove A&Z to you? You use "prove" in the sense of "convince", which implies an overwhelm, which neither I nor anyone else will do. The Blue card might trump the Champion card in a debate, since Blue "is a retired physicist" and Champion has no academic credentials, just lumps of precious metals to show, which might be trumped by the Randi card -- unless you do it yourself using a Champion recipe and you know Randi is nowhere in sight to create an illusion for you.. But the Blue card is trumped by the Miley card, the Bockris card, and Arata card, all of whom have impressive track records of accomplishment, where Blue has none except his Ph.D. and a record of the adamant, evasive criticism.. I have revised and edited my discussion of Blue's post. I don't mind if you post the revised form. I got curious and dug a bit more into the A&Z report. Blue's remark: ------------------- I wonder why the technique of choice for all these experiments is one in which there is a known significant interference with molecular ions of the hydrogen isotopes at mass 3 and 4. There are, I think, better ways to make these measurements. ---------- is misdirection again. He doesn't say what the better ways are. He says "all these experiments", infers that the experimenters don't know what they are doing, or if they do, deliberately choose a measurement technique which could produce confusing results. He obviously hasn't read A&Z. A&Z go to great lengths to consider all the possible reaction pathways and the different reaction products which could appear. They consider several ways of using QMS and discuss the problems of contamination by atmospheric helium and the hydrogen isotopes. A&Z used a special measurement system including two QMS, a getter chamber, a sample gas chamber, a molecular pump, and a chamber for heating the samples. All are fitted with valves which can seal off various parts of the apparatus. In the measurements of gas evolving from the cathodes, the system is pumped in a conventional manner and the molecular pump sealed off. The getter chamber is open while the samples are heated over a period up to about 10 minutes. Surface contaminants evaporate and are captured by the getter. This includes and H, H2, D, D2 and DH that may be present, as all are chemically equivalent to H. As the sample temperature rises, D and 4H3 and 3He trapped in the sample evolve. Some of the D makes it way into the QMS, providing a mass marker for 4He and 3He. During the run, the D signal decreases and the He signals increase as the D is captured by the getter. The getter does not capture the chemically neutral He atoms. Thus Blue's remarks are without merit with respect to the A&Z experiment. ======================Mike Carrell [mikec snip.net] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 16:14:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA28254; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:12:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:12:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3478B8A8.29E2 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:13:44 -0600 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, ceti@msn.com, ceti_gcollins msn.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, dennis wazoo.com Subject: 1993 CETI cell flow calorimetry Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aggnO.0.Kv6.wPCUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13216 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 23, 1997 Dear all, I completely overlooked how tiny the 1993 CETI cell flow rates were-- my mind automatically kept thinking in terms of 10-15 ml/min flow rates. The cells clearly were run as electrolytic flow calorimetry, as Heat Out was calculated by "(delta T X FR)". So I was right about "flow dependent artifacts", but probably wrong that those results cast major asperations on other CF results involving flow. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 17:37:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA12039; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:30:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:30:15 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971123202626.006daf04 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:26:26 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Answer to (part I) COLD FUSION TIMES cold fusion publication rate question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ty02_3.0.1y2.bYDUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13217 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Answer to (part) of the COLD FUSION TIMES puzzle Cold fusion is real, and appears to be consistent with conventional physics. We have just reviewed the world cold fusion literature which continues at a significant rate. An abstract was sent to ICCF-7 regarding the metanalysis. Previously, regarding the publication rate, two questions were asked. ========================================= Part 1 is now closed: Which country is leading the scientific race based on the greatest number of publications about this field? winner: Horace Heffner for JAPAN one year subscription to the COLD FUSION TIMES. ========================================= Second part will remain open for 1 more week. When one examines the entire world-wide literature concerning cold fusion (loading hydrogen isotopes into metals by electrolysis, gas, or discharge), what is the annual publication rate? (units = papers/year) We will send two years of COLD FUSION TIMES ('97 with back issues, and '98) to whomever of vortex gets CLOSEST to the average number of publications per year (either on vortex, or better yet sent to me by email to me (mica world.std.com) to keep the S/N way down). More information is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 18:26:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA18800; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:19:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:19:36 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3478E431.4A28 math.ucla.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:19:29 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cells References: <199711232220.QAA21067 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WeOsQ2.0.bb4.tGEUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13218 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 11:27 AM 11/23/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > [Patterson] did not do flow calorimetry in 1993. > > Thanks, Jed. So my fuzzy recollection may be correct > after all...Cravens did introduce Patterson et al to flow calorimetry Either way, someone was doing flow calorimetry with sub ml/min flow rates, as it is definitely in the early patents. Whoever was doing it is goofy, even if they thought they had a compelling reason. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 18:53:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA15610; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:45:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:45:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:44:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711240244.UAA14574 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cell flow calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"zcGs72.0.qp3.4fEUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13219 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:13 PM 11/23/97 -0600, Rich wrote: >The cells clearly were run as electrolytic flow >calorimetry, as Heat Out was calculated by "(delta T X FR)". but Jed says: >As I have pointed out here many times, he did not do >flow calorimetry in 1993. He used static calorimetry. The measure of power >out was based on the cell temperature alone. Which is it? (at this point, respondants should produce references) 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 18:57:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA16914; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:53:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:53:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:52:26 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711240252.UAA15283 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: science history tidbit Resent-Message-ID: <"H72iH2.0.384.UmEUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13220 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:00 AM 11/23/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > [ Why is it that many VOCAL critics of cold fusion are, well, young. > At cf the meetings, it has appeared at some that the populations seems >older, >more experienced grey-haired types, and with a paucity of representation >by younger types. Any thoughts you historians???? ] I'll stick my neck out.... Older guys, with a mundane career already behind them, see CF as a last chance at glory. No offense you older guys...I'm mostly there myself (born Oct 25, 1948)! 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 19:03:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA18381; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:59:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:59:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3478ED6D.128F interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:58:53 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: (off topic) EXPANDING UNIVERSE DEMO References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nhuua1.0.6V4.CsEUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13221 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Steve Ekwall wrote: > (snip) Appears a picture of any crop circle when > cut out and adhered to a spinning disk will at (some low rpm) (variable) > viewing appears 3-D in nature. He is sure that each diffent circle is a > message from the sender on a PART needed for a 'machine' for us to be > using to communicate with THEM (the circle makers). > Have you tried this? (now that you have the spinning unit) ... > Could be interesting in what you see there.. if you do/have.. report > please if it goes 3-D.. > thanks. Well, Steve, I tried my best to get the effect but I came up with zilch. I went to Art Bell's page and printed out "Star of Bethlehem" and "Morestead, Nr Winchester, Hampshire" crop circles in black and white on my printer. Several problems could cause negative results: 1. Probably need a good plan view of the circles to get their circular symmetry - I think all the photos are taken at an angle from a plane. 2. The color contrast may need to be just so - my printer is very limited in this respect. (still just b & w, though) 3. Maybe you need true color to see the effect? In a lighter vein, maybe you need to be a "believer" to see the effect. I'm afraid I'm a skeptic on crop circles - I think they are human in origin, but I can't back this up any more than the ET version. At any rate, not to be a complete downer on the idea, perhaps you should try to reproduce some of the better ones as drawings and rotate these. An easy rotator to come by is a variable-speed hand drill. Get any kind of disk-like tool (buffer pad, sander disk, etc.) for the support. If the sound is distracting, use ear plugs. Let me know if you have any luck! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 19:06:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26064; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:01:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:01:29 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:58:59 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: 1993 CETI cells Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711232200_MC2-2969-1179 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"PeG4A2.0.3N6.8uEUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13222 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: Thanks, Jed. So my fuzzy recollection may be correct after all...Cravens DID introduce Patterson et al to flow calorimetry, no? No, I introduced them to it. That is, I suggested they speed up the flow rate and try it. Obviously Patterson knew about the general technique. The flow technique is less dependent on calibration and I thought it is a natural fit with the flowing electrolyte. Also they were having difficulties cooling the cells, and I thought a faster flow would help. They hired Cravens, who prefers the flow technique, and they let him do things his way. In point of fact, it did not matter which method Patterson used in 1993. His cells generate such massive excess heat there was never any question about it. He did not even need the thermocouples. During calibration and null runs, the cell was warm. When excess heat developed it sometimes became Too Hot to Handle (to coin a phrase). During one run it got so hot, it cracked. He was looking around for heat proof glass when I first talked to him. They never abandoned the static technique. They monitor the cell temperature. Even though a great deal of heat leaves the cell with a fast flow, the cell temperature is sometimes hundreds of times higher than it would be at the input power level with no flow. OK, Rich, that means none of the 1993 stuff was done with flow calorimetry! Was there something in the patent that led you to assume flow calorimetry? There can't be. The patent diagram shows only one thermocouple in the cell. You can't do flow calorimetry with only one thermocouple. Rich Murray understands nothing. He is incapable of reading simple schematics and diagrams. That is why he thought Arata circulates electrolyte. Someone else has to take him by the hand and explain every detail. He guesses, he tries to figure it out by himself, and in every case he gets it wildly wrong. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 19:45:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA01427; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:40:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:40:36 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:35:19 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: HEY, BILL BEATTY ....3-D In-Reply-To: <3478ED6D.128F interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"C9wsx3.0.DM.oSFUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13223 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A couple of stereopsis tricks. Put the image source on variable speed rotation, ie., turntable at 16 [yes I have 16 rpm turntables, analog y'know!], 33, 45 and 78. 1] Try different speeds. 2] cover one eye 3] put rotator on plain background... vary the optical property a] black, white, greys b] colors 4] Use colored and ND, or Neutral Density, filters. 5] Do the viewing at relaxed distances. Bill Beatty probably has some other useful methods... On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > Steve Ekwall wrote: > > > (snip) > > Appears a picture of any crop circle when > > cut out and adhered to a spinning disk will at (some low rpm) (variable) > > viewing appears 3-D in nature. He is sure that each diffent circle is a > > message from the sender on a PART needed for a 'machine' for us to be > > using to communicate with THEM (the circle makers). > > Have you tried this? (now that you have the spinning unit) ... > > Could be interesting in what you see there.. if you do/have.. report > > please if it goes 3-D.. > > thanks. > > Well, Steve, I tried my best to get the effect but I came up with zilch. > > I went to Art Bell's page and printed out "Star of Bethlehem" and > "Morestead, Nr Winchester, Hampshire" crop circles in black and white > on my printer. Several problems could cause negative results: > 1. Probably need a good plan view of the circles to get their > circular symmetry - I think all the photos are taken at an > angle from a plane. > 2. The color contrast may need to be just so - my printer is > very limited in this respect. (still just b & w, though) > 3. Maybe you need true color to see the effect? > In a lighter vein, maybe you need to be a "believer" to see the effect. > I'm afraid I'm a skeptic on crop circles - I think they are human in > origin, but I can't back this up any more than the ET version. > > At any rate, not to be a complete downer on the idea, perhaps you should > try to reproduce some of the better ones as drawings and rotate these. > An easy rotator to come by is a variable-speed hand drill. Get any kind > of disk-like tool (buffer pad, sander disk, etc.) for the support. > If the sound is distracting, use ear plugs. Let me know if you have any > luck! > > Frank Stenger > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 19:59:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04914; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:58:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:58:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3478FB6A.3F interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:58:34 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: HEY, BILL BEATTY ....3-D References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YA99M2.0.dC1.VjFUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13224 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > A couple of stereopsis tricks. > > Put the image source on variable speed rotation, ie., turntable > at 16 [yes I have 16 rpm turntables, analog y'know!], 33, 45 and 78. > Hey! That's a great idea, John! I completely forgot about my old record player. Got one, Steve? Frank S. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 20:42:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14742; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:37:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:37:04 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971123233322.006aa0e4 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:33:22 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: science history tidbit In-Reply-To: <199711240252.UAA15283 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Vyfi-.0.7c3.jHGUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13226 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:52 PM 11/23/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >> [ Why is it that many VOCAL critics of cold fusion are, well, young. >> At cf the meetings, it has appeared at some that the populations seems >>older, >>more experienced grey-haired types, and with a paucity of representation >>by younger types. Any thoughts you historians???? ] > >I'll stick my neck out.... > >Older guys, with a mundane career already behind them, see CF as a last >chance at glory. > >No offense you older guys...I'm mostly there myself (born Oct 25, 1948)! > Actually, realists understand that all good physicists, Dr. Mossbauer the exception, did their best work by 35 y.o. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 20:43:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05598; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:36:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:36:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971124043447.008dc100 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:34:47 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: RE: 1993 CETI cells Resent-Message-ID: <"3Guew.0.ON1.MHGUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13225 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:09 AM 11/23/97 -0000, Joe Champion wrote: > >BTW - Barry, the final numbers are in on the 3.5 hour run of the large >reactor that you observed in Henderson, Nevada. Total precious metals >produced was 58.5 troy ounces (1,819 grams). > > >Joe Champion >www.transmutation.com > Is this behind the reason that banks around the world are either selling or are considering selling their gold stock? Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 21:26:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23142; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:20:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:20:55 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Crop Circles-Spirals? Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:18:32 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf898$684e2340$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"mThei.0.Jf5.rwGUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13227 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Looks like Frank Stenger is gonna rotate right into the Twilight Zone introduction on his olde phonograph! ta da ta da ta da. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 21:56:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA17754; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:49:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:49:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3479071B.3351 earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:48:27 -0600 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, storms ix.netcom.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, halfox slkc.uswest.net, wireless@rmii.com, ceti@msn.com, design73 aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, dennis@wazoo.com, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, "mike_mckubre qm.sri.com.sukhanov"@srdlan.npi.msu.su, shellied sage.dri.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, JNaudin aol.com, nick7@itl.net, shkedi@bose.com, rooster mail.utexas.edu, lentin@imaginet.fr, ceti_gcollins@msn.com Subject: 1993 CETI cell flow calorimetry: Rothwell shows Murray's incompetence Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TwL0s2.0.GL4.DLHUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13228 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 23, 1997 Dear all, In "Cold Fusion" #7, Patent # 5,372,688, "System for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte", pages 6-7, each of seven tables has: "Heat Out (Delta T X FR)". Flow Rates are listed in ml/min. Delta T is listed in degrees C. Page 8: "A strip recorder was used to monitor and record the inlet and outlet temperatures from thermocouples 70 and 72 over time. Other variable[s] during the testing procedure monitored were the d.c. voltage across the electrodes 15 and 16, the current in amps flowing through the cell between the electrodes 15 and 16, the electrolyte flow rate in millimeters per minute (ml/min) and the fluid pressure (psi) of the electrolyte 59...Figure 8...Line 126 represents the ongoing temperature of the electrolyte 59 as it enters into the electrolytic cell 12. Line 128 represents the temperature of the electrolyte 59 as it exits the electrolytic cell 12. At any given point in time, the delta T represents the increase in temperature of the electrolyte 59 as it passes through the electrolysis cell 12...Additionally shown in Table I are the calculations of the power applied across the cell in watts (voltage X amps) and a representation of the heat out or derived from the cell, temperature differential X flow rate (delta T X FR)." Figures 2 and 3 both show inlet and outlet thermocouples, 70 and 72. Brother Jed clarified for the benefit of the cold fusion congregation: "There can't be. The patent diagram shows only one thermocouple in the cell. You can't do flow calorimetry with only one thermocouple. Rich Murray understands nothing. He is incapable of reading simple schematics and diagrams. That is why he thought Arata circulates electrolyte. Someone else has to take him by the hand and explain every detail. He guesses, he tries to figure it out by himself, and in every case he gets it wildly wrong." We all have reason to be grateful to Brother Jed for pointing out with such dispatch, accuracy, and vehement eloquence the degree of Rich Murray's incompetence. Henceforth, no one need needlessly be ensnared by this fool's hasty, incompetent, prejudiced pronouncements. As one, Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 22:08:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA29991; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:02:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:02:17 -0800 Message-ID: <34790A97.5D4D earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:03:19 -0600 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 Subject: Logajan: Boron / Proton colliding beam fusion reactor ? Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"vIhpU.0.XK7.dXHUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13229 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!mr.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.pagesat.net!skypoint.com!not-for-mail From: John Logajan Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Boron / Proton colliding beam fusion reactor ? Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:59:19 -0600 Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc. Message-ID: <347909A7.2320 skypoint.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dial630.skypoint.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) david wrote: > In the latest edition of Science, there is a paper by Norman Rostoker, > Michl W. Binderbauer and Hendrik J. Monkhorst describing a proposed > "colliding beam" fusion reactor using protons and boron. > 1) I had understood that fusion using protons/boron required extremely high > energies which were thought to be unattainable with magnetic confinement. > However, the papers seems to suggest that this it might be possible to > overcome this obstacle. How ? I don't think colliding beams use magnetic confinement in the same way that tokomaks do (though I haven't seen the above mentioned article.) Bogdan Maglich's Migma colliding beam system used relatively simple opposing magnetic poles. The "cell" was sandwiched in between the poles. Maglich was also aiming at p+B fusions. Since the beams were well ordered (not random or "thermalized") it was easier to contain them with simple systems such as Maglich's proposal. Of course the object was that he could never maintain the order at high densities. I'm not sure if it was ever resolved. Haven't really heard of substantial Migma progress since the very early 1980's, though. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 22:58:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA05385; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:52:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:52:47 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:54:30 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Answer to (part I) COLD FUSION TIMES cold fusion publication rate question Resent-Message-ID: <"4VxXk.0.3K1.-GIUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13230 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:26 AM 11/23/97, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > > Part 1 is now closed: > > Which country is leading the scientific race based on the greatest >number of publications about this field? > > winner: Horace Heffner for JAPAN > one year subscription to the COLD FUSION TIMES. > [snip] Thanks very much! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 23 23:01:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25774; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:57:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:57:46 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Proton-Boron Colliding Beam Fusion? Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:54:42 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf8a5$d7b532c0$d183410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"zOQDj1.0.dI6.eLIUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13231 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Aw come on. The bombardment of Boron(10 and 11) was done by Cockcroft and Walton in 1927 and later. They didn't know about deuterium when they began their experiments using 500 - 750 Kev "protons". The yield was on the order of 10,000 bombarding protons/fusion reaction. At 500 kev with an 18 Mev fusion reaction you need a 1 in 36 yield for break-even. :-) Now if you want to try a hydrino approach, I suggest hot alkali Borohydrides MBH4 on Boron, where M is Cesium, Rubidium, Potassium, or Sodium. Good Luck! :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 04:24:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA03642; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:14:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:14:26 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: science history tidbit Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:59:42 -0500 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: <19971124121827642.AAA141 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"WWTs1.0.lu.V-MUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13232 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott said, > Older guys, with a mundane career already behind them, see CF as a last > chance at glory. How about older guys, with reputations secure and the wisdom of long experience, are willing to state what they see without need of approval from department heads, grant committees or the rest of the herd? My 70 years trumps Scott's 49 (suggest the decimal system 39.49, 39.50....39.70...) :-) Mike Carrell . From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 04:57:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA10497; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:50:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:50:55 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971124074715.006b647c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:47:15 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cells In-Reply-To: <3478E431.4A28 math.ucla.edu> References: <199711232220.QAA21067 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ClKig1.0.xZ2.kWNUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13233 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:19 PM 11/23/97 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: >Either way, someone was doing flow calorimetry with sub ml/min >flow rates, as it is definitely in the early patents. Whoever >was doing it is goofy, even if they thought they had a >compelling reason. There has been some defensive unsupported criticism of my Positional Variation Hypothesis of Flow Calorimetric Results. [Swartz, M., 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996); Swartz, M., 1996, "Improved Calculations involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 3, 219-221 (1996)] Said criticism has claimed the flow rates in some of these flow calorimetric systems (vertical flow systems) is so large that Bernard instability (the mass flow of a fluid due to thermal stratification leading to a density inversion which the Hypothesis correctly notes) is not important. It might be timely to point out that Bernard instability driven systems often have bouyancy-driven flow rates greater than ~1 ml/min. And what is important for the amplification effect (requiring semiquantitative correction) is the RATIO of the two velocities. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 05:41:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20071; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 05:34:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 05:34:48 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:34:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711241334.HAA07792 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cell flow calorimetry: Rothwell shows Murray's incompetence Resent-Message-ID: <"Qf56b1.0.Rv4.t9OUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13234 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:48 PM 11/23/97 -0600, Rich Murray wrote: >In "Cold Fusion" #7, Patent # 5,372,688.... >"Heat Out (Delta T X FR)". >"A strip recorder was used to monitor and record the inlet and >outlet temperatures from thermocouples 70 and 72 over time..." But Jed said: >"There can't be. The patent diagram shows only one thermocouple in the >cell. You can't do flow calorimetry with only one thermocouple... Gentlemen, are you talking about the same patent? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 05:41:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20532; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 05:37:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 05:37:42 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:37:34 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711241337.HAA08052 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: From: Scott Little Subject: Re: science history tidbit Resent-Message-ID: <"cvCMc1.0.j05.aCOUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13235 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:59 AM 11/24/97 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: >How about older guys, with reputations secure and the wisdom of long >experience, are willing to state what they see without need of approval >from department heads, grant committees or the rest of the herd? Touche' >My 70 years trumps Scott's 49 (suggest the decimal system 39.49, >39.50....39.70...) :-) Ha! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 06:48:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA07356; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:39:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:39:38 -0800 Message-ID: <34799173.A0203383 ro.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:38:44 -0600 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: HEY, BILL BEATTY ....3-D X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3478FB6A.3F@interlaced.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------82FE9A28D68735E85996C248" Resent-Message-ID: <"w1UDO2.0.ro1.e6PUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13236 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------82FE9A28D68735E85996C248 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Francis J. Stenger wrote: > John Schnurer wrote: > > > > A couple of stereopsis tricks. > > > > Put the image source on variable speed rotation, ie., > turntable > > at 16 [yes I have 16 rpm turntables, analog y'know!], 33, 45 and 78. > > > > > Hey! That's a great idea, John! I completely forgot about my old > record player. Got one, Steve? > > Frank S. Enjoy the weirdness.... -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G --------------82FE9A28D68735E85996C248 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="illusion.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="illusion.exe" TVrCAAMAAAAgAAAA//8HAAABZUAAAAAAQAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoUwBUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gcmVxdWlyZXMgTWlj cm9zb2Z0IFdpbmRvd3MuDQokICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIFoOH7QJzSG4AUzNIQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE5F BR7OAAkAAAAAAAIDAgAABIC7VAoBAAAAAgACAAQAIABAAFAAhQCtALUA1wQAAAAACQAAAAII AwAlAAAACgMEAIouUB2KLiIA4ghRDeIICQAOgAEAAAAAACgAAQAwHCwAAAAAAAOAAQAAAAAA KQACABAcAYAAAAAAAAAIUElOV0hFRUwIUElOV0hFRUwAAA9fX19FWFBPUlRFRFNUVUIBAAdX TkRQUk9DAgAAAQAFAAoAEQAAA0dESQRVU0VSBktFUk5FTAdXSU44N0VNAgEBNiIBoAgAHFBp bndoZWVsIChjKSBUcm95IFplcnIsIDE5OTUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVYvsg+w8mv//AABQjUbIFlCaJwEAAItGzCtGyC0gAIlGxj0ABH4Fx0bG AASDfgoAdVfHRtQDAMdG1qAIx0bY//8zwIlG2olG3ItODIlO3jPJiU7gUbkAfzPSUlGa//8A AIlG4jPAUJr//wAAiUbkK8CJRuiJRubHRuogAIxe7I1G1BZQmv//AAC4IAAeULgnAB5QM8C6 yABSULgAgFBQi0bGUIvI0eADwZmD4gMDwrkCANP4UDPAUFD/dgwryVFRmv//AACjwghQM8BQ mv//AACJRtJQM8lRK9JSUrrnA1K6AAlSmg0BAAD/dtIzwFC4EgAeULiaAlC4AAFQmv//AAD/ NsII/3YEmv//AAD/NsIIjUbIFlCa//8AAItGzCtGyKPECItGzitGyqPICP82wgia//8AAP82 wgia//8AAIlGxFDoVAWDxAL/NsII/3bEmv//AADHBhwAAQD/NsIIM8BQuCUAUCvAUFCa//8A AOsVkI1G7hZQmuYBAACNRu4WUJrwAQAAjUbuFlAzwFBQUJr//wAAgz4eAAEbyffZhch10P82 wggzwFCa//8AAOhhBYtG8ovlXcIKAFWL7IPsEusig37wEnUIxwYeAAEA6yuNRu4WUJr//wAA jUbuFlCa//8AAI1G7hZQM8BQUFC4AQBQmv//AAALwHXHuAEAi+Vdw1WL7IHsuhZXVpvdBmwF m9xOHpvdXuab3QZsBZvcTiab3V7ekJvHRsoAAI1+7r50BYzQjsClpaWl6XICkIN+ygF1K5vd Rt6b3Fb4m93Ym92+RumQm4qmR+mecxKb3UbOm9ngm91ezpCbx0bKAgCb3UbOm9xG1pvdXtab 3QaMBZvcRvib3V74m90GbAWb3Fb4m93Ym92+RumQm4qmR+medwPpoQD/dtz/dtr/dtj/dtbo dAyDxAiL2JvdB5vcDpQFm9xO+JvcTgbodgyLdszR5tHmiYJI6f923P922v922P921ug8DIPE CIvYm90Hm9wOnAWb3E74m9xOBuhEDIt2zNHm0eaJgkrp/0bMg37KAHQD6Sn/m91G5pvcVvib 3dib3b5G6ZCbiqZH6Z5yA+kN/5vdRs6b2eCb3V7OkJvHRsoBAOkp/5vdBnwFm9xG7pvdXu6b 3QZ8BZvcRtab3V7Wm91GzpvZ4JvdXs7pvgCDfsoBdTib3Ubmm9xW+Jvd2JvdvkbpkJuKpkfp nnIfx0bKAACb3UbOm9ngm91WzpvcDqQFm9xG1pvdXtaQm/923P922v922P921uhtC4PECIvY m90Hm9wOlAWb3E74m9xOBuhvC4t2zNHm0eaJgkjp/3bc/3ba/3bY/3bW6DULg8QIi9ib3Qeb 3A6cBZvcTvib3E4G6D0Li3bM0ebR5omCSun/Rsyb3UbOm9xG1pvdXtab3QaMBZvcbvib3V74 m9num9xW+Jvd2JvdvkbpkJuKpkfpnncug37KAnQD6SH/m91G3pvcVvib3dib3b5G6ZCbiqZH 6Z5zA+kF/8dGygEA6SH/kIuGSOmLdszR5tHmiYJI6YuGSumJgkrp/3YEjYZI6RZQ/0bM/3bM mv//AADoGv2b3QZ8BZvcRu6b3V7ukJuDPh4AAHVMm90GhAWb3Fbum93Ym92+RumQm4qmR+me djLHRswAAJvdRu6b3EYOm91e1pvdBowFm9xOFpvdXs6Qm41++L50BYzQjsClpaWl6Yf9kF5f i+Vdw1WL7IPsKFdW/3YEuAgAUJo6BQAAUJpABQAA/3YEuAQAUJrHBQAAUJowBgAA/3YEocQI mSvC0fhQocgImSvC0fhQmv//AACb3wbICJvcDqwFg+wIi9yb3R+b3wbECJvcDqwFg+wIi9yb 3R+Qm+ilCYPEEI1+8IvwFgelpaWlocQImSvC0fiLyPfYiUbaiU7eiUbcocgIiUbg/3YEM8BQ mv//AAD/dgSNRtoWUDPAUJoqBgAAUJr//wAA/za6Bf82uAX/NrYF/za0Bf82wgX/NsAF/za+ Bf82vAX/NqoF/zaoBf82pgX/NqQF/3YM/3YK/3YI/3YG/3b2/3b0/3by/3bw/3YE6PP7g8Qq /3YEuAcAUJo7BgAAUJpBBgAA/3YEM8BQmngAAABQmnwGAAD/dgS4/P9QULgEAFBQmv//AABe X4vlXcOQVYvsg+wE/3YE/3YE/zbECP82yAia//8AAIlG/FCanwYAAIlG/v92DP92Cv92CP92 Bv92BOiD/oPECv92BP92/pr//wAAi0b8i+Vdw1WL7IPsBoM+yggAdWYzwFCaEwkAAIlG/sdG /AAAi0b8oxAAiUb6m99G+pvcDsQFm9wOzAWD7AiL3JvdH5Cb/3b+6HD/g8QKi1780eOJh8oI /zbCCCvAUFBQmvYIAAD/RvyDfvwMfLb/dv4zwFBQmjIJAACL5V3DkFWL7IPsAlaDPsoIAHQk x0b+AACLXv7R4/+3ygiL85r//wAAx4TKCAAA/0b+g37+DHzhXovlXcOQVYvsg+wSM8CJRviJ RvqLDsQIiU78iw7ICIlO/v92BLlGAB5Ruf//UY1W+BZSuxEEU5r5BwAAi0b+K0b6iUbui078 K074iU7wi9ChxAgrwYvKmSvC0fiJRvihyAgrwZkrwtH4LSAAiUb6i0bwAwbECJkrwtH4iUb8 i8EDBsgImSvC0fgtIACJRv7/dgS4RgAeULj//1CNRvgWULkRAFGa//8AAItG/gUQAIlG+gUg AIlG/otG/CtG+PcuEAC5DACZ9/kDRviJRvb/dgS4BwBQmj8IAABQmkUIAACJRvL/dgS4BABQ mmcIAABQmm0IAACJRvT/dgT/dvj/dvr/dvb/dv6agQgAAP92BDPAUJooBQAAUJqMCAAA/3YE /3b2/3b6/3b8/3b+mv//AAD/dgT/dvKalwgAAP92BP929JomCQAAi+Vdw5CM2JBFVYvsHo7Y g+w0i0YMPQ8AdEV2A+kAAUh1A+nAAEh1A+nGAOkBAZChxAiJRtahyAiJRtihwAhAuQwAmff5 iRbACP92Do1G0hZQM8mJTtKJTtRRmv//AAD/dg6NRtoWUJr//wAAiUb6gz4cAAB0W1Ca//8A AIlG0lCLHsAI0eP/t8oIml4JAAD/dtIzwFBQmloFAAD/dvozwFBQ/zbECP82yAj/dtJQULgg ALrMAFJQmv//AAD/dtL/dtCaLgUAAP920pr//wAA6wdQ6Or9g8QC/3YOjUbaFlCa//8AADPA metZkIN+Cht19McGHgABADPAUJr//wAA6+SBfgqaAnUn/3YOuAoBHlC4+wAeUDPAUJr//wAA 68YtAgF0xy0QAHTYSHUD6QD//3YO/3YM/3YK/3YI/3YGmv//AACNZv4fXU3KCgCQAAAAAAAA AADD6wBbQCT+K8RzRffYNjkGCgB3PDY5BgwAdgQ2owwAi+D/41taQCT+K8RzGffYNjkGCgB3 EDY5BgwAdgQ2owwAi+BSU8uLFlABQnQE/yZQAbD/u7D+u7D9u7D8tEzNITPAwgIAmv//AAAL wHRnjAaCAYkOUgGJNlQBiT5WAYkeWAGMBloBiRZcAeg4Abj//1Ca//8AAOiSAugdBLj//1Ca //8AADPAUJr//wAA/zZWAZr//wAAC8B0G/82VgH/NlQB/zZaAf82WAH/NlwB6FD1UOidAbD/ 6/jDAFWL7P92BOhyAIvlXcNVi+z/dgToigCL5V3DVYvs/3YG/3YE6AQAi+Vdw1WL7P92BIN+ BgB0BYtGBusDuAEAULhiAFCa//8AAIvlXcNVi+yD7AL/dgaDfggAdAWLRgjrA7gBACvJUVC4 YgBQmv//AACJRv6L0CvAi+Vdw1WL7IPsArggAFCDfgQAdAWLRgTrA7gBAFCa//8AAIlG/ovl XcNVi+z/dgSa//8AAIvlXcNVi+yD7AK4IABQg34EAHQFi0YE6wO4AQAryVFQmv//AACJRv6L 0CvAi+Vdw1WL7P92Bpr//wAAi+Vdw4wepwG4ADXNIYkebgGMBnABDh+4ACW6QwrNIRYfiw5O BeMujgaCASaLNiwAxQZQBYzaM9s2/x5MBXMFFh/pUv42xQZUBYzauwMANv8eTAUWH44GggEm iw4sAOM+jsEz/yaAPQB0NLkNAL5gAfOmdAu5/38zwPKudSHr5QYeBx+L97+LAbEErCxBcg3S 4JKsLEFyBQrCquvuFh++bAW/bAXorwC+ZAW/agXolwDDVYvsM8nrGlWL7LkBAOsSVYvsVle5 AAHrCFWL7FZXuQEBUQrJdR6+ugi/ugjoZwC+agW/agXoXgCBPlgF1tZ1BP8WXgW+agW/agXo SQC+bAW/bAXoTwDoEABYCuR1B4tGBLRMzSFfXl3Diw5OBeMHuwIA/x5MBR7FFm4BuAAlzSEf gD6sAQB0DR6grQHFFq4BtCXNIR/DO/dzCk9Piw3j9v/R6/LDO/dzDoPvBIsFC0UCdPL/Hevu wwCPBrIBtDDNIaOEAboBADwCdCmOBoIBJo4GLACMBqcBM8CZuQCAM//yrq51+0dHiT6lAbn/ //Ku99GL0b8BAL6BAI4eggGsPCB0+zwJdPc8DXRvCsB0a0dOrDwgdOg8CXTkPA10XArAdFg8 InQkPFx0A0Lr5DPJQaw8XHT6PCJ0BAPR69OLwdHpE9GoAXXK6wFOrDwNdCsKwHQnPCJ0ujxc dANC6+wzyUGsPFx0+jwidAQD0evbi8HR6RPRqAF10uuXFh+JPp8BA9dH0ecD10KA4v4r4ovE o6EBi9gD+xYHNok/Q0PFNqUBrKoKwHX6No4eggG+gQDrAzPAqqw8IHT7PAl09zwNdHwKwHR4 Nok/Q0NOrDwgdOE8CXTdPA10YgrAdF48InQnPFx0A6rr5DPJQaw8XHT6PCJ0BrBc86rr0bBc 0enzqnMGsCKq68VOrDwNdC4KwHQqPCJ0tzxcdAOq6+wzyUGsPFx0+jwidAawXPOq69mwXNHp 86pzlrAiquvNM8CqFh/HBwAA/yayAVWL7B6OBoIBJoseLACOwzPAM/Yz/7n//wvbdA4mgD4A AAB0BvKuRq51+ovHQCT+Rov+0ea5CQDoxgBQi8bowACjowEGHgcfi8+L2DP2X0njJosENjsG YAF1EFFWV79gAbkGAPOnX15ZdAUmiT9DQ6yqCsB1+uLaJokPH13DALrGAenzBrr2AentBro4 Aun6BrpQAuv4umgC6/O6OALptQa6UALr+LpoAuvzVYvsg+wMU1FWV5vZfv6Qm4tG/oDMDIlG /JvZbvyb3370m9lu/otG9ItW9l9eWVuL5V3DALu0AccHYhXHRwJsEcdHBAgSx0cGBBHHRwja EcdHCrIawwBVi+xTBlG5AASHDl4BUVDoEPtbjwZeAVmM2gvAdAQHW+sFi8HpevqL5V3DAMZG 7/+b2cCb3smb2cmb2cCb3smb3sGb2frDMsmb2eHrEejhANn/w4M+xgQDc/MKyXXo6GkAm9nJ 6xDoyADZ/sODPsYEA3Pz6FAAm9jIm9nBm9jIm97Bm9n6m975Csl0A5vZ4MPoLwCb3vnr8Ogn AJve8evoxkbvBpvYFjQCm91+9pCb9kb3QXUmWMZG7wXpGA2b2eHrCMZG7/8KyXXzm9gWMAKb 3X72kJv2RvdBdMWb2y4mApvZ5ZvZyZvZ+JvdfvaQm4pm9572xAJ0BZve6esDm93Zm9nyisTQ 4ND40MDQ7NDs0NBIqAJ1A5vZyUioBHUDm9ngLAKoBHUJm9nJm9ngm9nJw5vZwIPsCovcmzbb P5CbNotHCCX/f4PECj0aQHINxkbvBj0eQHIEWOlb/8NVi+yD7AaLXgSKB5iL2PaH2wIBdAWN RyDrBoteBIoHmD1lAHQS/0YEi14EigeYi9j2h9sCBHXui14EigeIRv7GBy7/RgSLXgSKB4hG /IpG/ogHikb8iEb+i14E/0YEgD8AdeKL5V3DkFWL7IPsBOsIgD8udAv/RgSLXgSAPwB18P9G BIA/AHRJ6w2AP2V0EIA/RXQL/0YEi14EgD8AdeuLw/9OBIlG/usEkP9OBIteBIA/MHT1gD8u dQP/TgSLXv7/Rv6KB/9GBIteBIgHCsB17IvlXcOQVYvsg+wCi14Em90Hm9wW1AWb3dib3X7+ kJuKZv+ecgi4AQCL5V3DkCvAi+Vdw1WL7FdWi0YESHQzSHQY/3YK6EYJg8QCi9ib3QfEXgab Jtkf6xGQ/3YK6N4Pg8QCxF4GmybbP5CbXl+L5V3D/3YK6BYJg8QCi/DEfgalpaWlXl+L5V3D VYvsg+wEV1aAPp4CAHQrix6gCIle/oM/LXUFvgEA6wIr9gN2BlaDfggAfga4AQDrA5ArwFDo GAPrSYteBP93Bv93BP93Av836BMPg8QIiUb+UItGCEBQg34IAH4FuAEA6wIrwIte/olG/IM/ LXUFuAEA6wIrwANG/ANGBlDoxgiDxAaLdgaLXv6DPy11BMYELUaDfggAfg2KRAGIBI1EAYvw xgQuuJgCUIA+ngIBG8D32ANGCAPGUOj7B4PEBIvwg34KAHQDxgRFRote/otfBoA/MHRFi17+ i38CT3kJi8f32Iv4xgQtRoP/ZHwRi8e5ZACZ9/kABIvHmff5i/pGg/8KfBGLx7kKAJn3+QAE i8eZ9/mL+ovHRgAEi0YGXl+L5V3DkFWL7IPsAsYGngIB/3YK/3YI/3YG/3YE6ML+xgaeAgCL 5V3DkFWL7IPsBlaAPp4CAHQsix6gCIle/oM/LXUGvgEA6wOQK/YDdgahoAI5Rgh1RYvYxgAw A95DxgcA6ziLXgT/dwb/dwT/dwL/N+jLDYPECIlG/lCL2ItHAgNGCFCDPy11BrgBAOsDkCvA A0YGUOiPB4PEBot2Bote/oM/LXUExgQtRoN/AgB/D1a4AQBQ6HkBxgQwRusEkAN3AoN+CAB+ Rla4AQBQ6GEBxgQuRote/oN/AgB9MYA+ngIAdAeLRwL32OsNi0cC99g7Rgh+A4tGCIlGCFZQ 6DEB/3YIuDAAUFbo0geDxAaLRgZei+Vdw5BVi+yD7ALGBp4CAf92CP92Bv92BOj7/sYGngIA i+Vdw1WL7IPsBIteBP93Bv93BP93Av836PEMg8QIo6AIi9iLRwJIo6ACU/92CIM/LXUFuAEA 6wIrwANGBolG/lDosAaDxAaLHqAIi0cCSIlG/DsGoAJ+BLAB6wIqwKKiAotG/KOgAj38/3wF O0YIfBf/dgr/dgj/dgb/dgToUv6DxAiL5V3DkIA+ogIAdBKLXv7/Rv6APwB19Yte/sZH/gD/ dgj/dgb/dgToN/+L5V3DkFWL7IN+CGV0BoN+CEV1Ff92DP92Cv92Bv92BOje/Ivli+Vdw4N+ CGZ1Dv92Cv92Bv92BOgO/uvm/3YM/3YK/3YG/3YE6Av/i+Vdw5BVi+yDfgQAdBf/dgboiQWL 5UBQ/3YGi0YEA0YGUOhEBovlXcIEAFWL7IPsEoA+9AQAdAroAgfGBtgCAetZm9nJm90WqAKb 2cmb3RawAuvkVYvsg+wSgD70BAB0CuiXBsYG2AIB6zCb3RaoAuvvi+Vdw1WL7IPsEpvdRgSb 3UYM6LYG6w1Vi+yD7BKb3UYE6GUGxgbYAgCKRu8KwH82m9vim90WcgGb3X72kJv3RvYIAHUd PAZ0IYA+2AIAdQib3R5yAbhyAZvZbvqQm4vlXcOwA+sEPAZ0xpijpAJWV4te8EOJHqYCxgbX AgCBP2xvdQ+AfwJndQk8AnUFxgbXAgGAPtgCAHUYm91GBJvdHqgCgH8MAXQJm91GDJvdHrAC lr/AAjPJikgFA/n/JZvd2JvZ7uskm9nkm91+9pCb9kb3AXUKm93Ym90G7ATrC5vd2JvdBuwE m9ngm90euAK4pAJQ6PEKg8QCC8B1MLAhgD7XAgB1B4M+pAIDcgKwIpijfAHR5ou0xgIL9nQQ i17w6EoFu9QC6EQFVugH819em90GuAKb3RZyAZvb4ukK/0VVi+weBlBTUVIy5AXk/1DolwOO 2Fjo1vJaWVtYBx9dTctVi+yD7BqLXgT/dwj/dwb/dwT/dwL/N4tGCEA9AQB9A7gBAFArwFCN RuZQ6IgH/3YK/3YI/3YGjUbmUOgEAIvlXcNVi+yD7AiLRgaJRv6LTgSDwQSJTvqLXgSAfwIt dQmL2MYHLUCJRv6LXgSAfwMAdBKL2f9G+ooHi17+/0b+iAfrEpCLXv7/Rv7GBzCLXgT+RwP/ B4N+CAB+Q4te/v9G/sYHLoteBIpHA5hIiUb8KUYI6xOLXvr/RvqKB4te/v9G/ogH/078g378 AHXn6wqQi17+/0b+xgcw/04IefKDfgoAdAyLXv7/Rv7GB0XrCpCLXv7/Rv7GB2WLXgSLB0iJ RvgLwH0Q99iJRviLXv7/Rv7GBy3rCYte/v9G/sYHKz3oA3wZuegDmff5BDCLXv7/Rv6IB4tG +Jn3+YlW+ItG+LlkAJn3+QQwi17+/0b+iAeLRviZ9/mJVviLwrkKAJn3+QQwi17+/0b+iAeL RviZ9/mAwjCLXv7/Rv6IF4te/v9G/sYHAItGBovlXcNVi+yD7BqLXgT/dwj/dwb/dwT/dwL/ N4tGCAvAfQIrwFC4AQBQjUbmUOj+Bf92CP92Bo1G5lDoBQCL5V3DkFWL7IPsCotGBolG/ote BIsPiU74jU8EiU76gH8CLXUJi9jGBy1AiUb+g374AH5Li14EikcDmDtG+H4Di0b4iUb8KUb4 ikb8KEcD6xCLXvr/RvqKB4te/v9G/ogHi0b8/078C8B15oN++AB0F/9O+Ite/v9G/sYHMOvs i17+/0b+xgcwg34IAH5qi17+/0b+xgcui14EikcDmCtG+PfYAUYI6wqQi17+/0b+xgcwi0b4 /0b4C8B87YteBIpHA5iJRvzrEZCLXvr/RvqKB4te/v9G/ogHi0b8/078C8B15usJi17+/0b+ xgcwi0YI/04IC8B/7Yte/sYHAItGBovlXcNVi+yD7BqDfggAfwXHRggBAIteBP93CP93Bv93 BP93Av83/3YIK8BQjUbmUOi9BIN+5vx+CItG5jlGCH0Z/3YKi0YISFD/dgaNRuZQ6Cn9g8QI i+Vdw4tGCCtG5lD/dgaNRuZQ6Jn+i+Vdw5BVi+yDfghldAaDfghFdRX/dgz/dgr/dgb/dgTo rPyL5YvlXcODfghmdAaDfghGdQ7/dgr/dgb/dgToGv7r4P92DP92Cv92Bv92BOhH/4vlXcOQ LoA+NiK4dAOM0MMuoTciw1WL7IvXi96LdgaL/ozYjsAzwLn///Ku99GLfgSLx6gBdAKkSdHp 86UTyfOki/OL+l3DVYvsi9eM2I7Ai34EM8C5///yrvfRSZGL+l3DAFWL7FdWi3YE6wFGigSY i9j2h9sCCHXzK8BQUFboxf+DxAJQVujPD4PECIvYuKIIVov4jXcIHgelpaWlXl5fi+Vdw1WL 7FdWi14Ii38Gi14ExgcwjXcB6xOAPQB0B4oFiARH6wPGBDBG/04Gg34GAH/nxgQAg34GAHwT gD01fA7rBJDGBDBOgDw5dPf+BIteBIA/MXUJi14I/0cC6wyQi8NAUFPoDP+DxAReX4vlXcOQ VYvsi9eL3ozYjsCLdgaLfgSLx4tOCOMqO/52FovGA8E7+HMOi8cD8QP5Tk/986T86xCLx6gB dAKkSdHp86UTyfOki/OL+l3DVYvsi9eM2I7Ai34Ei9+LTgjjFYpGBorg98cBAHQCqknR6fOr E8nzqov6k13DAIoPKu1Di9O7AgCBPlgF1tZ1BP8WWgW0QM0hwwCb2X76il76gMs4txOJXvib 2W74u/EDm9nliVbwm91+9sZG7wCQm4pO99Dh0PnQwYrBJA/XmIHhBASL2gPYg8MQ/yeb2X76 il76gMs4txOJXvib2W74u/EDm9nliVbwm91+9sZG7wCb2cmKTveb2eWb3X72m9nJim730OXQ /dDFisUkD9eK4NDh0PnQwYrBJA/X0OTQ5ArEmIHhBASL2gPYg8MQ/yfoPwCb2cmb3djD6DUA 6/eb3dib3dib2e7Dm93Ym93Ym9now+gcAJvewcP2RvsQdRZYm93Ym93Ym9su3AOAfu8AfwTG Ru8BCsnD9kb7EHX3WOviCsl0A5vZ4MMACu11N5vZyejXAOsIMu2b2eqb3snoHQGb2eib3sH2 RvcBdAab2eib3vH2wkB1A5vZ/QrtdAOb2eDpbf+b2cCb2z4qBJCboTIEgOR/Lf8/ck89QABz SvfYBT8AtQGKyIDhB9Llis1J0ejR6NHoi9iKhyoEIugiyAvbdAdLCo8qBOv1Csl1GpvZyZvZ 4el5/4A+8AMBdArpJv/GRu8Cm9nA6TT/gD7wAwF09pvd2Jvd2JvbLgIExkbvAsOb2e2b2cmb 2eSb3X72kJv2RvdBddGb2fHDm9ns6wOb2e2b2ckKyXW+m9nxw+nW/ujk/grJdbOb3djpwv6b 3djp3v5Ym9nkm91+9pCb9kb3AXXn6wwK7XXk6Lv+ddmb3dib3dib2y4CBMZG7wPD6MX+dcfr 9Oi+/nXG6+3GRu//m9nAm9nhm9suFgSb3tmb3X72kJv2RvdBdamb2cCb2fyb2eSb3X72kJuK Vveb2cmb2OGb2eSb3X72m9nhm9nww83MzMzMzMzM+z/NzMzMzMzMzMzM+z9Vi+yD7AxWVx4z wIdGCIlG/ot+BItGEjbGRQIg9sSAdAyAZhN/NsZFAi0l/38LwHUQi0YKC0YMC0YOC0YQdE3r ZT3/f3Vgi0YKC0YMC0YOi0YQdRe+ugQ9AIB0Gj0AwHUKvsAENoB9Ai10C76sBKkAQHQDvrME NscFAQAWB419AzPJigxB86QzwOl5AYt+BDbHBQAANsZFAiA2xkUDADbGRQQA6VwBM/+KfhGL RhKLyLoQTffikbBN9uQDyBPXsJr25wPIE/qB6fQSgd9DE1f3341GCBZQV7gBAFDohgZfgX4S /z9yEEeNRggWULgmHw5Q6EUH6+mLXgQ2iT+LRv73RgYBAHQGA8d5AuuAPRUAdgO4FQCJRv5A iUb0i0YSLf4/99gy5IteEItODotWDIt2Cot+CArAdBDR69HZ0drR3tHf0Nz+yHXwFgeJfvaL fgSNfQSHfvYywIleEolOEIlWDol2DIl+CohmCdDk0dfR1tHS0dHR09DQ0OTR19HW0dLR0dHT 0NACZgkTfgoTdgwTVg4TThATXhIUANDk0dfR1tHS0dHR09DQBDCHfvaqh372/070daCLfvaL dgSD7wI8NXIqjUwE6wsmgD05dREmxgUwTzvPdvFHJsYFMDb/BCb+BSv5i99DNohcA+sVi07+ 4wiwMP3zrvx1A+mP/kE2iEwDuAEAH19ei+VdwhAAVYvsg+wagz5OBQB0arsLAP8eTAULwHRf m9l+/Jvb45vZ6JvZ7pve+ZvZwJvZ4Jve2Zvdfv6bi0b+nscGxgQDAHUujNCOwJvZ6Jsm237y m9l25puLRuwlDwC7iSFDg+MPO8PHBsYEAgB0BscGxgQBAJvb4pvZbvyL5V3DAFWL7FZX/IzY jsCNdgS/0AQ2pTalNqU2pb7QBFXovQBdv9gEi8ismJHzpJGqv8gEMv+JHYlVAolNBMdFBtgE i8dfXovlXcNVi+wzwIvlXcPGBvQEAcMAVYvsg+wOjUb2FlCNTvIWUR7/dgS5AQBR6MMGm9tu 9ovlXcOQHliQRVWL7B6O2CvATU2L5R9dTctm/P////////4/zczMzMzMzMz7P74CBccEATAz wIvQQLMgB8ML0nUKg/n4dBeA4Q90Db4aBfbBCHUNvhMF6wi+IQXrA74nBboBAAczwMMGjNiO wPy/9gRXuQQA86Vei0wGgGQHf7MgiwQLRAILRASL0AtEBnSeC8l5ArMt99H3wfB/99F0nlOb 2T4vBZCbUKAvBaIxBVib2S4xBZvdBJvZwJvbPJCbM/++/QSsiviti8i6EE334pGwTfbkA8gT 17Ca9ucDyBP6gen0EoHfQxNX99++9gToCAq7SiJfmy7bL5vY2ZvdPi0FkJv2Bi4FQXQLR7tU Ipsu2y+b3slXm9s8m9kuLwWQm62XrZWtkq2TrZGB6f4/99mL9zPA4wzR69Ha0d3R3tDc4vSB 1poDE+kT0RPZvwMFuRAAMsBRU1JVVlDQ5NHW0dXR0tHT0NDQ5NHW0dXR0tHT0NBZEuVZE/FZ E+lZE9FZE9kUANDk0dbR1dHS0dPQ0FkEMKrivU9JsDD98678g8ESvgIFiAy4AQBaWwfDAAAA AAAAAAAAAKACQAAAAAAAAAAAAMgFQAAAAAAAAAAAAPoIQAAAAAAAAAAAQJwMQAAAAAAAAAAA UMMPQAAAAAAAAAAAJPQSQAAAAAAAAACAlpgWQAAAAAAAAAAgvL4ZQAAAAAAABL/JG440QAAA AKHtzM4bwtNOQCDwnrVwK6itxZ1pQNBd/SXlGo5PGeuDQHGW15VDDgWNKa+eQPm/oETtgRKP gYK5QL881abP/0kfeMLTQG/G4IzpgMlHupOoQbyFa1UnOY33cOB8Qrzdjt75nfvrfqpRQ6Hm duPM8ikvhIEmRCgQF6r4rhDjxcT6ROun1PP36+FKepXPRWXMx5EOpq6gGeOjRg1lFwx1gYZ1 dslITVhC5KeTOTs1uLLtU02n5V09xV07i56SWv9dpvChIMBUpYw3YdH9i1qL2CVdifnbZ6qV +PMnv6LIXd2AbkzJm5cgigJSYMQldc3MzczMzMzMzMz7P3E9CtejcD0K16P4P1pkO99PjZdu EoP1P8PTLGUZ4lgXt9HxP9API4RHG0esxafuP0CmtmlsrwW9N4brPzM9vEJ65dWUv9bnP8L9 /c5hhBF3zKvkPy9MW+FNxL6UlebJP5LEUzt1RM0UvpqvP95nupQ5Ra0esc+UPyQjxuK8ujsx YYt6P2FVWcF+sVN8ErtfP9fuL40GvpKFFftEPyQ/pek5pSfqf6gqP32soeS8ZHxG0N1VPmN7 BswjVHeD/5GBPZH6Ohl6YyVDMcCsPCGJ0TiCR5e4AP3XO9yIWAgbsejjhqYDO8aERUIHtpl1 N9suOjNxHNIj2zLuSZBaOaaHvsBX2qWCpqK1MuJoshGnUp9EWbcQLCVJ5C02NE9Trs5rJY9Z BKTA3sJ9++jGHp7niFpXkTy/UIMiGE5LZWL9g4+vBpR9EeQt3p/O0sgE3abYClWL7IPsBlZX i34Gu34jC/90enkFu9ok99/HRvo0J4N+BAB1IMdG+ionm9l+/pCbi0b+DTgAiUb8m9lu/MR2 CJsm22wCV1+Dw1QL/3Qji8fR79Hv0e9XJQcAdOpT0ODQ4Irg0OACxDLkA9j/Zvpb69WDfgQA dRab2+Kb2W7+xHYImybbfAImxwQAAJCbX16L5V3CCACbLttvApveyevPLv93Ci7/dwgu/3cG Lv93BC6LTwIuiwc9AICD0f9RUIvE/3YK/3YIFlDoCwCDxAzrnulsAelUAVWL7IPsElZXuQkA jNCOwI1+7jPA86vFdgjEfgSLRAomi10Ki8gzy4HhAICJTv66/38jwjvCdMMj2jvadL2L0APT gfr9v3ezgfq/P3awC8B1EUKLBAtEAgtEBAtEBgtECHSbC9t1FkImiwUmC0UCJgtFBCYLRQYm C0UIdIGB6v4/iVQKg8cIuQUAjV7uUVZXJosF9yQ2AQc2EVcCNoNXBACDxgKD7wLi519eWYPD AoPGAoPB/3XWi3YIi1bwi07yi170i0b2i374g3wKAH8U61/RZu7R0tHR0dPR0NHX/0wKdE0L /3nqgX7uAIByH3cG98IBAHQXg8IBg9EAg9MAFQAAg9cAcwa/AID/RAqBfAr/f3NWiXwIiUQG iVwEiUwCiRSLRv4JRApfXovlXcIIAP9MCtHv0djR29HZ0drRXu6DVvwA/0QKdeqDfvwAdJiD Tu4B65IzwIlEColECIlEBolEBIlEAokE6764/38LRv6JRAozwIlECIlEBolEBIlEAokE66MA VYvsg+w0VlcexXYGM8CJRvKMXvCJdu6JRuyJRuiJRurHRuYZABYHjX7MrDwgdPs8CXT3PAp0 8zwNdO8KwHUD6e8BPCt0CTwtdQbHRuwAgKw8MHIEPDl2EDwudeOsPDBy3jw5d9rrFaw8MHT7 CsB1B06Jdu7pvgE8LnUSrP9O6jwwdPj/RuoKwHTm6yusPDByITw5dx0sMKr/TuZ176z/Ruo8 MHIEPDl29P9O6jwudBrrITwudR2sPDByGDw5dxQsMKr/Tur/TuZ17Kw8MHIEPDl29/de5oNG 5hmNXP+JXu4z2zxFdA48ZXQKPER0BjxkdALrUqw8K3QJPC11BsdG6P//rDwwcj88OXc7LTAA i9isPDByJDw5dyAsMIH7ZgZ3DNHjA8PR49HjA9h547v/P6w8MHIEPDl29zNe6Cte6AFe6k6J du6DfuYAdQPp5gAmxgUAT4N+5hh2FyaKBSbGBQD/Tub/RupPPAVyFCb+BesVg37qAHQP6wdP /07m/0bqJoA9AHTzFo1GzFD/duaNRvRQ6OMCi0bqC8B0Hj1QFHwD6aMAPbDrfwPplQAWjUb0 UP926v92BOjs+4tG/Ite+otO+ItW9oF+9ACAchx3BvfCAQB0FIPCAYPRAIPTABUAAHMGgMyA /0b+i3b+gf7/f3NVC/Z1CovwC/ML8QvydEHFdg6JRAaJXASJTAKJFItG/gtG7IlECMV2CotG 7okEi0bwiUQCi0byH19ei+Vdwg4Ag07yBMR+DjPAuQUA86vr1oNO8gHr7oNO8gLFdg64/38L RuyJRAjHRAYAgDPAiUQEiUQCiQTrr1WL7IPsBriyCB5QjUb6FlAe/3YEK8BQ6LACiUb+i0b6 K0YEo6wIxwaqCAAA9kb+BHQGxwaqCAAC9kb+AnQFgA6qCAH2Rv4BdAWADqsIAbiqCIvlXcOQ AAAAAAAAAKACQAAAAAAAAADIBUAAAAAAAAAA+ghAAAAAAAAAQJwMQAAAAAAAAFDDD0AAAAAA AAAk9BJAAAAAAACAlpgWQAAAAAAAILy+GUAAAAAEv8kbjjRAAKHtzM4bwtNOQJ61cCuorcWd aUD9JeUajk8Z64NA15VDDgWNKa+eQKBE7YESj4GCuUDVps//SR94wtNA4IzpgMlHupOoQWtV JzmN93DgfEKO3vmd++t+qlFDduPM8ikvhIEmRM3MzMzMzMzM+z8K16NwPQrXo/g/O99PjZdu EoP1PyxlGeJYF7fR8T8jhEcbR6zFp+4/tmlsrwW9N4brP7xCeuXVlL/W5z/9zmGEEXfMq+Q/ W+FNxL6UlebJP1M7dUTNFL6arz+6lDlFrR6xz5Q/xuK8ujsxYYt6P1nBfrFTfBK7Xz8vjQa+ koUV+0Q/pek5pSfqf6gqP6HkvGR8RtDdVT4GzCNUd4P/kYE9Ohl6YyVDMcCsPNE4gkeXuAD9 1zu7XisL/3kFuxws999XX4HDRgAL/3Qni8fR79Hv0e9XJQcAdOlT0OCK4NDg0OACxDLkA9ib Ltsvm97JW+vQw1WL7IPsDFZXi0YGiUb0xHYIM8CL+IvYi8iL0CaKFEbrOol+/olG/Ile+olO +IlW9uh7AOh4AANW9hNO+BNe+hNG/BN+/uhmACYCFEaA1gCD0QCD0wAVAACD1wD/TvR1wb5O QOsNi/iLw4vZi8oz0oPuEAv/dO94D9Hi0dHR09HQ0ddOC/958VaLdgQ2j0QKNol8CDaJRAY2 iVwENolMAjaJFIvGjNJfXovlXcIIANHi0dHR09HQ0dfDAFWL7IPsDhaNRvZQ/3YM/3YK/3YI /3YG/3YE6LH6m9l+8pvbbvaLXvKDyxiJXvSb2+LEXg6b2W70mybdH5vdfvSb2+Kb2W7yC8B1 F4te9DPA98MYAHQMuAIA98MIAHUDuAEAi+Vdwg4AcwEFBzoSBAAAAAUHJxIEAAAABQfVJgQA AAAFBxYnBAAAAAUHWi4EAAAAAwGIAQIAcQADAZIBAgByAAIATwABAAAAAwFCAQIAfAADAQQH AgB9AAMBtAkCAAEAAwEZBwEADQADAaEKAgAFAAMBlgkCAAYAAwF7AQIACgADAboBAgAMAAMB XwsDAAUAAwEOCwMABgADAXELAwAHAAUH+gQFAAAABQf2BAUAAAAFB/EEBQAAAAUH7QQFAAAA BQfpBAUAAAAFB+UEBQAAAAUH0gQFAAAABQfPBAUAAAAFB8sEBQAAAAUHxgQFAAAABQe5BAUA AAAFB7UEBQAAAAUHsAQFAAAABQdoBAUAAAAFB2UEBQAAAAUHYQQFAAAABQddBAUAAAAFB0YE BQAAAAUHQwQFAAAABQc/BAUAAAAFBzwEBQAAAAUHOAQFAAAABQc0BAUAAAAFBy8EBQAAAAUH KwQFAAAABQcnBAUAAAAFByMEBQAAAAUHDgQFAAAABQcKBAUAAAAFBwUEBQAAAAUHAgQFAAAA BQfcAwUAAAAFB9gDBQAAAAUH0wMFAAAABQfQAwUAAAAFB7YDBQAAAAUHsgMFAAAABQetAwUA AAAFB6kDBQAAAAUHpgMFAAAABQeiAwUAAAAFB48DBQAAAAUHjAMFAAAABQeIAwUAAAAFB4QD BQAAAAUHdwMFAAAABQd0AwUAAAAFB3ADBQAAAAUHbAMFAAAABQdoAwUAAAAFB2MDBQAAAAUH XwMFAAAABQdbAwUAAAAFB1YDBQAAAAUHSAMFAAAABQdFAwUAAAAFB0EDBQAAAAUHMAMFAAAA BQctAwUAAAAFBykDBQAAAAUHJQMFAAAABQcHAwUAAAAFBwMDBQAAAAUH/gIFAAAABQf7AgUA AAAFB9UCBQAAAAUH0QIFAAAABQfMAgUAAAAFB8kCBQAAAAUHpAIFAAAABQehAgUAAAAFB50C BQAAAAUHmAIFAAAABQeUAgUAAAAFB5ACBQAAAAUHiwIFAAAABQeHAgUAAAAFB4MCBQAAAAUH fwIFAAAABQd0AgUAAAAFB3ECBQAAAAUHbQIFAAAABQdfAgUAAAAFB1wCBQAAAAUHWAIFAAAA BQdUAgUAAAAFBzECBQAAAAUHLQIFAAAABQcoAgUAAAAFByQCBQAAAAUHIAIFAAAABQcbAgUA AAADAVMGAQAYAAUHfwUFAAAABQd1BQUAAAAFB3AFBQAAAAUHbQUFAAAABQdjBQUAAAAFB14F BQAAAAUH4wYFAAAABQfZBgUAAAAFB9QGBQAAAAUH0AYFAAAABQdcDwUAAAAFB2sPBQAAAAUH bw8FAAAABQdzDwUAAAAFB9gPBQAAAAUH2w8FAAAABQfeDwUAAAAFB+EPBQAAAAUH5A8FAAAA BQfnDwUAAAAFB+oPBQAAAAUH8A8FAAAABQcJEAUAAAAFBx4QBQAAAAUHIRAFAAAABQckEAUA AAAFBycQBQAAAAUHKhAFAAAABQctEAUAAAAFBzQQBQAAAAUHOxAFAAAABQdDEAUAAAAFB0wQ BQAAAAUHURAFAAAABQdlEAUAAAAFB3IQBQAAAAUHdxAFAAAABQeDEAUAAAAFB4gQBQAAAAUH ixAFAAAABQeOEAUAAAAFB5EQBQAAAAUHoBAFAAAABQelEAUAAAAFB6gQBQAAAAUHvhAFAAAA BQfGEAUAAAAFB88QBQAAAAUH0hAFAAAABQfVEAUAAAAFB9kQBQAAAAUHIRIFAAAABQfuEQUA AAAFB+sRBQAAAAUH5hEFAAAABQfjEQUAAAAFB+sVBQAAAAUH7hUFAAAABQfzFQUAAAAFB/YV BQAAAAUHFBYFAAAABQclFgUAAAAFBykWBQAAAAUHOBYFAAAABQdLFgUAAAAFB04WBQAAAAUH UxYFAAAABQdrFgUAAAAFB3MWBQAAAAUHtBYFAAAABQe4FgUAAAAFB8MWBQAAAAUHxxYFAAAA BQfZFgUAAAAFB9wWBQAAAAUH4RYFAAAABQfkFgUAAAAFB/AWBQAAAAUH8xYFAAAABQf6FgUA AAAFB/0WBQAAAAUHAhcFAAAABQcFFwUAAAAFB0oXBQAAAAUHTxcFAAAABQdUFwUAAAAFB6Qc BQAAAAUHsxwFAAAABQe6HAUAAAAFB8AcBQAAAAUH5hwFAAAABQf1HAUAAAAFB/wcBQAAAAUH Ah0FAAAABQcKHQUAAAAFBxAdBQAAAAUHEx0FAAAABQcXHQUAAAAFB0wdBQAAAAUHTx0FAAAA BQdYHQUAAAAFB1sdBQAAAAUHXh0FAAAABQdiHQUAAAAFB2UdBQAAAAUHaB0FAAAABQdvHQUA AAAFB3odBQAAAAUHfR0FAAAABQeAHQUAAAAFB58dBQAAAAUHqB0FAAAABQeyHQUAAAAFB7Ud BQAAAAUHux0FAAAABQe+HQUAAAAFB8cdBQAAAAUHyh0FAAAABQfSHQUAAAAFB9kdBQAAAAUH 3x0FAAAABQfiHQUAAAAFBykeBQAAAAUHLB4FAAAABQdAHgUAAAAFB00eBQAAAAUHUB4FAAAA BQdTHgUAAAAFB10eBQAAAAUHYB4FAAAABQdjHgUAAAAFB2YeBQAAAAUHch4FAAAABQd2HgUA AAAFB3seBQAAAAUHfh4FAAAABQeFHgUAAAAFB5MeBQAAAAUHmR4FAAAABQegHgUAAAAFB6Me BQAAAAUHuh4FAAAABQe9HgUAAAAFB8AeBQAAAAUH3B4FAAAABQffHgUAAAAFB+IeBQAAAAUH 5x4FAAAABQfqHgUAAAAFB/YeBQAAAAUH+R4FAAAABQf8HgUAAAAFB/8eBQAAAAUHCB8FAAAA BQcLHwUAAAAFBw4fBQAAAAUHER8FAAAABQcVHwUAAAAFBxgfBQAAAAUHLSIFAAAABQfRIgUA AAAFB+AiBQAAAAUH5SIFAAAABQfoIgUAAAAFB+siBQAAAAUHKiMFAAAABQctIwUAAAAFB0Mj BQAAAAUHRyMFAAAABQdKIwUAAAAFB78mBQAAAAUHziYFAAAABQcMJwUAAAAFBw8nBQAAAAUH LycFAAAABQdhLQUAAAAFBz8uBQAAAAUHQy4FAAAABQdQLgUAAAAFB1YuBQAAAAUHXi4FAAAA BQdiLgUAAAAFB2UuBQAAAAMBXAgBABsAAwGWCwMADwADATYLAwAQAAMB9QACAJkAAwGsCwMA EQADAVMJAQAiAAMB3QACAJwAAwGpBAEAJAADARcAAgAeAQMBgQoDABcAAwEiAAIAIAADAZAK AwAYAAMBtwUBACwAAwEwCAEALQADAZgKAwAeAAMBAwkCACcAAwF8CQIAKAADAdEAAgApAAMB GQECACoAAwFzBgEAMwADAbsGAQA0AAMBbQACAK0ABQf+BAYAAAAFB9cEBgAAAAUHvQQGAAAA BQdtBAYAAAAFB0sEBgAAAAUHugMGAAAABQeUAwYAAAAFB0wDBgAAAAUHNQMGAAAABQepAgYA AAAFB3gCBgAAAAUHZAIGAAAABQc1AgYAAAAFB4IFBgAAAAUH5gYGAAAABQdgDwYAAAAFB1UQ BgAAAAUHexAGAAAABQeVEAYAAAAFB+EQAgAAAAUH5RAGAAAABQc+EgYAAAAFB/IRBgAAAAUH VxYGAAAABQd3FgYAAAAFB+gWBgAAAAUHyBwGAAAABQfnHQYAAAAFB2oeBgAAAAUHpx4GAAAA BQfuHgYAAAAFBwMfBgAAAAUH1iIGAAAABQfuIgYAAAAFBzIjBgAAAAUHTyMGAAAABQfDJgYA AAAFByAnBgAAAAMBlQACADkAAwFmCQEARAADAUEHAQBFAAMBSwECAEIAAwFhAQIARAADASoI AQBXAAUHJiMDAAAABQc/IwMAAAAFByonAwAAAAUHXS0DAAAAAwHNBQIAUQADAYwHAgBVAAMB VQoDAFsAAwHaCQIAawADAaEBAgBsAAMBAwICAG0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBYm91dC4uLgAAAAAAAENs b3ZlcgBQaW53aGVlbCAtLSBQcmVzcyBFU0MgdG8gZXhpdAAAUGlud2hlZWwKQW4gT3B0aWNh bCBJbGx1c2lvbgoKCkEgc3Bpbm5pbmcgcGlud2hlZWwgd2lsbCBhcHBlYXIgb24KeW91ciBz Y3JlZW4uICBTdGFyZSBhdCB0aGUgY2VudGVyIGZvciB0d2VudHkKc2Vjb25kcyBhbmQgdGhl biBsb29rIGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGUgc2NyZWVuLgoKCkdlbmVyYXRpbmcgQml0bWFwcy4gLiAu AEFib3V0IFBpbndoZWVsACAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFBpbndoZWVsCgpCeSBUcm95IFplcnIg ICAgIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDE5OTUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX0NfRklM RV9JTkZPPQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAqQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARgpGCkYKRgpGCkYKAAAAAAAABGNhYnMAAAAABAAA AAIQANQP1A9JHboe1A/UD0kduh5THVMdbB1THboeuh5JHboeBWh5cG90AAAABAAAAAIRANQP 1A9JHboe1A/UD0kduh5THVMdbB1THboeuh5JHboeNcJoIaLaD8n+PwAAAE0AAABPA3NpbgAA AAAAAAACAAEGABQQUh2LHV4QA2NvcwAAAAAAAAACAAEHAPsPZR2LHV4QA3RhbgAAAAAABAAC AAEIADgQUh2LHV4QBWNvdGFuAAAABAACAAEYAEAQUB6LHV4QZSswMDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUX2RbhFvoWeAB5AAAAAAB6AAAAAjogAAAAACAgICAg ICAgICgoKCgoICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEISEhISEhISEhIQQ EBAQEBAQgYGBgYGBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEQEBAQEBCCgoKCgoICAgICAgICAgIC AgICAgICAgICAhAQEBAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMD//zXCaCGi2g/J /z8BBAIEBAQCBAQAAgYEAAIGBAAAAAAAAAAAgP9/3KfXuYVmcbENQAAAAAAAAACADUD3NkMM mBn2lf0/AAAAAAAAAAAAAANwb3cAAAACAAQAAAACBQCkHYkeSR2xHo8eMh5JHYweUx1THWwd Ux2xHnodSR2xHgVsb2cxMAAGBgQAAAABBAB2Hjweix3RHgNsb2cAAAAGBgQAAAABAwB7Hjwe ix3RHgNleHAAAAAAAAQAAAABAgCwHWUdix3KHgYxI1NOQU4GMSNRTkFOBTEjSU5GBTEjSU5E AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD////////vfwAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGMSNTTkFOBjEjUU5BTgUxI0lORgUxI0lORAAAAAAy EwCAZiQAgOA3ecNBQwAA/P////////5DAAD//wAAAAAAAFoX//8AAPAJ8AnwCQAAAACGD0Ah CyIAAG6GG/D5ISlAAAAAAAAAAABJBL1KUcHgP26GG/D5IRlAqdOUd+jOqj/12nqOMV+0P/Xa eo4xX7S/AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAADgPzMzMzMzM+M/MzMzMzMz0z9JBL1KUcHwP1VVVVVVVbU/ AAAAAAAAAAB4AERPTUFJTiBlcnJvcg0KAHkAU0lORyBlcnJvcg0KAHoAVExPU1MgZXJyb3IN CgBlAE02MTAxOiBNQVRIDQotIGZsb2F0aW5nLXBvaW50IGVycm9yOiBpbnZhbGlkDQoAZgBN NjEwMjogTUFUSA0KLSBmbG9hdGluZy1wb2ludCBlcnJvcjogZGVub3JtYWwNCgBnAE02MTAz OiBNQVRIDQotIGZsb2F0aW5nLXBvaW50IGVycm9yOiBkaXZpZGUgYnkgMA0KAGgATTYxMDQ6 IE1BVEgNCi0gZmxvYXRpbmctcG9pbnQgZXJyb3I6IG92ZXJmbG93DQoAaQBNNjEwNTogTUFU SA0KLSBmbG9hdGluZy1wb2ludCBlcnJvcjogdW5kZXJmbG93DQoAagBNNjEwNjogTUFUSA0K LSBmbG9hdGluZy1wb2ludCBlcnJvcjogaW5leGFjdA0KAGsATTYxMDc6IE1BVEgNCi0gZmxv YXRpbmctcG9pbnQgZXJyb3I6IHVuZW11bGF0ZWQNCgBsAE02MTA4OiBNQVRIDQotIGZsb2F0 aW5nLXBvaW50IGVycm9yOiBzcXVhcmUgcm9vdA0KAG0ATTYxMDk6IE1BVEgNCi0gZmxvYXRp bmctcG9pbnQgZXJyb3I6IGludGVnZXIgb3ZlcmZsb3cNCgBuAE02MTEwOiBNQVRIDQotIGZs b2F0aW5nLXBvaW50IGVycm9yOiBzdGFjayBvdmVyZmxvdw0KAG8ATTYxMTE6IE1BVEgNCi0g ZmxvYXRpbmctcG9pbnQgZXJyb3I6IHN0YWNrIHVuZGVyZmxvdw0KAHAATTYxMDA6IE1BVEgN Ci0gZmxvYXRpbmctcG9pbnQgZXJyb3I6IGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgZ2VuZXJhdGVkDQoAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAIAVgUBAAAAAwFMBQQAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAgIBAAAQAEAOgCAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAAAgAAAAQAAAAAEA BAAAAAAAgAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAACAAAAAgIAAgAAAAIAAgACAgAAA gICAAMDAwAAAAP8AAP8AAAD//wD/AAAA/wD/AP//AAD///8A//////////////////////// /////wAAAAD/////////////8AAAAP//AA//////////8A/wAAD////wD////////w//AAAP //////D///////D//wAA////8AAAD/////8P//AAAP//AAAAAAD////w///wAAD/8AAAAAAA D///D///8AAP/wAAAAAAAAD//wD///AAD/8AAAD///AA//AAD//wAA//AA//////8A/wAA// 8AD/8AD///////8P8AAP//AAD/AP////////DwAAAP//AA/wD/8AD/////AAAAD///AA8A8A AAAA///wDwAAD///8AAAD/AAAAD/8A8AAAD////wD///8AAAD/AP/wAAAA/wAAAP///wAAAA D//wAAAAAP8PAA///wAAAA////8AAA/wD/AA///wAADw////////8A/wAA//8AAP8P////// /wAP/wAP//AAD/AP//////AAD/8AD///AA//D/////8AAP/wAA///wD//wAP//8AAAD/8AAP //8A///wAAAAAAAP//AAD///D////wAAAAAA//8AAA//8A/////wAAAA////AAAP/w////// /wD/////8AAA//D////////wD////wAAAPAP//////////AA//8AAAAP/////////////wAA AAAP//////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= --------------82FE9A28D68735E85996C248-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 06:59:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11525; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:57:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:57:30 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:56:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971124095652_2119093547 mrin39> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Posts from SPF Resent-Message-ID: <"9zgq91.0.vp2.NNPUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13238 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred Sparber wrote, "If you want SPF diatribe then I suggest that you subscribe to it. We are all grown folks with the tools to visit SPF if, and when, we want." I don't want SPF diatribes either, Fred. That's one reason I stopped subscribing to SPF. But I don't consider Dieter Britz's comments diatribes, and I appreciate Rich Murray's forwarding them here. (I didn't even mind No. 10 in Dick Blue's "Lies" series. It was good to see him miss the target so completely.) Yes, even my ancient Mac can visit SPF. It's easy on AOL because AOL keeps track of a couple of hundred newsgroups, including SPF (though not Vortex-L). But the volume of irrelevant material on SPF is so large that I rarely check up on it. All the more reason to appreciate Rich's editorial efforts. I hope that he'll keep forwarding selected nuggets. As for tools, surely your computer system is equipped with a delete key? It seems to me that it's a lot easier to delete an occasional forward from SPF than to delete zillions of messages on SPF itself. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 07:03:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10672; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:53:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:53:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:47:42 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Apology to Rich Murray Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711240950_MC2-2971-A162 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"vlGsI3.0.cc2.eJPUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13237 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net; >INTERNET:mica@world.std.com For once, Rich Murray caught me making a mistake. This is the first time, and it won't happen again. I am deeply embarrassed! Murray correctly points out that flow rates in one of the Patterson patents is absurdly low. I was looked at earlier data with static calorimetry, and at a later patent, #5,672,259 (Sept. 30, 1997). This is for radioactive deactivation. The flow rate is 10 ml/min. All of the Cravens data for small cells that I know of has a rate of 14.3 ml/min. This convenient number makes 1 deg C = 1 watt. 10 to 14 ml/min is still too low for good mixing. I recommend 24.6 ml/min (0.5 deg C = 1 watt). The very low flow rates will cause many problems, as Murray and Swartz have pointed out. For all I know, they may invite the "Bernard Instabilities" Swartz talks about. I have never tested a flow calorimeter at this extreme; I have no idea how well it calibrates or what it would do if you turned it sideways. My objections to Swartz's hypothesis were based on data from conventional flow rates, 10 to 60 ml/min (and, as I said, 10 ml is too low), or kilowatt cells at a liter per minute. When you push an instrument to extremes far outside the standard limits, factors which are normally insignificant sometimes come to the fore and dominate. Miles showed that with high precision static calorimeters where total output power is in the 10s of milliwatts, fluctuations from bubble formation and heat loss from the top of the cell begin to play a large role. At conventional power levels (0.5 to 10 watts) these factors are in the noise. Perhaps at extremely low flow rates Bernard Instabilities make a huge difference. I wouldn't know about that. I have only studied systems at conventional flow rates. Steve Jones pushed Ni cells in static calorimeters to extremes by running at power levels 1000 times lower than Mills. He demonstrated nearly 100% recombination, which is expected. He then extrapolated from these extreme conditions to make statements about performance at normal power levels, which is a no-no. You cannot scale something up or down a thousand times beyond conventional, well-understood levels and then draw conclusions from it. If Patterson's only data came from these low flow rates, I would not believe his results. Fortunately we have Cravens' data in ICCF4 and I.E. Patterson could not have measured anything at these low flow rates with his earlier configuration. He must have insulated the cell and the outlet tube and put the thermocouple close to the outlet. Why he would publish such marginal, questionable data is beyond me. I have heard that people do this sort of thing to get a patent without alerting the competition to the importance of the invention. You publish your least impressive data. Patterson himself once mentioned that technique. I must admit this raises Rich Murray's score. He was zero in 200 before, he now got something right. Mea culpa. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 07:17:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16138; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:11:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:11:50 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCF8B0.FC0C5350.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: science history tidbit Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:14:27 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-reRF2.0.ix3.oaPUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13239 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > > >You are correct. Poor assumption on my part. >No wonder you have progressed to the fine art of >transmutation of lead to gold. No doubt you will >soon have it fusion-powered. Not a bad ideal Mitch. It is obvious that Low Energy Transmutation does not produce "macro" energies. In one of our tests we sustained a production of 4.4+20 new atoms per second (12,600 sec total run). Even though our calorimetry was not designed to measure excess heat, one would think that an obvious observation (e.g. melt down of the system) would be observed. Now is Barry could perfect a fusion powered reactor to run a low energy nuclear reactor we could get serious about transmutation! Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 07:55:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26186; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:48:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:48:36 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Hydrino Reactor? Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:45:26 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf8ef$fc2cd500$d183410c default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"MY4u5.0.vO6.H7QUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13240 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stuff Needed: Lanthanum Boride Powder and/or Potassium Borohydride powder, -100 mesh. Magnesium sheet or tubing H2O or D2O 1" diameter barstock 2" long with wrench flats Automotive spark plug with protruding insulator Powders and magnesium sheet available from ESPI 1-800-638-2581 Drill blind hole (tap drill size for spark plug thread) in barstock. Remove outer electrode from spark plug Press magnesium sheet or tube in and around perimeter of hole. Put in powder so that spark gap is about a millimeter when spark plug is seated. Add a gram of light or heavy water. Install spark plug Fire plug and/or heat unit so that the magnesium "getters" the N2 and O2 from the trapped air and the water releasing the H2 or D2 forming stable MgO and MgNx. Ring Bells and Blow Whistles if you get anything of interest. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 08:08:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04600; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:06:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:06:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:56:17 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Apology to Rich Murray - meant 28.6 ml Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711241059_MC2-2975-AA53 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"wNeTe.0.d71.3OQUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13241 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex In a typical innumerate message, I wrote: 10 to 14 ml/min is still too low for good mixing. I recommend 24.6 ml/min (0.5 deg C = 1 watt). That should be 28.6 ml/min, obviously. (28.708 to be exact.) Arithmetic has never been my forte. In a similar dumb mistake I reported that I am on the first floor here at Airport Road. That's wrong, my suite number is 204. I have a nice view of trees and executive jets on the tarmac. Every so often the longest stretch limo I have ever seen emerges from the hanger area. When this limo hits a bump you wonder what keeps it from folding in the middle. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 09:02:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29569; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:58:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:58:26 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971119200433.0068dab0 atlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:58:07 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: A moon-earth atmospherics question for Dr. Wharton Resent-Message-ID: <"wMYoN1.0.oD7.l8RUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13242 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >In the book "The Secret School" by Whitley Strieber (Harper Collins, >1997), Whitley says (on page 112): > > Without the slowing effects of the moon's gravity, the planet's > thousand-mile-an-hour rotational speed would cause constant surface > winds of at least three hundred miles an hour. The gentle winds that > characterize our weather would instead be a ceaseless hurricane. > Water vapor, borne aloft by the wind, would sheathe the planet in an > unending cloud cover. This claim looks like pure bunk to me. The Earth's atmosphere is dragged along with the rotating surface. The only deviation from the corotating atmosphere that is caused by the rotation itself is from the Coriolis force. To a first approximation the Earth's atmosphere has a balance between pressure variations and the Coriolis force. So the Earth's rotation does influence the winds but the Moon has very little effect. Just as the Moon causes ocean tides, it causes atmospheric tides. This effect is so small that it is overwhelmed by normal atmospheric variations. It was only measured by doing a statistical analysis of almost a century of data. The first person to calculate the Lunar atmospheric tides, Richard Lindzen, was at first regarded as a crank and almost no one believed in his results. After a long controversy and careful statistical analysis it was found that his predictions were right but they were still very very small. Now he is regarded as a leading authority in the field of dynamical meteorology. He often visits at my lab. If I get a chance I will ask him about this book. It would be interesting to hear from the recognized leader in lunar atmospheric effects and an individual who is never at a loss for words when shooting down bogus work. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 10:50:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01732; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:42:29 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971124184216.0069ced8 atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:42:16 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: A moon-earth atmospherics question for Dr. Wharton Resent-Message-ID: <"KiFn72.0.oQ.IgSUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13243 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton writes: >>In the book "The Secret School" by Whitley Strieber (Harper Collins, >>1997), Whitley says (on page 112): >> >> Without the slowing effects of the moon's gravity, the planet's >> thousand-mile-an-hour rotational speed would cause constant surface >> winds of at least three hundred miles an hour. The gentle winds that >> characterize our weather would instead be a ceaseless hurricane. >> Water vapor, borne aloft by the wind, would sheathe the planet in an >> unending cloud cover. > >This claim looks like pure bunk to me. The Earth's atmosphere is dragged >along with the rotating surface. The only deviation from the corotating >atmosphere that is caused by the rotation itself is from the Coriolis >force. To a first approximation the Earth's atmosphere has a balance >between pressure variations and the Coriolis force. So the Earth's >rotation does influence the winds but the Moon has very little effect. >Just as the Moon causes ocean tides, it causes atmospheric tides. This >effect is so small that it is overwhelmed by normal atmospheric >variations. It was only measured by doing a statistical analysis of >almost a century of data. The first person to calculate the Lunar >atmospheric tides, Richard Lindzen, was at first regarded as a crank and >almost no one believed in his results. After a long controversy and >careful statistical analysis it was found that his predictions were right >but they were still very very small. Now he is regarded as a leading >authority in the field of dynamical meteorology. He often visits at my >lab. If I get a chance I will ask him about this book. It would be >interesting to hear from the recognized leader in lunar atmospheric >effects and an individual who is never at a loss for words when shooting >down bogus work. Thanks for sharing your expertise on this matter (thanks also to Barry Merriman who gave a mathematical debunking of Whitley's claim). The background you provide makes the falsity of Whitley's claim very apparent. As usual, there is a very large gap between a true expert, such as yourself, and the wannabes and other pretenders in this life, such as Whitley Strieber (a non-scientist) and Jed Rothwell (another non-scientist). Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 11:27:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13474; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:20:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:20:59 -0800 From: John Logajan Message-Id: <199711241920.NAA05814 mirage.skypoint.com> Subject: Re: A moon-earth atmospherics question for Dr. Wharton In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971124184216.0069ced8 atlantic.net> from Kurt Johmann at "Nov 24, 97 01:42:16 pm" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:20:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WPbpU.0.MI3.NETUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13244 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Kurt Johmann writes: > As usual, there is a very large gap between a true expert, > such as yourself, and the wannabes and other pretenders in this life, > such as [X] (a non-scientist) and [Y] (another non-scientist). This smuggles definitionalism. Anybody who you think is ultimately right could be regarded as the "true scientist." Rather than embark down that logicaly dubious path of categorizing the advocates, it would be better and more logically sound to concentrate solely on the merits of each 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 - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 13:43:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA00987; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:37:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:37:06 -0800 From: Geosas aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:36:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971124163626_1154142438 mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Nice email lost! Resent-Message-ID: <"sFzBY3.0.HF._DVUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13245 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Would the person in Minnesota (I think) who sent me a nice email please send again to geosas? It got mixed up in a mass spam deletion so I lost it. I am going on holiday on Wednesday so if I don't reply please send again in mid-December as AOL only keeps unclooected email for a few days. Sorry about that, George. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 13:43:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01737; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:40:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:40:27 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:39:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971124163951_-1961286687 mrin83.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: znidarsic tells what he has been up to. Resent-Message-ID: <"RulVU3.0.3R.AHVUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13246 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-24 00:26:03 EST, you write: << It does seem somewhat reminiscent of the Podkletnov antigravity experiments. >> I'm mechanically vibrating Podkletnov is rotating. Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 14:08:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA13013; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:00:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:00:40 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:58:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971124165847_970899049 mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, fstenger@interlaced.net Subject: Stenger's spiral Resent-Message-ID: <"snX712.0.AB3.2aVUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13248 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >>Hey, all you perceptive psychologists out there - are you familiar with >>the optical illusions resulting from prolonged viewing of a rotating >>spiral? I stumbled on the neat expanding universe effect (probably well >>known) that you folks or your kids might get a kick out of. >> ........................................... Frank Stenger, Keep looking at that disk and say to yourself, "I can make a ball of lightning, I can make a ball of lightning." Good advice like this is hard to come by. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 14:09:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12287; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:56:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:56:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:55:59 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: HEY, BILL BEATTY ....3-D In-Reply-To: <3478FB6A.3F interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"W_uXz.0.t_2.SWVUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13247 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >>> A couple of stereopsis tricks. >>> >>> Put the image source on variable speed rotation, ie., turntable >>> at 16 [yes I have 16 rpm turntables, analog y'know!], 33, 45 and 78. >>> >> >>Hey! That's a great idea, John! I completely forgot about my old >>record player. Got one, Steve? >> >>Frank S. >> >> Yep I do :) and even an old "Ink Spots" record this is about 1/4" thick! ---- My printer is B & W too.. will try it now.. the pilot said he uses the center (which on some of the pics has kept me from trying as they have very many circles that are NOT circular :) center=?? I'll keep the rotary vaiable speed DRILL in mind too, as I don't know the rpm. thanks -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 16:04:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03130; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:59:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:59:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:23:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: John Schnurer cc: vortex Subject: German TV Show about Gravity Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"APrHz1.0.lm.9JXUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13249 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In Germany: "The film will be broadcasted at November 26th, 20:45, at Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (MDR)." As I understand it this is German public television. This show is about different groups investigating gravity effect of Dr. Eugene E. Podkletnov. It includes NASA, interviews with Eugene E. Podkletnov, Giovanni Modanese and others. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 16:10:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04616; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:06:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:06:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347A32C1.182A keelynet.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:06:57 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Two interesting URLs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UPENS1.0.o71.cPXUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13250 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! There is an interesting URL which talks about using a Betatron to provide propulsion in space. I never knew of it until a forwarded email caused me to do a search on construction details on a Betatron. This was the closest thing found. Another URL that I found intriguing was about a book published in 1692 called 'Secret Commonwealth'....rather than go into the original detail I decided to edit it to keep from upsetting some of the hardballers. Both URLS are posted at; http://www.keelynet.com.index0.htm Fred Epps, you need to read this one.......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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 17:51:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24265; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:45:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:45:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347A2DA6.4ACF interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:45:10 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stenger's spiral References: <971124165847_970899049 mrin51.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BtAwL2.0.3x5.1tYUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13251 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > > Frank Stenger, Keep looking at that disk and say to yourself, "I can make a > ball of lightning, I can make a ball of lightning." > > Good advice like this is hard to come by. > Yeh, Frank, but once you're by it it's easy to keep moving away from it! Keep vibrating your disk - Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 18:43:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01453; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:38:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:38:11 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:07:48 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: 1993 CETI cells Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711232211_MC2-2968-E3D3 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"y5PZl2.0.WM.IeZUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13252 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:barry julia.math.ucla.edu Barry writes: Either way, someone was doing flow calorimetry with sub ml/min flow rates, as it is definitely in the early patents. Whoever was doing it is goofy, even if they thought they had a compelling reason. Oh really? That's amazing. Who was it? How did they managed to do it with only one thermocouple in the cell and none in the flow? Maybe you are the goofy one, and you have misread the patents. Patterson never mentioned doing any flow calorimetry to me. Maybe you are looking at the wrong patents? What makes you think that Patterson is such a fool that he would try to do flow calorimetry at such low flow rates? And if he were that stupid, how could he have gotten that data? You cannot measure a thing at that flow rate. Inlet = outlet; the fluid cools down long before it hits the outlet TC. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 19:09:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA07044; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:02:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:02:50 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <347A3FA8.7CD5 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:02:00 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 1993 CETI cells References: <199711232211_MC2-2968-E3D3 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nYWVO2.0.-j1.O_ZUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13253 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Barry writes: > > someone was doing flow calorimetry with sub ml/min flow > rates, as it is definitely in the early patents. > Whoever was doing it is goofy > > That's amazing. Who was it? Method for electrolysis of water to form metal hydride Inventor(s) Patterson; James A. Sarasota, FL > What makes you think that Patterson is such a fool that he > would try to do flow calorimetry at such low flow rates? Uh...because its in a patent on which he is the only author? Check out Table I. in http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/patents/PattersonPatent3 > And if he were that stupid, how could > he have gotten that data? That is the same question I ask myself, for he was such a fool. Actually, I wonder how he measured such a low flow rate...he must have had a syringe pump or something. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 20:21:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16234; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:16:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:16:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347A5116.4398 interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:16:22 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: HEY, BILL BEATTY ....3-D References: <3478FB6A.3F@interlaced.net> <34799173.A0203383@ro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"K00M01.0.Wz3.m4bUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13254 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patrick V. Reavis wrote: > (snip) > Enjoy the weirdness.... > This spiral illusion program gives as good or better results than my hardware version, Patrick! Check it out, Steve. I think I'll try watching this illusion for 30 min. before I eat supper. I figure half a portion will look like plenty - in fact, the mashed potatos should replenish faster than I can eat them - neat! Frank (overweight) Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 21:04:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20208; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:48:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:48:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971124234313.006a3c10 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:43:13 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Stefan Boltzmann, Protein Intake and Weight Gain In-Reply-To: <347A5116.4398 interlaced.net> References: <3478FB6A.3F interlaced.net> <34799173.A0203383 ro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"AZ1nn3.0.gx4.fYbUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13256 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:16 PM 11/24/97 -0500, Frank (overweight) Stenger wrote: >Patrick V. Reavis wrote: >> >(snip) > >> Enjoy the weirdness.... >> >This spiral illusion program gives as good or better results than my >hardware version, Patrick! Check it out, Steve. >I think I'll try watching this illusion for 30 min. before I eat supper. >I figure half a portion will look like plenty - in fact, the mashed >potatos should replenish faster than I can eat them - neat! > >Frank (overweight) Stenger > Don't drive too soon after your studies. OK, Frank, here is my secret for weight loss shared to my patients for whom this is not usually a problem. It involves calorimetry, and the Stefan-Boltzman equation. Frank, the potatoes are C(H2O)x. (light leptons excluded ) The problem is that you are overweight because input exceeds output. Though not considered except in a few threads here and in calorimetry and heat and mass transfer texts, thermal radiation proceeds as T to the 4th power. Usually this is shielded by clothes, and later by fat deposits, but this can be significant OVER THE LIVER, on those conditions where it heats up. And it does, IF you eat a high protein meal (not carbos like potatoes). With the protein, the liver (nutritionally called specific dynamic action) heats about 1 to 1.5 degrees. Interestingly, with exposure (the room need NOT be cold) to the environment, the liver can radiate up to ~30-60% of the caloric content of the meal. The heat starts in about 15-30 minutes and is over in two hours. You can watch behavioral effects as this occurs. Check out your family and friends as they finish their Thanksgiving (read very high protein) meal. Many will curl into a ball to prevent radiation of heat from the liver. The soporific effects of the protein make this for a peaceful rest, and an opportunity for vorts to take out their thermometric equipment. ;-)X Anyway, the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation seems to be, again, relevant. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 21:07:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19839; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:45:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:45:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347A49F7.4313 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:45:59 -0600 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 Subject: Merriman: re Murray Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"cCJDG3.0.ur4.nVbUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13255 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from moebius.math.ucla.edu (moebius.math.ucla.edu [128.97.4.125]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16616 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:14:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from moebius (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moebius.math.ucla.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id LAA00984 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:14:38 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3478809C.3 math.ucla.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:14:36 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rmforall earthlink.net Subject: Re: Murray: 1993 CETI cells; Order of the Tortoise References: <34778545.1827 earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rich: I also find your critiques interesting, and like the little information gems you pluck from s.p.f and the web. I'd like to keep receiving them. You should also get a web site set up and maintain your own collection of CF related info. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 22:11:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA05314; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:50:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:50:23 -0800 Message-ID: <347A5926.6334 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:50:46 -0600 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, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, rbrtbass pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms ix.netcom, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless rmii.com, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, mizuno athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com, design73@aol.com, jlagarde cyberaccess.fr, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, droege@fnal.gov, dennis@wazoo.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, shellied@sage.dri.edu, chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneaco-usa.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, JNaudin509 aol.com, nick7@itl.net, shkedi@bose.com, rooster mail.utexas.edu, lentin@imaginet.fr, ceti_gcollins@msn.com Subject: Murray: Eighth Miley critique; Bush SIMS Fe-57 anomaly; Merriman praise; Rothwell apology. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ytHab.0.rI1.TScUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13257 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 24, 1997 Hi Mike Carrell, I've been writing my critiques seriously, and am sure that they are largely correct, and comprise a invaluable contribution, if the cold fusion field is ever going to make any substantial progress. I'm asking you to to consider seriously that my many critiques have considerable merit, so I'm sending you this Eighth Miley Critique of Sept. 10, which presents only a fraction of the many problems I found in the two Miley preprints. My simple, obvious analysis of his prerun data shows the actual accuracy of his isotopic measurements, close to his claimed accuracy. Note that I did not bring up the issues of H and D compounds in the postrun data, which surely would invalidate any claims that actual isotopic anomalies are involved: this was a major oversight on my part, because it was the debate on the Cincinnati Group data that first made me aware how common hydride interferences were, especially in postrun data on loaded metals. I made only one major concession: that there might be an anomaly for Ag-- but the Ag data for the other five runs are scattered over a wide range of values, with no pattern I can easily discern, with one value that is actually negative, indicating Ag removal! Can anyone provide independent confirmation of the exciting news that Russ George [rgeorge hooked.net] is collaborating with Arata and Zhang, and that both their He production results have been and are being confirmed at a major laboratory? This critique of a famous Bush and Eagleton report mentions prerun SIMS data that shows a strong Fe-57 anomaly, as does Miley's postrun SIMS data: surely this is a hydride interference in both cases. R Bush and R Eagleton, "Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes," Trans. Fusion Technology, Dec., 1994, 26, p. 344-54, has a more adaquate pyrex closed cell with an internal platinum black recombiner, at 1.0 mA/cm2, but gives no data about the run history, except to say that the total excess heat for Cell 53 is (4.0 +- 0.8) X 10exp19 MeV. He does give four SIMS graphs: for mass 57 vs 56 we, after the obligatory doubling of the graphs via zerox, find pre-run values, about 60,000 to 300,000, ratio .2, and post-run, 200 to 6,000, ratio .03. So, the pre-run ratio is many times more anomalous than the post-run. Now, that's efficient research! No need to even run the electrolysis! This is a much more significant result than the claimed transmutation of rubidium to strontium, eh? Subject: Re: Murray: 1993 CETI cells; Order of the Tortoise Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:14:36 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: rmforall earthlink.net References: 1 Rich: I also find your critiques interesting, and like the little information gems you pluck from s.p.f and the web. I'd like to keep receiving them. You should also get a web site set up and maintain your own collection of CF related info. -- 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 Subject: Apology to Rich Murray Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:47:42 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net; >INTERNET:mica world.std.com For once, Rich Murray caught me making a mistake. This is the first time, and it won't happen again. I am deeply embarrassed! Murray correctly points out that flow rates in one of the Patterson patents is absurdly low. I was looked at earlier data with static calorimetry, and at a later patent, #5,672,259 (Sept. 30, 1997). This is for radioactive deactivation. The flow rate is 10 ml/min. All of the Cravens data for small cells that I know of has a rate of 14.3 ml/min. This convenient number makes 1 deg C = 1 watt. 10 to 14 ml/min is still too low for good mixing. I recommend 24.6 ml/min (0.5 deg C = 1 watt). The very low flow rates will cause many problems, as Murray and Swartz have pointed out. For all I know, they may invite the "Bernard Instabilities" Swartz talks about. I have never tested a flow calorimeter at this extreme; I have no idea how well it calibrates or what it would do if you turned it sideways. My objections to Swartz's hypothesis were based on data from conventional flow rates, 10 to 60 ml/min (and, as I said, 10 ml is too low), or kilowatt cells at a liter per minute. When you push an instrument to extremes far outside the standard limits, factors which are normally insignificant sometimes come to the fore and dominate. Miles showed that with high precision static calorimeters where total output power is in the 10s of milliwatts, fluctuations from bubble formation and heat loss from the top of the cell begin to play a large role. At conventional power levels (0.5 to 10 watts) these factors are in the noise. Perhaps at extremely low flow rates Bernard Instabilities make a huge difference. I wouldn't know about that. I have only studied systems at conventional flow rates. Steve Jones pushed Ni cells in static calorimeters to extremes by running at power levels 1000 times lower than Mills. He demonstrated nearly 100% recombination, which is expected. He then extrapolated from these extreme conditions to make statements about performance at normal power levels, which is a no-no. You cannot scale something up or down a thousand times beyond conventional, well-understood levels and then draw conclusions from it. If Patterson's only data came from these low flow rates, I would not believe his results. Fortunately we have Cravens' data in ICCF4 and I.E. Patterson could not have measured anything at these low flow rates with his earlier configuration. He must have insulated the cell and the outlet tube and put the thermocouple close to the outlet. Why he would publish such marginal, questionable data is beyond me. I have heard that people do this sort of thing to get a patent without alerting the competition to the importance of the invention. You publish your least impressive data. Patterson himself once mentioned that technique. I must admit this raises Rich Murray's score. He was zero in 200 before, he now got something right. Mea culpa. Jed. Subject: Re: Apology to Rich Murray Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:36:50 -0600 From: Rich Murray Organization: Room For All To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> References: 1 Nov. 24, 1997 Dear all, and especially Jed Rothwell, Apology happily accepted! You can keep your gun and horse to resume farming back home. I enjoyed your discussion of technical details about flow calorimetry-- that is very helpful. I appreciate being alerted to the patent tactic of publicizing one's least informative measurements. As one, Rich Subject: 1993 CETI cell flow calorimetry Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:12:43 -0800 Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:13:44 -0600 From: Rich Murray Organization: Room For All To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, ceti@msn.com, ceti_gcollins msn.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms ix.netcom.com, dennis@wazoo.com Nov. 23, 1997 Dear all, I completely overlooked how tiny the 1993 CETI cell flow rates were-- my mind automatically kept thinking in terms of 10-15 ml/min flow rates. The cells clearly were run as electrolytic flow calorimetry, as Heat Out was calculated by "(delta T X FR)". So I was right about "flow dependent artifacts", but probably wrong that those results cast major asperations on other CF results involving flow. As one, Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 23:35:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA11262; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:22:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:22:55 -0800 (PST) From: atech ix.netcom.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971125022404.0086af40 popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:24:04 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: (off topic) EXPANDING UNIVERSE DEMO Resent-Message-ID: <"6p8251.0.nl2.CpdUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13258 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I first saw the effect about 25 or 30 years ago on a TV science show. It stuck in the back of my mind until I saw it again on Bill Nye The Science Guy. This was about a year ago on The Brain episode. The magician called his version the tri zonal space warper (or something like that) because it was composed of three spiral bands rotating in alternating directions. The rotation rate was also much slower and you only had to stare at it for about 10 seconds to produce the effect. The optical effect was both expansive and contractive. The picture of clouds shown after viewing the spinning spirals looked like it was kind of boiling or bubbling. I will video capture this segment when I sort my tapes in the future. The closest thing to an explaination I have seen is in Dan A. Davidson's book 'Shape Power'. He states that drawn lines on paper will have an effect on the aether stress fields passing through the paper because of the varying conductivity (this may explain why art is important). I conclude that if lines on paper will produce turbulance in the aether, spinning certain configurations may produce a vortex that can affecting one's perception. Now that I think of it, there's a famous picture of Tesla sitting in front of a 5 or 6 foot diameter flat spiral coil mounted on the background wall while he was studying a book. A copy of this photo is in the '84 IEEE Tesla Centennial Symposium book. At the time someone asked Tesla to send a picture of himself. The caption read that the above mentioned photo was the only one that Tesla felt important for posterity. Davidson also mentions that John Keely could make his machines run by drawing a certain picture on a piece of paper. Regards; Dennis C. Lee At 03:10 PM 11/23/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hey, all you perceptive psychologists out there - are you familiar with >the optical illusions resulting from prolonged viewing of a rotating >spiral? I stumbled on the neat expanding universe effect (probably well >known) that you folks or your kids might get a kick out of. > >Using the old wrapping-up-a-thread-around-a-small-nail-to-guide-a-pen >trick, draw a spiral on a disk of typing paper about 4" or 5" in dia. > >Double-sided tape the disk to a rotating wheel of some sort so you can >rotate it at a couple of hundred rpm. > >When you watch the rotating spiral for about 1 min., look up at a >near-by object and see the object seem to: > a. expand if the rotation gave the illusion of an inward flow > of circles, or > b. contract if the rotation was the reverse. > >This must be what the expanding universe looks like to a "god" being >on the outside looking in! > >Watching his spinning spiral with glee ------- Frank Stenger > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Nov 24 23:37:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA21588; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:30:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:30:22 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:30:10 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: HEY, BILL BEATTY ....3-D + pulp In-Reply-To: <347A5116.4398 interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4XThT2.0.EH5.DwdUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13259 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >>Patrick V. Reavis wrote: >>(snip) >>> Enjoy the weirdness.... >>> >>This spiral illusion program gives as good or better results than my >>hardware version, Patrick! >>I think I'll try watching this illusion for 30 min. before I eat supper. >>I figure half a portion will look like plenty - in fact, the mashed >>potatos should replenish faster than I can eat them - neat! >> >>Frank (overweight) Stenger >> Frank, Did you see todays 'associated press' release entitled "Rough draft of history is wad of pulp"?.. appears Naval Research Labs..recorded they pulped the records of some of "the most significant technical achievments in the 20th century" ---- "pulped beyond recognition" ---- 4,200 scientific notebooks and 600 boxes of correspondence & technical memos. ----- Including: correspondence of American pioneers in high-frequency RADIO work of the inventors of RADAR & path breaking ACOUSTIC and Oceanographic research?? ALSO.. early history on space program V-2 and Viking rockets... the first U.S. satellite program "and much more" ----- papers dated from 1930's through 1980's ========= It's a sad day for data storage! -=se=- guess we'll have to eat this fact(?) too. (sigh) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 00:44:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA29397; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:28:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:28:15 -0800 From: ehammond pacbell.net Message-ID: <347BDE11.418B pacbell.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:30:09 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-PBME (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Shareware for Inventions References: <199711162230.OAA01577 mail1.halcyon.com> <3475807D.79AF@keelynet.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------56FB1C55C8B" Resent-Message-ID: <"qD3i31.0.EB7.UmeUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13260 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------56FB1C55C8B Content-Type: application/msword; x-mac-type="5744424E"; x-mac-creator="4D535744" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Bio-Resonator" /jcAIwAAAAAAACQAABkAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAItgAAFasAAAAAAAAHjQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAIAAADgAAIAAADiAAAAAADiAAAAAADiAADgAADi4AEgAADtoAAAAA DtoAAAAADtoAAAAADtoACgAADuQACgAADu4AAAAADu4AbgAAD1wAeAAADkAAmgAAD9QAIAAA D/QAGAAAE54AKgAAE8gBuAAADiAAAAABAAEAABOeAAAAABAMA5IAABOeAAAAABOeAAAAABWA ACsAABOeAAAAABOeAAAAABOeAAAAABOeAAAAABOeAAAAABOeAAAAAAkJCQlCaW8tRWxlY3Ry aWMgUmVzb25hdG9yDQ1XaGF0IGlzIHRoZSBCaW8tRWxlY3RyaWMgUmVzb25hdG9yPw1UaGUg QmlvLUVsZWN0cmljIFJlc29uYXRvciBpcyBhIGRldmljZSBkZXNpZ25lZCB0byBzdXBwbGVt ZW50IHByYWN0aWNlcyBzdWNoIGFzIFFpLWdvbmcsDVRpIENoaSwgWW9nYSwgYW5kIG1lZGl0 YXRpb24gd2l0aCBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGhpZ2ggcXVhbGl0eSBlbmVyZ3kgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGEg c3RhdGUgb2YgYmFsYW5jZSBhbmQgaGFybW9ueS4gVGhlIGRldmljZSBhY3RzIGFzIGEgc2V0 IG9mICJlbmVyZ3kgdHJhaW5pbmcgd2hlZWxzIiB0byBhc3Npc3QgYmVnaW5uZXJzIHdpdGgg YWNoaWV2aW5nIGEgaGlnaGVyIGxldmVsIG9mIHNwaXJpdHVhbCBlbmVyZ3kgYXMgd2VsbCBh cyBoZWxwaW5nIGFkdmFuY2VkIHBlb3BsZSB0byBtYWludGFpbiB0aGVpciBiYWxhbmNlIGFu ZCBoZWFsdGggaW4gc3BpdGUgb2YgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRhbCBjb25kaXRpb25zLiAgDQ1Ib3cg ZG9lcyB0aGUgZGV2aWNlIHdvcms/DVRoZSBkZXZpY2UgaGFzIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGNy ZWF0ZSBhIHZvcnRleCBvciBzdGFuZGluZyB3YXZlIGluIHRoZSBRaSBvciBwcmFuYSB0aGF0 IHN1cnJvdW5kcyB0aGUgZWFydGguICBVc2luZyBhIHByb3ByaWV0YXJ5IHRlY2hub2xvZ3ks IGVuZXJneSBpcyBnYXRoZXJlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBDb3Ntb3MgYW5kIGdlbmVyYXRlZCBpbiBh IGZpZWxkIHRoYXQgc3Vycm91bmRzIHRoZSBkZXZpY2UgZm9yIDUwIG1ldGVycyBpbiBhbGwg ZGlyZWN0aW9ucy4gVGhlIGVuZXJneSB0aGVuIGZsb3dzIHRocm91Z2hvdXQgdGhlIGh1bWFu IGVuZXJneSBmaWVsZCBpbiBhIGxpcXVpZC1saWtlIHdheS4gQXMgdGhpcyBoYXBwZW5zLCBp dCBzdGFiaWxpemVzIGFuZCBiYWxhbmNlcyB0aGUgYm9keS4gIFRoZSBib2R5IG5hdHVyYWxs eSBhYnNvcmJzIGFzIG11Y2ggb2YgdGhlDWVuZXJneSBhcyBpdCBuZWVkcyBhdCBhbnkgb25l IHRpbWUuIA0NSG93IGRvIEkga25vdyB0aGUgZGV2aWNlIGlzIHdvcmtpbmc/DVBsdWcgdGhl IGRldmljZSBpbiAgYW5kIG5vdGljZSB0aGUgZ3JlZW4gbGlnaHQgaXMgZ2xvd2luZy4gIFRo ZW4gbm90aWNlIGhvdyB0aGUgZW52aXJvbm1lbnQNZmVlbHMgZGlmZmVyZW50LiBBIHRpbmds aW5nIHNlbnNhdGlvbiBvciBhIGZlZWxpbmcgb2YgY29vbG5lc3MgYXJlIHRoZSBzZW5zYXRp b25zIG1vc3Qgb2Z0ZW4NcmVwb3J0ZWQuICBEcmVhbXMgYXJlIGFsc28gb2Z0ZW4gZW5oYW5j ZWQuIA0NV2hhdCBkbyBwZW9wbGUgc2F5IGFib3V0IHRoZSBkZXZpY2U/DU1hbnkgY3VzdG9t ZXJzIGhhdmUgcmVwb3J0ZWQgZ3JlYXRlciBlbmVyZ3kgYW5kIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gaGFuZGxl IGRhaWx5IHN0cmVzcy4gVGhleQ1yZXBvcnQgbGVzcyBuZWVkIGZvciBzbGVlcCBhbmQgZ3Jl YXRlciB6ZXN0IGZvciBsaWZlLiBUaGV5IG9mdGVuIHB1cmNoYXNlIHVuaXRzIGZvciB0aGVp ciBvbGRlciBmcmllbmRzIGFuZCByZWxhdGl2ZXMuIA0NV2hhdCBhcmUgdGhlIGluc3RydWN0 aW9ucyBmb3IgdXNlPw1KdXN0IHBsdWcgdGhlIGRldmljZSBpbiBhbmQgbGVhdmUgaXQgb24g aW4gdGhlIHJvb20gb3Igb2ZmaWNlLiBUaGUgZGV2aWNlIGlzIGZ1bmN0aW9uaW5nIGFzDWxv bmcgYXMgdGhlIGdyZWVuIGxpZ2h0IGlzIGdsb3dpbmcuICBJZiB0aGUgZ3JlZW4gbGlnaHQg ZG9lc24ndCB0dXJuIG9uIHJldHVybiBkZXZpY2UgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyBiZWxvdyBmb3IgcmVw YWlyLiAgVGhlIGRldmljZSBpcyB3YXJyYW50ZWQgZm9yIG9uZSB5ZWFyIHBhcnRzIGFuZCBs YWJvci4gVGhlcmUgaXMgYWxzbyBhIDMwIGRheSBtb25leSBiYWNrIGd1YXJhbnRlZSBwcm92 aWRlZCB0aGUgZGV2aWNlIGlzIG5vdCByZXR1cm5lZCBkYW1hZ2VkLiANDQ1Gb3IgbW9yZSBp bmZvcm1hdGlvbiBjb250YWN0Og1FcmljIEhhbW1vbmQNZWhhbW1vbmRAcGFjYmVsbC5uZXQN KDY1MCkzNjEtMDI5NA0NDQJ1AGF0ZSBhIHN0YXRlIG9mIGdvb2QgZW5lcmd5bmVyZ3kgZmll bGQsIGVucywgaXQgZW5lcmdpemVzIGF0dXJhbGx5IGFic29yYnMgYXMgbXVjaCBvZiB0aGUg DQ0NCQlCaW8tIEVsZWN0cmljIGEgc2V0IG9mICJlbmVyZ3kgb3h5Z2VuIG1hc2sgdG8gYXNz aXN0IFFpIGRlcGxldGVkIHBlb3BsZQ1nIGEgaGlnaGVyIGxldmVsIG9mIGVuZXJneSBhcyB3 ZWxsIGFzIGhlbHBpbmcgaGVhbHRoeQ0NVGhlbiBub3RpY2UgaG93IHRoZSBlbnZpcm9ubWVu dCBzIGFyZSB0aGUgc2Vuc2F0aW9ucyBtb3N0IG9mdGVuIA0NDOIQsRHiEzMTdRPjFEIUfBU5 FdsWIhddF+cYdRjQGQgZwxn6GikauAAAAQAAAAEcAAABQAAAAvAAAAMKAAAE4wAABQgAAAXu AAAGEwAABuEAAAcEAAAIhAAACLMAAAi0AAAItQAACLYAAAi5AAAI0wAACOAAAAjyAAAJEgAA CRUAAAkXAAAJGgAACRsAAAkcAAAJJAAACSUAAAlBAAAJXwAACXoAAAmUAAAJlQAACbYAAAnW AAAJ2Pr5APkA+QD5APkA+QD5+vMAAAAA+vrt7e3t7QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAqACAAASAAAAABIAAoAQAACGAAAAAAYAAGACoAIAAAwAAAAADAjAAABAAAA ARsAAAEcAAABQAAAAZkAAALvAAAC8AAAAwoAAAS9AAAE4gAABOMAAAUIAAAFZAAABcEAAAXt AAAF7gAABhMAAAZoAAAG4AAABuEAAAcEAAAHYAAACGQAAAhlAAAIZgAACIQAAAiRAAAIpgAA CLQAAAi1AAAItgAACRMAAAkUAAAJFQAACV8AAAmVAAAJlgAACdcAAAnY+/v29vH29uz29vb2 9vb29vbn9vb24vb29vb29vb7+/v75/b29vYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAADLGAADwAABAAAAixgAA8AAAQAAAUsYAAPAAAEAAAELGAADwAA BAAAASxgAA8AAAQAAAEsYAAaACYAAAADAAANCgAYAAIYAAAAABgACgcAAAAAAAAAAAEA3gAA AAAAAAeNQAIAAAi2AAAAAAAAB41QAP//AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAACAAAACe AAABTgAAAZwAAAIBAAAD3AAABBkAAAc6AAAHOwAABzwAAAeMAAAHjQABLGAAGgABLGAAGgAB LGAAGgABLGAALQABLGAAGgACLGAADwABLGAADwABLGAADwAFLGAADwABLGAADwACLGAADwAB LGAADwABLGAADwABLGAADwABLGAAGgAAAQAAAAnYAAUAAAEAAAAJ2AAGAAAAAgADAAQADQAO AA8AEAASABQAFQAWABcAIQAiBAAEAQcAB9AH1wfhB+gH7Qf0B/YH+Af+CAQaIigBKJIo9ikA KlgqiiqRKp0qzSrXMzEzpDkAORQ5Fjl6OaM5pDnbOjE6MjozOjQ6fjqjfw0ADwAAAEgASAAA AAAC8AJA//H/7gMJAlJjAgUoA/wBAAAAAWgBaAAAAAAOsAtAAB4BAABkAAIAAAABAAIAAAAB Jw8AAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAEAAAAAAAABAA/7X/pg8tC5oACAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAA GQE94C/QAAAC0AAAAJAAAALQAgAAAQABAAFAABAAAAAASAAYDy06Q29sb3IgU1cgMTUwMAAK AAAAAAA3AAAAAAdDaGljYWdvAAAAAghOZXcgWW9yawAAAAMGR2VuZXZhAAAABAZNb25hY28A AAANDVphcGYgRGluZ2JhdHMAAAAOB0Jvb2ttYW4AAAAPEk4gSGVsdmV0aWNhIE5hcnJvdwAA ABAIUGFsYXRpbm8AAAASDVphcGYgQ2hhbmNlcnkAAAAUBVRpbWVzAAAAFQlIZWx2ZXRpY2EA AAAWB0NvdXJpZXIAAAAXBlN5bWJvbAAAACELQXZhbnQgR2FyZGUAAAAiEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5 IFNjaGxiawAABAARQW1lcmljYW4gSGVyaXRhZ2UAAAQBCFRlbGV0ZXh0AAAHAA1MdWNpZGEg QnJpZ2h0AAAH0A9HYXJhbW9uZCBOYXJyb3cAAAfXCERlbHBoaWFuAAAH4Q1MdWJhbGluIEdy YXBoAAAH6AdNYWNoaW5lAAAH7QhOYWRpYW5uZQAAB/QQT2xkIEVuZ2xpc2ggVGV4dAAAB/YE T255eAAAB/gGT3hmb3JkAAAH/gVTd2luZwAACAQEWmVhbAAAGiIRWmVicmF3b29kIFJlZ3Vs YXIAACgBDlF1aWNrVHlwZSBNb25vAAAokgxRdWlja1R5cGUgUGkAACj2CVF1aWNrVHlwZQAA KQATUXVpY2tUeXBlIENvbmRlbnNlZAAAKlgIS2xhbmcgTVQAACqKDlNjcmlwdCBNVCBCb2xk AAAqkRNPbGQgRW5nbGlzaCBUZXh0IE1UAAAqnQ9OZXcgQmVyb2xpbmEgTVQAACrNFEJvZG9u aSBNVCBVbHRyYSBCb2xkAAAq1xhBcmlhbCBNVCBDb25kZW5zZWQgTGlnaHQAADMxCE1lc3F1 aXRlAAAzpAhQYXJpc2lhbgAAOQAFT0NSLUEAADkUEFZBRyBSb3VuZGVkIFRoaW4AADkWEFZB RyBSb3VuZGVkIEJvbGQAADl6EENhc2xvbiBPcGVuIEZhY2UAADmjD0IgS2F1Zm1hbm4gQm9s ZAAAOaQIS2F1Zm1hbm4AADnbFEhlbHZldGljYSBDb21wcmVzc2VkAAA6MQRIb2JvAAA6MgdT dGVuY2lsAAA6MwxDb29wZXIgQmxhY2sAADo0FUkgQ29vcGVyIEJsYWNrIEl0YWxpYwAAOn4P SGVsdmV0aWNhIEJsYWNrAAA6oxhHaWxsIFNhbnMgQ29uZGVuc2VkIEJvbGQAAH8NBVZUMTAw gAEBAAAABJYAAASWAAeAAIAAAAAElgAAAAAARgAFAdYCgAEcAAIB4AKAAQAGSkhPAgBIAQAI BQNKSE8CAEgBAAKAAAIBnAAAAAAAAAADAAAABgAAAAgAAAALAAAADAAAAA0AAAAVAAAAFgAA AB8AAAAgAAAA5QAAAP8AAAEUAAABMAAAAU4AAAFbAAABdgAAAZAAAAGbAAABnAAAAzEAAAM+ AAADSgAAA1wAAANxAAADkQAABBgAAAQ5AAAEdgAABJYAAAc6AAAHPAAAB4wAAAeNgAIAAAEA AAAAAgAACRIAAIACAAAJFQAAgAIAAAkXAACAAgAACRoAAIACAAAJGwAAgAIAAAkcAACAAgAA CSQAAIACAAABEYAAAAIAAAEagAEAAgAAARsAAIACAAAIuQAAgAIAAAICAACAAgAACSUAAAAC AAAJQQAAgAIAAAJNAACAAgAACV8AAIACAAAJegAAgAIAAAKaAAAAAgAACZQAAAACAAACpQAA gAIAAAjTAACAAgAABFwAAIACAAAI4AAAgAIAAASIAACAAgAACPIAAAACAAAEvQAAAAIAAAmV AACAAgAABWQAAIACAAAJtgAAAAIAAAXBAAAAAgAACdYAAAACAAAIZQAAAAIAAAi1gAIAKwxC aW9yZXNvbmFyb3QAC0VNQ0MgVGVybWFuAAALRU1DQyBUZXJtYW4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA== --------------56FB1C55C8B Content-Type: application/msword; x-mac-type="5744424E"; x-mac-creator="4D535744" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="human-field harmony lamp" /jcAIwAAAAAAAAQAABkAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAARLQAAGEQAAAAAAAAQLQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFgAAZgAAFgAAZgAAFmYAAAAAFmYAAAAAFmYADgAAFnQALgAAFqIAAAAA FqIAAAAAFqIAAAAAFqIACgAAFqwACgAAFrYAAAAAFrYAbgAAFyQAeAAAFqIAAAAAF5wAIAAA F7wAGAAAF+MAKgAAGA0AAAAAFmYAAAABAAEAABfjAAAAABfUAA8AABfjAAAAABfjAAAAABgN ADcAABfjAAAAABfjAAAAABfjAAAAABfjAAAAABfjAAAAABfjAAAAAAkNDQlIdW1hbi1GaWVs ZCBIYXJtb255IExhbXCqDQ1XaGF0IGlzIHRoZSBIdW1hbi1GaWVsZCBIYXJtb255IExhbXCq DQ1UaGVyZSBpcyBhIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgdGhhdCBoYXMgYmVlbiBwdXQgaW50byB0aGUgbGFt cCB0aHJvdWdoIGEgcHJvcHJpZXRhcnkgcHJvY2VzcyBhbHRhcnMNdGhhdCBjaGFuZ2VzIGFu ZCBhbHRlcnMgdGhlIHdpcmluZyBhbmQgYWxsIHRoZSBtZXRhbCBjb21wb25lbnRzIG9mIHRo ZSBsYW1wIHNvIHRoYXQgYSBwb3dlcmZ1bCBiaW8tcXVhbnR1bSBlZmZlY3QgaXMgY3JlYXRl ZCBpbiB0aGUgZW5lcmd5IGZpZWxkIG9mIHBlb3BsZSBleHBvc2VkIHRvIHRoZSBsaWdodCAN ZnJvbSB0aGUgbGFtcC4gIFdvcmsgYnkgc2NpZW50aXN0cyBzdWNoIGFzIFBvcHAgaGFzIHNo b3duIHRoYXQgYmlvLWluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNhbiBiZSBjYXJyaWVkIG9uIGEgbGlnaHQgYmVh bSB0byBzdGltdWxhdGUgY2VsbCBncm93dGguIFRoZSBsaWdodCBnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgdGhl IGxhbXAgZ29lcyBpbnRvIHRoZSBiaW9maWVsZCBvZiB0aGUgcGVyc29uIGluIHJhbmdlIG9m IHRoZSBsaWdodCBhbmQgYnVpbGRzIHVwIGluIHRoZSBmaWVsZCBjcmVhdGluZyBhIGxvdmUg ZW5lcmd5IHF1YWxpdHkgaW4gdGhlIGV0aGVyaWMgYm9keSBvZiB0aGUgcGVyc29uIHRoYXQg aGVscHMgdG8gc3RhYmlsaXplIGFuZCBiYWxhbmNlIHRoZSBlbmVyZ3kgb2YgdGhlIHBlcnNv bi4NDUhvdyBpcyB0aGUgTGFtcCBjcmVhdGVkPw0NV2Ugc3RhcnQgd2l0aCBhbiBvcmRpbmFy eSBsYW1wIGFuZCB0aGVuIG1vZGlmeSBpdCBlbmVyZ2V0aWNhbGx5IGJ5IHN1YmplY3RpbmcN aXQgdG8gYSBmaWVsZCBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IGFuIGV4dHJlbWVseSB1bnVzdWFsIHRlY2hub2xv Z3kuIFRoaXMgdHJlYXRtZW50DXBlcm1hbmVudGx5IGFsdGVycyB0aGUgc3VidGxlIGVuZXJn ZXRpYyBzdGF0ZSBvZiBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIG1ldGFsIGNvbXBvbmVudHMgb2YNdGhlIGxhbXAs IGluY2x1ZGluZyB0aGUgd2lyaW5nIGFuZCB0aGUgcGx1Zy4gVGhpcyBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSBi ZWNhdXNlIG5vbi1IZXJ0emlhbiBlbmVyZ3kNb3IgQ2hpIGhhcyB0aGUgYWJpbGl0eSB0byBw cm9ncmFtIHRoZSBudWNsZXVzIG9mIHRoZSBhdG9tcyBtYWtpbmcgdXAgdGhlIGxhbXAgc28g dGhhdCB0aGV5DWFjdCBhcyB0aW55IG1lbW9yeSB1bml0cyB0aGF0IGNvbnRpbnVvdXNseSB0 cmFuc21pdCB0aGUgZW5lcmd5IHBhdHRlcm4gaW1wcmludGVkIGJ5IHRoZSB0ZWNobm9sb2d5 LiAgICAgV2UgY2FuIGd1YXJhbnRlZSB0aGF0IGZvciBhIG1pbmltdW0gb2YgNTAgeWVhcnMg dGhlIGxhbXAgd2lsbCBub3QgbG9vc2UgZXZlbiBvbmUgcGVyY2VudCBvZiB0aGUgZW5oYW5j ZW1lbnQgb25jZSB0aGUgbGFtcCBoYXMgYmVlbiBhbHRlcmVkIGFuZCBjdXN0b21pemVkIGlu IHRoaXMgd2F5Lg0NV2hhdCBkbyBjbGFpcnZveWFudCBwZW9wbGUgc2F5IGFib3V0IHRoZSBs YW1wPw1XZSBzaG93ZWQgdGhlIGxhbXAgdG8gYSB3ZWxsIGtub3duIGNsYWlydm95YW50IGFu ZCBnb3QgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyByZWFjdGlvbjoNIldoYXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgaGFwcGVucyBp cyB0aGF0IG1ldGFsIGNvbXBvbmVudHMgdGhhdCBhcmUgZWxlY3RyaWNhbGx5IGNoYXJnZWQg ZnJvbSB0aGUgcGx1ZyB1cCBhbGwgdXAgdGhyb3VnaCB0byB0aGUgbGlnaHQgYnVsYiBhcmUg YWx0ZXJlZCBieSB0aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gV2hhdCBoYXBwZW5zIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGVs ZWN0cmljaXR5IGlzIGJlY29taW5nIHZlcnkgaGFwcHkgYW5kIHBvc2l0aXZlIGFzIGl0IGdv ZXMgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGVyZSBsaWtlIGl0cyBoYXBweSBlbGVjdHJpY2l0eS4gIEl0cyBnbGFk IHRvIGdvIHRocm91Z2ggdGhpcyBsYW1wLiBCeSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBpdHMgYmVpbmcgY29u dmVydGVkIHRvIGxpZ2h0IGFuZCBoZWF0IGF0IHRoZSBmaWxhbWVudCB0aGUgaGFwcGluZXNz IGVuZXJneSBzcG9udGFuZW91c2x5IGFwcGVhcnMgb24gdGhlIGxpZ2h0IHdhdmUuIFRoZXJl IGlzIGEgZGV2aWMgZm9yY2UgdGhlcmUgYXQgdGhlIGxhbXAuIFdoYXQgaGFwcGVucyBpcyB0 aGF0IGl0IGlzIGNvbmRpdGlvbmVkIGFzIGl0IGdvZXMgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgbGFtcC4gIlRo ZSBsaWdodCB3YXZlIGlzIGEgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGNhcnJpZXIgZm9yIHRoZSBoYXJtb25pYyBh bmQgZ2V0cyBpdCBpbnRvIHRoZSBwZXJzb24ncyBiaW9maWVsZC4gLiBPbmNlIGl0IGdldHMg dGhlcmUgaXMganVzdCBtYXR0ZXIgb2YgdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBiZWluZyB1bmRlciB0aGUgbGFt cCBmb3IgMTAgbWludXRlcy4gV2hlbiB3ZSB0aGluayBvZiBhIHBlcnNvbidzIGJvZHkgd2Ug dGhpbmsgb2YgdGhlIGNpcmN1bGF0b3J5IHN5c3RlbSBidXQgdGhpcyB0aGUgZW50aXJlIGJv ZHkgaXMgYWxsIGVuZXJneSBlcXVhbGx5IHNvIGl0IGZsb3dzIGVxdWFsbHkgdGhvdWdoIHRo ZSBib2R5IGFuZCBiZXlvbmQgIHRoZSBib2R5IGluIGEgbGlxdWlkIGxpa2Ugd2F5IGFuZCBi dWlsZHMgdXAgZm9yIGFib3V0IDEwIG1pbnV0ZXMuICBBZnRlciAxMCBtaW51dGVzIHRoZSBl dGhlcmljIGJvZHkgY2lyY3VsYXRlcyB0aGUgZW5lcmd5IHRocm91Z2hvdXQgdGhlIHdob2xl IHN5c3RlbS4gICBUaGlzIGhhcyB0byBiZSBncmFzcGVkIG9uIGEgZGVlcGVyIGxldmVsIHRo ZW4gV2VzdGVybiBTY2llbmNlIHNlZXMgaXQgb24uIFNob3VsZCBiZSB2aWV3ZWQgbW9yZSBp biB0aGUgbW9kZWwgb2YgQ2hpIG9yIFByYW5hLiB3aGljaCBpcyBtb3JlIGFjY3VyYXRlLiAg U28gaXQgY2FuIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgaXQgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgZW5lcmd5IGZpZWxkIGVhc2ls eS4gIk15IHdob2xlIGJvZHkgaXMgZW5lcmdldGljYWxseSBzbWlsaW5nIHRoYXQncyBhIFRh b2lzdCBwcmFjdGljZSB0byBzZWUgeW91ciBib2R5IHNtaWxpbmcgSSBmZWVsIHRoYXQgbXkg d2hvbGUgYm9keSBpcyBzbWlsaW5nLiAgSXQgcHV0cyBhIGhhcHB5IGZlZWxpbmcgaW4gbXkg Ym9keSBtYWtlcyBteSBib2R5IGZlZWwgZ29vZCBsaWtlIGl0IHdhcyBzbWlsaW5nLiINDQ1X aGF0IGFyZSB0aGUgYmVuZWZpdHMgb2YgdXNpbmcgdGhlIGxhbXA/DQ0iVGhlIHBvc3NpYmls aXR5IG9mIHB1dHRpbmcgcmVhbGx5IHBvc2l0aXZlIHF1YWxpdHkgYmFsYW5jZWQgZW5lcmd5 IHdpdGhpbiBvdXIgYm9keSBpc24ndCBzb21ldGhpbmcgd2Ugbm9ybWFsbHkgdGhpbmsgYWJv dXQgYmVjYXVzZSB3ZSBkb24ndCBoYXZlIGFueSBzdWdnZXN0aW9uIHRoYXQgc29tZXRoaW5n IGxpa2UgdGhhdCBjYW4gZXhpc3QgLiBNeSBzdWdnZXN0aW9uIHRvIHlvdSBpcyB1c2UgdGhl IGxpZ2h0IGFuZCBub3RpY2UgaG93IG5pY2UgeW91IGZlZWwgYWZ0ZXJ3YXJkcywgbm90aWNl IGhvdyB5b3UgZmVlbCBwdXJlciwgbGlnaHRlciBwZXJoYXBzIHNhbmVyIGlmIHlvdSBhcmUg YSBwZXJzb24gd2hvIGJlbGlldmVzIGluIGdvb2RuZXNzIGFuZCBzcGlyaXR1YWxpdHkgcGVy aGFwcyB0aGVzZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIG9idmlvdXMgdG8geW91LiBQZXJoYXBzIHlvdSBt aWdodCBmZWVsIGxlc3Mgc3RyZXNzZWQsIGhlYWx0aGllciwgYW5kIHlvdSBjYW4gdHJ5IHRo aXMgb3ZlciBhbmQgb3ZlciBhZ2FpbiBhbmQgYWx3YXlzIGZlZWwgdGhlIHNhbWUgaW1wcm92 ZW1lbnQuIFdoYXQgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gZG8uIGlzIGdldCB0aGUgbGFtcCBhbmQgc3RhcnQg dXNpbmcgaXQgcmVndWxhcmx5IGFuZCBzdGFydCBlbnRyYWluaW5nIHlvdXIgc3lzdGVtIHRv IGJlIG1vcmUgcG9zaXRpdmUuIENyZWF0aW5nIHBvc2l0aXZlbmVzcyBiZWluZyBtIG1vcmUg cmVzaWxpZW50IGFuZCBoZWFsdGhmdWwgY3JlYXRpbmcgZW1vdGlvbmFsIHBvc2l0aXZlbmVz cy4gQ3JlYXRlcyBtb3JlIHN0cm9uZyBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGJlIG1vcmUgZW1vdGlvbmFsIHBv c2l0aXZlLiBOb3QgbWFpbiB0aGluZyBvZiBpdCB0byBhZGp1c3QgeW91IHBoeXNpY2FsbHkg IGJ1dCBpdCBjYW4gcmVhbGx5IGhlbHAgeW91IGVtb3Rpb25hbGx5IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgc2Vu c2Ugb2Ygc3RyZW5ndGhlbnMgYW5kIHBvc2l0aXZlbmVzcyBhbmQgcXVhbGl0eSBvZiB3ZWxs IGJlaW5nIG1ha2VzIG9uZSBtb3JlIHJlc2lsaWVudCB0byB0aGUgcm91Z2huZXNzIG9mIG1v ZGVybiBsaWZlLiAgIg0NDQwNDQ0NIg0EdQB5Af///3////4B//+AAf//gAH//4AB//+AAf// gAAAAQAAAAAAAA/4AAOf/gAH//+AD/AH8B////g/AAD8ewAA3vsAgN//////4ACAB+AAgAfg AAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAgAfgAIAH4AAAB+ACoAfgAAAH/////+cAAOfjAADH5QAA p/8AAP//AAD/fwAA/gf//+AH///gB///4AAAAAAAD/gAA5/8AAf//4AP///wH///+D////x/ ///+////////////////////AAABAAAAAR4AAAEfAAABRgAAA9AAAAPpAAAGlgAABsUAAAcV AAAKUwAAClQAAAvOAAAL0AAADAoAAAwLAAAMiAAADIoAAAzdAAANBwAADQgAABEjAAARJAAA ESYAABEnAAARKAAAES0AABEy+gD5APkA+QD4APgA+AD4APj5APj5+AD4APIAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAQAACGAAAAAAYAAHAAYAKwAgAADAAAAAAMBoAAAEAAAABAgAA AQMAAAEeAAABHwAAAUUAAAFGAAABoQAAAlIAAAPPAAAD0AAAA+kAAAPqAAAEOAAABIEAAATR AAAFKwAABYYAAAaVAAAGlgAABsUAAAcUAAAM2wAADNwAAAzdAAANBgAADQcAABEkAAARJQAA ESYAABEoAAARKQAAESoAABErAAARLfv7+/b29vbx7Pb29vb29vb25/b29uL29vb23fb22Pb2 9vYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAADixgAA8AAAQAABQsYAAPAAAEAAAELGAADwAABAAABSxgAA8AAAQAAAIsYAAPAAAEAAAB LGAADwAABAAAASxgABoAIgAOABEA/////////////////wAAG///////////////////CgAY AAIYAAAAABgAGP//////////////////BwAAAAAAAAAADwAA8wD0AAAA9gAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA3gAAAAAAABAtAAMAABEtAAAAAAAAC9wAABAnAAAQLRAA//8AAAABAAEAAP// AAAAAgABEAD//wAAAAMAAAAAAQAAABEyAAkAAAEAAAARLQAKAAAAAgADAAQADQAOAA8AEAAS ABQAFQAWABcAIQAiBAAEAQcAB9AH1wfhB+gH7Qf0B/YH+Af+CAQaIigBKJIo9ikAKlgqiiqR Kp0qzSrXMzEzpDkAORQ5Fjl6OaM5pDnbOjE6MjozOjQ6fjqjfw0ADwAAAEgASAAAAAAC8AJA //H/7gMJAlJjAgUoA/wBAAAAAWgBaAAAAAAOsAtAAAEBAABkAAEAAAABAAIAAAABJw8AAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAEAAAAAAAABAA/7X/pg8tC5oACAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAGQE94C/Q AAAC0AAAAJAAAALQAgAAAQABAAFAABAAAAAASAAYDy06Q29sb3IgU1cgMTUwMAAKAAAAAAAB AAAAAghOZXcgWW9ya8ABAQAAAAYTAAAGEwAGgACAAAAABhMAAAAAAEcABQHXAoABeQC2AwkD MgA3GGh1bWFuLWZpZWxkIGhhcm1vbnkgbGFtcAALRU1DQyBUZXJtYW4AAAtFTUNDIFRlcm1h bgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= --------------56FB1C55C8B-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 07:26:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24660; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:17:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:17:24 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:16:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971125101605_562789666 mrin40.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Would you like to view cryo ZP experiments? Resent-Message-ID: <"tB0GN.0.D16.1mkUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13261 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If you would like to a have a video peak at my cryogenic gravitational energy experiments send an E-mail with your address on to: znidarsicf aol.com Please note that this is not my usual e-mail address. You will be ask to view it and then to fwd it to the next person on the list. Frank Znidarsic Yusmar Johnstown Znida rsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 08:45:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04879; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:26:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:26:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <347AF542.97E8F922 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:56:50 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Would you like to view cryo ZP experiments? References: <971125101605_562789666 mrin40.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"d5iBb2.0.3C1.omlUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13262 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > > If you would like to a have a video peak at my cryogenic gravitational energy > experiments send an E-mail with your address on to: [snip] Frank you supply some information about the experiment? Of course I wish to view video, but like me many people are over sea, and this will cause long delays on distribution of information. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 08:51:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29005; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:41:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:41:47 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:41:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711251641.IAA00811 italy.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: freenrg-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Minato's PPM Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, hcurtis1@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"hmLXQ.0.u47.9_lUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13263 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, My preliminary tests indicate some positive results if the permanent magnet poles on the wheel are magnetized through the thickness and not in the length direction. Minato's EM/PM patent 5,594,289 shows the poles in the length direction for the straight rotor magnets and Curtis also said this occurred in the crescent PM wheel design. Trying this out didn't work. The crescent shaped magnets are easily built by adding smaller magnets together with a spacer in one side, for the desired curvature, then taping the assembly together. Then reading Henry Curtis' 11/19 post, he mentions that by bringing a large permanent magnet (drive magnet) several inches to the wheel it starts to spin. "Irrespective of how the wheel and the magnets on it are sitting; move the drive magnet near, it starts to spin." This effect occurs if the magnet poles are through the thickness with the N poles all facing out. Testing for Minato's other effects with this design. Regards, Michael Randall From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 09:17:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11977; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:04:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:04:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:57:50 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Patterson used IV pump Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"EcYN8.0._w2.HKmUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13264 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman asked what kind of pump Patterson used in the slow-flow early cells. At one point he was using a medical intravenous peristaltic pump. He metered it by collecting the fluid in a graduated cylinder for an hour. Those pumps are accurate and reliable. They have to be or the patients would die. The most precise peristaltic pumps can deliver as little as 1.5 ml per day. Peristaltic pumps are a good example of what I frequently harp on about. They were developed in 1960s and 70s. By the standards of earlier ages, they are impossible. You could never make one yourself. Barry Merriman or Scott Little could never replicate one. I don't mean they couldn't understand one, or devise a crude one. The principle has been known for thousands of years; it is how the alimentary tract works. I mean they could not invent the materials used in the tubes. These materials make the pumps practical. (Material is the big issue in CF and many other fields.) To quote a technical review: "Interesting, but unlikely to ever be of practical use" might well have been a consensus view of the peristaltic pump by most engineers as recently as the 1950's. . . . The limited capability of simple, natural rubber tubing, to stand up to the physical and chemical demands made upon it, as well as the absence of suitable alternatives, undoubtedly played some part in the unusually late development of this type of pump. . . . rubber tubing might have had a life expectancy of around 50 hours under such conditions whereas several of the chemical resistant materials listed would have improved this to around 250 hours. Some of the materials available today, again under similar conditions, are likely to have a life of around 3000 hours and, fitted to a pumphead of more sophisticated design, might well give a tube life of 5,000 hours and beyond. . . . - "Peristaltic Pumping," Watson-Marlow, Inc., Omega Engineering catalog Vol 29, Supplement, p. F-103 When I say these pumps are "impossible" I have in mind Clarke's law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and also his description of easy comprehensible versus incomprehensible technology. He says that Da Vinci or Franklin could easily understand the physics of a helicopter, "as long as they did not delve too deeply into the auxiliary control and electrical systems." An ancient Greek and a 1950s engineer would instantly understand a peristaltic pump, as long as they did not look too closely at the performance of the tube. The best peristaltic tubing costs thousands of dollars per foot. I believe it is worth more than its weight in gold. This is an example of humble, everyday object we take for granted. We assume it is "simple" when in fact it is totally beyond the comprehension of an average person, and beyond the expertise of most PhD scientists (except experts in polymers). Every artifact of our civilization now incorporates knowledge that would take many lifetimes to recapitulate. In the 19th century, a good scientist could learn all there was to know about a common tools and laboratory instruments. He could construct most things from scratch, with simple machine tools. Today, in your whole life you could not learn all there is to know about a simple pump. Complexity and the knowledge content of our artifacts has grown exponentially. Perhaps someday it will grow to unwieldy levels, nobody will be able to master anything, and progress will gradually, asymptotically grind to a halt. I suppose intelligent machines will take over before that happens. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 10:11:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA23659; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:03:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:03:17 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:02:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971125130158_-1474663725 mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: little eden.com, Puthoff@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Znidarsic vers Puthoff Resent-Message-ID: <"Texrq1.0.Yn5.XBnUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13265 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I came out of the Library the other day. A young student noticed my physics book. He asked me (and he didn't know me) did you read about zero point energy in Scientific American? What do you think of it?" He was thinking about changing his major to physics. Hal your having a national impact. Hal states that ZP energy is everywhere. Many have problems with the gravitational mass of this energy and how it would effect the universe. I do to. I state that new energy can be produced by the Geneis process. Postive energy and negative energy gravitational field can spontainously be produced. The process conserves energy and does not upset the Cosmos. My process does not, however, under ordinary situations conserve angular momentum. Hal and I agree that zero point vibrations are the way to tap this new energy source. Hal wants to downshift the ZP energy I want to exploit the forces in a zero point system to induce new gravity. gravity = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) Hal is trying to confine particles to very small boxes. The ZP energy is large in a small box. I what to confine very low mass particles to a large box. The ZP energy is large with low mass. The low mass particles I selected for this purpose are phonons. To begin: The cold fusion frequency = 37 x 10^6/(length of supercondor in inches) In Patterson's beads or my disks the a classical phonon velocity of 3,000 KM/sec yields the correct frequencies. Patterson's frequency = 1 x 10 ex13 Hz, Mid IR band My frequency = 10 mega hertz for a 3.5 inch disk., mid RF band The low velocity of a classical phonon implies it's mass its large, V ~ (K/M) In a superconductor the phonon wavefuction acts according to Schrondinger wave equations. It lowest mode fills the whole cavity. Phonon size replaces phonon mass in this situation. I believe that the low frequency displacement of a superconducting disk due to these low frequency vibrations is on the order of a micron. Power out = frequency x displacement x force I am slowly increasing the forces on the sytem by inducing large circulating currents in the superconductor. ie I'm vibrating the disk harder. Does anyone else have any insights. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 10:47:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00305; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:41:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:41:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:41:10 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff Resent-Message-ID: <"GF5nM1.0.h4.KlnUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13266 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:02 PM 11/25/97, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: [snip] >The low mass particles I selected for this purpose are phonons. >To begin: > [snip] > >Does anyone else have any insights. > >Frank Znidarsic Yes. First phonons are not particles. They are a logical construct, based on lattice mechanics, quantized lattice vibrations in particular, that is viewed as an imaginary particle. This imaginary particle has the charactristics of a boson. Phonons are not conserved as they can be created or destroyed at any time. Second, if you are interested in creating EM radiation from superconductors try placing flat surfaces of two of them adjacent to each other with a small gap and applying a high DC voltage differential to the two. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 10:51:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25962; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:43:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:43:48 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971125123707.00761ba0 mail.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:37:07 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-Reply-To: <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"T0WrC3.0.XL6.ZnnUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13267 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:57 11/25/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Peristaltic pumps are a good example of what I frequently harp on about...Scott Little could never replicate one... Jed, sometimes I wonder if your new address is on the same planet... You left off an important qualifying phrase in the above statment. It should read: >Scott Little could never replicate one...in less than 1 hour. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 12:31:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA13247; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:14:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:14:36 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971125151043.006a9470 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:10:43 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-Reply-To: <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6M98p3.0.pE3.g6pUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13268 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:57 AM 11/25/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Barry Merriman asked what kind of pump Patterson used in the slow-flow early >cells. At one point he was using a medical intravenous peristaltic pump. He >metered it by collecting the fluid in a graduated cylinder for an hour. Those >pumps are accurate and reliable. They have to be or the patients would die. re: the patients Please explain. Are the pumps needed for these patients who "would die"? Are they the best if they are peristaltic? Why? And what did these patients have that they "would (have) die(d)"? re: the purported accuracy/reliability/precision test What/where is this data for accuracy, etc. at 1.5 ml/hr? ! Which does this one hour/graduated cylinder catch test for other than the integrated flow rate (at low impedance?) for one hour? is the flow line disconnected for this one hour catch? These impedance match issues have been brought up before, but remain a scientific problem for some types of pumps at certain flow rates. Thanks in advance for clarifying. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 12:53:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17337; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:43:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:43:46 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:40:32 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: That was a trick, Scott Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711251543_MC2-29A4-124 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"J4vIn.0.pE4.1YpUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13269 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little fell for my tired old pedagogic trick. This is the kind of thing I used while teaching, to keep people's attention and liven things up. You say something that on the face of it appears to be blatantly wrong. Before the hubbub subsides you add qualifications showing it is a special case that is true after all. I said that Scott could never replicate a peristaltic pump. Since this is one of the simplest machines and every critter has one in its guts, my statement is absurd on the face of it. Scott stopped reading and shot back: Jed, sometimes I wonder if your new address is on the same planet... . . . It should read: "Scott Little could never replicate one...in less than 1 hour." Then I explained what the author of this Technical Paper said: practical peristaltic pumps were not developed until the 1960s because they require sophisticated plastic tubing. It is the tubing you can't make, not the pump. You could have demonstrated the principle of the thing 4,000 years ago, but you could not in your whole life make a *practical one* that would last more than 50 hours, because you do not know as much about polymers as the guy who invented the tubing, Dr. Bredel. There are other components in this $975 "Omegaflex" pump you could not replicate or demonstrate even in principle: the dot matrix LCD, the ROM holding the nominal calibration values, the EPROM that holds flow settings when the machine is off . . . It is interesting to compile a list of ordinary objects that skilled individuals can or cannot replicate: a kerosene lamp, easily; incandescent bulbs, maybe; electronic compact fluorescent bulbs, never. Buttons, of course; metal zippers, never. (Until the 1940s Zippers were literally on the cutting edge of technology. They required the best precision cutters and machine tools available.) A carburetor, easily; electronic fuel injector, no. Until around 1880, nearly everything in the house, factory and laboratory could be made by an individual skilled workman, using parts and raw materials directly from nature or one or two other artisans away from it. Today, simple artifacts like hairpins or playing cards are produced with machines and materials that incorporate the combined efforts of hundreds of people. Tiny contributions to the hairpin machine come from all parts of the world. Suppose that in the year 3997, the Smithsonian launches a project to build a precise replica of an ancient computerized hairpin manufacturing machine, starting from raw materials. It will require the combined expertise of hundreds of curators and experts, whereas a 19th century model could be built from blueprints by a single person in a workshop in a few months. Nearly every machine in the Smithsonian is in working order, even the first steam locomotive used in North America. In a sense, the displays are phony. The stuff was a pile of junk when it arrived in the workshops. It has been extensively refurbished. New parts are fabricated and added. A small staff of expert curators can rebuild anything from a McCormick reaper to Tycho Brahe's astrolabe, but I doubt that any future staff will be able to mend a broken LCD wristwatch. (I had a friendly discussion with Smithsonian curators not long ago. They called me wanting to know where they can get early cold fusion devices.) Not only have things grown exponentially more complex, but the ability of ordinary people to understand machines has atrophied. You cannot fix your own wristwatch anymore. You cannot even see what makes it tick. There is a good essay about this by Alan Lightman: "A Modern Day Yankee in a Connecticut Court, and other Essays on Science," (Penguin, 1986). The cover page has a marvelous quote from my hero Francis Bacon, from Novum Organum (1620): The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Here is another translation: The human understanding resembles not a dry light, but admits a tincture of the will and passions, which generate their own system accordingly: for man always believes more readily that which he prefers. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 12:54:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17491; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:44:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:44:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:44:24 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-reply-to: <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <3.0.2.32.19971125134424.0069b120 imap2.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"lZI-3.0.AH4.lYpUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13270 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:57 AM 11/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Peristaltic pumps are a good example of what I frequently harp on about. You can say that again. Jed, don't you think that possibly you are "preaching to the choir" on this? I haven't seen anyone claim that *any* of the things we take for granted would be easy to make themselves. I'm glad I don't have to make my own toilet paper, to mention one. With respect to replicating cold fusion experiments, it seems that the two possibilities are: 1. It is so difficult and poorly understood that only the select few who manage to do everything right can witness it, and those few who are making spectacular progress are keeping it secret for financial reasons. or 2. Everyone is trying to detect a nonexistant holy grail in a mass of conflicting data, measurement errors, and inadequate laboratory procedures. What I don't understand about your position is how you can be so certain that 1. is the truth. Recently you posted, in reference to Greg Watson's magnetic toys and generators, that in general, since magnetic motors and other gizmos would violate known physical principles (conservation on energy) that you didn't believe Greg's or anyone else's magnetic motor would work. (I'm paraphrasing; I hope I don't misrepresent your position, but surely you will correct me if I do). Let me say that I agree with you on this. I don't think they will work either. And I am pretty sure both you and I would extremely pleased to be wrong about it. I know that is why I read vortex -- I want to know about it if a miracle happens. So why are you so dismissive of people like Dick Blue and other scientists who take position 2 on pretty much the same grounds that you use regarding magnetic motors? He raises questions about, for example, selection rules, and all that happens is that the thread turns into a discussion of logic and nobody responds to the central issue. Don't you think there is some possibility that they (Blue and others) might be right? How can you be so certain? One thing I know for certain, I bought a new water heater about the time of the Cold Fusion announcement in Utah. I had to replace it this summer. Guess whether I bought a gas heater or a "Mr. Fusion" heater. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 12:57:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17916; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:47:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:47:25 -0800 Message-ID: <347B3965.2E95 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:47:33 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stefan Boltzmann, Protein Intake and Weight Gain References: <3478FB6A.3F interlaced.net> <34799173.A0203383 ro.com> <3.0.1.32.19971124234313.006a3c10@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3d12M.0.rN4.RbpUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13271 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > (snip an informative statement in which I think Mitchell says that to lose weight I should eat high protein stuff and keep my liver cool.) OK, Mitchell, from now on this winter, before I shovel snow, I'll eat fish meal and skim milk, spray paint my mid-section flat black, and wear one of those sexy cut-off T-shirts. This will set up my insanity plea after I go on trial for feeling the livers of everyone in sight while they try to sleep off a big meal. Thanks (I think) for the advice -- Frank (not THAT overweight) Stenger PS - So ends my off-topic babbling for a while! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 13:23:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA21517; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:13:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:13:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:08:57 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Patterson used IV pump Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711251612_MC2-29A6-CDB4 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"z3nOU3.0.3G5.pzpUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13272 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I mentioned that medical IV pumps have to be accurate and reliable, or patients will die. Mitchell Swartz (who has an MD) asks: Please explain. Are the pumps needed for these patients who "would die"? That's a dumb question coming from a doctor! Are they the best if they are peristaltic? Why? According to this Technical Review article in the Omega catalog they are. Read it and you'll see why. Why ask me? The sum total of my own personal knowledge of this issue comes from one experience. I watched the nurse take apart an IV pump one day in the hospital. I observed that it was a peristaltic pump. When she finished, she hooked it back up to my father, who was in critical condition, and she said "keep an eye on this thing, would you? It better deliver [some number of ml per hour] or there'll be trouble." I presume she meant than an overdose or an under-dose would be a serious matter. Mitch could tell us infinitely more about that subject than I. And what did these patients have that they "would (have) die(d)"? In my father's case, another stroke. What/where is this data for accuracy, etc. at 1.5 ml/hr? ! See Omega catalog. Which does this one hour/graduated cylinder catch test for other than the integrated flow rate (at low impedance?) for one hour? What else should it test for? . . . is the flow line disconnected for this one hour catch? Of course not. The cell would boil over. Why would it be disconnected? These impedance match issues have been brought up before, but remain a scientific problem for some types of pumps at certain flow rates. No doubt. The Omega catalog and Technical Paper show there is an entire industry devoted to studying and improving every kind of pump. However, that does not mean that properly rated precision pumps cannot be relied upon to move 1 or 2 ml/min within the error range specified by the manufacturer. These things work well, although you gotta keep an eye on them. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 13:35:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24889; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:30:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:30:26 -0800 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Message-Id: <971125143900.ZM1722 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:39:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> "Patterson used IV pump" (Nov 25, 12:21pm) References: <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"l7VHY1.0.j46.mDqUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13273 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Nov 25, 12:21pm, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peristaltic pumps are a good example of what I frequently harp on about. They > were developed in 1960s and 70s. By the standards of earlier ages, they are > impossible. You could never make one yourself. Barry Merriman or Scott Little > could never replicate one. I don't mean they couldn't understand one, or > devise a crude one. By the standards of earlier ages, IV pumps weren't needed yet and their effective use was not appreciated enough to warrant sacrificing the resources. Progress of any kind needs to be evaluated in perspective, as need or desire drives it. Just to address your example, I helped engineer a new design from scratch to production tools in eighteen months for Baxter two years back now (pre-Motorola life fourth picture down on the right). Complicated electromechanical device, but not beyond comprehension of anyone with any mechanical aptitude at all. No specific prior experience by any on the team. Yes, modern computers, manufacturing equipment, and materials science contributed heavily to our success, but only to the timeline in which we were able to do it and the options available to us. Sophisticated tools yes, but just tools that we would have invented or adapted around were they not already available. I think you underestimate our cleverness as a species to accomplish seemingly impossible goals. Just my two cents. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 14:38:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07202; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:33:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:33:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971125172909.006b9220 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:29:09 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Stefan Boltzmann, Protein Intake and Weight Gain In-Reply-To: <347B3965.2E95 interlaced.net> References: <3478FB6A.3F interlaced.net> <34799173.A0203383 ro.com> <3.0.1.32.19971124234313.006a3c10 world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"6CEOW2.0.Om1.29rUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13274 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:47 PM 11/25/97 -0500, Frank wrote: >OK, Mitchell, from now on this winter, before I shovel snow, I'll eat >fish meal and skim milk, spray paint my mid-section flat black, and wear >one of those sexy cut-off T-shirts. This will set up my insanity plea >after I go on trial for feeling the livers of everyone in sight while >they try to sleep off a big meal. Frank: Yup. But what about the temperature measurement? Almost ANYBODY can palpate (percuss actually) a liver edge. ;-)X Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 15:32:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17592; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:22:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:22:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:18:18 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Comments from Lynn Kurtz Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711251820_MC2-29A2-FFF6 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"KnoSL.0.nI4.psrUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13275 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:kurtz imap2.asu.edu Lynn Kurtz raises some interesting points. We have addressed these basic issues over the years, but it can't hurt to address them again. Those who are tired of reading this kind of debate should skip this message. Perhaps I should mark it [ON TOPIC - ON AND ON]. Lynn writes: You can say that again [about how difficult technology can be]. Jed, don't you think that possibly you are "preaching to the choir" on this? I haven't seen anyone claim that *any* of the things we take for granted would be easy to make themselves. Surprisingly, I am not preaching to the choir. Scott Little and others have claimed that any basic natural phenomenon should be easy to demonstrate in principle, and any machine (like a peristaltic pump) should be easy to replicate in a crude manner. He and others frequently point to the example of high temperature superconductors (HTSC), which were supposedly replicated worldwide soon after they were devised by a whiz-kid at IBM. Actually, I believe most people did not replicate them. They purchased ready-made ones from mail order scientific supply houses. Years ago I talked to a fellow who makes the mail order kits. He told me HTSC are the very devil to make, most of them fail, and if people made their own the success rate would probably be as bad as it is for cold fusion. I point out to Scott that many basic scientific phenomena are extraordinarily difficult to reproduce. My favorite examples are the appearance of a lone top quark; self-sustaining plasma fusion reactions mimicking those in the sun; and the Michelson-Morely experiment. In other words, Little is dead right about peristaltic pumps, somewhat right about HTSC, but wrong about quarks, fission reactors, the speed of light, and cold fusion. Some fundamentals are easy to demonstrate at the lab bench and some are hard. I'm glad I don't have to make my own toilet paper, to mention one. Amen! With respect to replicating cold fusion experiments, it seems that the two possibilities are: 1. It is so difficult and poorly understood that only the select few who manage to do everything right can witness it, and those few who are making spectacular progress are keeping it secret for financial reasons. No, in my judgment that is not happening. Some people keep secrets. Others, like Storms, Miles and Mizuno publish everything. People who read Storms carefully and do everything he recommends can greatly improve reproducibility. I would not call it spectacular, but success rates go from 1 or 2 per 100 to maybe 1 in 2. Unfortunately, most people in the field ignore Storms, and many who try to use his techniques botch them. They require skill and practice. Storms and I recently discussed what it would take to improve knowledge of CF surface conditions and materials. He sketched out an R&D project that would cost $5 million the first year and $3 million for several years thereafter. This program would probably increase reproducibility and control significantly. The areas that require additional research -- the open questions, if you will -- are not profound or difficult to understand. Read his papers and you will see what I mean. or . . . . Everyone is trying to detect a nonexistent holy grail in a mass of conflicting data, measurement errors, and inadequate laboratory procedures. That cannot be. The effect has been widely replicated at high sigma levels. The laboratory procedures in the best labs, like China Lake, Los Alamos, Hokkaido U. and SRI, are impeccable. No skeptic has ever found an error in the papers from these leading labs, despite years of feverish searching. There is no example in the history of science in which a phenomenon was widely observed at high s/n ratios many times, which later turned out to be an artifact. There are, many examples of marginal effects like polywater, which were supposedly close to the noise and difficult to observe. They turned out to be measurement errors. Cold fusion is difficult to reproduce, but dead simple to detect once you make it work. (Kind of like an atom bomb.) In the history of science there are also examples of repeated *systematic errors*, in which one type of instrument (one system) produced the same artifact in different labs. But we can rule out this possibility with CF because wholly unrelated types of calorimeter systems have been used, based on different physical principles: static, flow, thermoelectric, boiling cell. All have generated high sigma data. So it can't be the system. To give another example, CF cathodes sometimes fog autoradiographs. These autoradiographs are often made with dental film, which is ideal for this purpose because it is waterproof and rugged. However, people suggested that hydrogen or some other chemical leaching out from the cathode may have caused fogging. So elaborate precautions were taken to avoid that, but more to the point, people have used another *system*: an electronic x-ray CCD detector I guess you would call it. The same fogging is seen. Hydrogen cannot cause the same effect on both kinds of detectors, so we can dismiss the hydrogen hypothesis. One final example: good experimentalists use different types of temperature measuring devices (thermistors and thermocouples) at multiple locations to avoid systematic errors. Needless to say, many CF papers report marginal results close to the noise, using what I judge to be sloppy techniques. I dismiss these papers. I seldom talk about them and I never publish them. You can find bad papers in any area of science. The good papers prove the point. The bad ones are irrelevant. What I don't understand about your position is how you can be so certain that 1. is the truth. My position is based on careful reading of the literature on calorimetry and, to a lesser extent, on detection of tritium, helium, the production of radioisotopes in cathodes and other transmutations. I have written about these topics fairly extensively in Infinite Energy and on my home page. If you want to know exactly what I base my position on, why and how I have come to these conclusions, I suggest you read my papers. See my review of McKubre and Miles (which is coming out this month). I can only briefly summarize my views here. Recently you posted, in reference to Greg Watson's magnetic toys and generators, that in general, since magnetic motors and other gizmos would violate known physical principles (conservation on energy) that you didn't believe Greg's or anyone else's magnetic motor would work. (I'm paraphrasing; I hope I don't misrepresent your position, but surely you will correct me if I do). That is correct. I think his device would violate simple, well-established physical principles. Cold fusion, on the other hand, does not violate any known principle of physics. At least, that is what expert theoreticians like Schwinger, Hagelstein and Ikegami say. I cannot judge the issue, but on the face of it I see no reason to think it violates known laws. Slow, small scale fission reactions occur naturally in impure uranium or radium. There are many aneutronic nuclear fusion reactions. I do not see how anyone can declare a priori that nature cannot arrange a small scale aneutronic reaction in a metal lattice. Our knowledge of physics does not cover every eventuality and every configuration of matter. More to the point, if Greg sends me a toy and I see it work, I will believe it no matter what. If it works, I suppose the conservation of energy laws must be wrong. Let me say that I agree with you on this. I don't think they will work either. And I am pretty sure both you and I would extremely pleased to be wrong about it. I know that is why I read vortex -- I want to know about it if a miracle happens. There are no miracles in nature. We know that CF does happen because the weight of replicated evidence is so large. It would be a greater miracle if scientific method has failed and the experiments are all wrong. So why are you so dismissive of people like Dick Blue and other scientists who take position 2 on pretty much the same grounds that you use regarding magnetic motors? His grounds are different from mine. I say that *tentatively* I do not believe in Greg's machine, until I see convincing experimental evidence. Once I see the evidence -- bang, out will go the C. of E. When the evidence and the textbook laws conflict, I *always* go with the evidence. Dick Blue dismisses the evidence and clings to the nuclear physics textbooks. He trashes textbooks on calorimetry and thermodynamics. He won't hear of 'em. He raises questions about, for example, selection rules . . . I know nothing about quantum physics, so I cannot comment on selection rules. However, as I said, experts like Swinger concluded that CF presents no conflict with these rules. Perhaps I should say they conclude that they can explain apparent conflicts by extending the reach of present theories. They say that the laws governing single-body of plasma fusion reactions do not apply to metal lattices, so there is no conflict. The mechanisms of the two phenomena are as disparate as combustion in an open fire and cellular metabolism, to use an analogy Chris Tinsley was fond of. . . .and all that happens is that the thread turns into a discussion of logic and nobody responds to the central issue. I do not know enough about nuclear physics to respond, so I would shut up. In cases where I can respond, I always turn the discussion to experimental data, not logic. CF was discovered by experiment not by theoretical prediction or logical deduction. There is still no generally accepted theory to explain it. So theoretical discussions are moot. The only theories that apply are those of Newton, Carnot and Joule relating to calorimetry. To prove that CF does not exist, you must show an error in these theories, not nuclear physics. Dick Blue refuses to discuss calorimetry or any detail of any experiments. For example, the other day I mentioned that we know the heat originates in the cathode and we know it cannot be caused by joule heating from electrolysis, because a video close-up of a boiling cell shows bubbles coming off the cathode, and no activity on the anode. I think that constitutes undeniable experimental proof of my point. Dick Blue said no, but he refused to give a reason. Don't you think there is some possibility that they (Blue and others) might be right? No, I do not see the slightest possibility of that. For that to be true, we must throw out Newton, Joule, and the experimental method, which is the basis of science. To paraphrase Lord Chesterfield, a man who stops believing experiments will believe any damn thing. I am a conservative, you see. I am a stick-in-the-mud. Dick Blue clings to one tiny part of science: plasma physics. To defend it, he would sacrifice all the laws established up to 1860. How can you be so certain? Experimental and statistical proof. Same as anything else in science. How can you be sure of anything? When many people see it over and over, and measure it at levels well above the minimum threshold or reliability for their instruments, that's when you know! That's the only way. Look at statistics, for example. Miles found high sigma excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry correlated with helium in 33 experiments. As he points out: "[A] statistical treatment shows that the odds are approximately one in 750,000 that our complete set of heat and helium results could be this well correlated due to random experimental errors in our calorimetry and helium measurements. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that random errors would consistently yield helium-4 production rates in the appropriate range of 10^11 - 10^12 atoms/s per watt of excess power." One thing I know for certain, I bought a new water heater about the time of the Cold Fusion announcement in Utah. I had to replace it this summer. Guess whether I bought a gas heater or a "Mr. Fusion" heater. Yes, it is shame it is taking so long to develop. Sigh . . . The delays are caused by technical difficulties, politics, greed and stupidity -- mostly on the side of the CF scientists, with whom I maintain a prickly relationship at best. As Chris Tinsley said, history goes slower when you live through it. The steamship Savannah crossed the Atlantic in 1818. The S.S. Curacau crossed in 1826, but engines did not become practical until the 1860s and they did not dominate until the 1880s. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 16:07:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA26021; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:02:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:02:47 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Brillouin Scattering and Phonon-Electron Interaction Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:16:00 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf9de$f2b47560$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"QFzxE1.0.zL6.XSsUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13277 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here you go, Horace. L. Brillouin showed that acoustic waves (phonon interaction with electrons)modulated light waves in liquids or solids. The thermal sound waves produce scattered light of f +/- fs where fs is the sound frequency and f is the light frequency. Since the phonons are quantized, E = hf (h is Planck's Constant)they can interact with the light-electrons. With this bit of physics, it is entirely possible to send a radio beam or laser beam down from a satellite and have it interact with the material in the plasterboard of your abode and listen to what your are talking about. :-) Of course my interest is focused on Light Lepton production from the Brillouin Effects (phonon-electron interaction)in sonoluminescence. :-) References: L. Brillouin,Diffusion of light and of x-rays by a transparent homogeneous body, Ann.Phys. (Paris) 17(9): 88-122, 1922: R.Y. Chiao and C.H. Townes, Stimulated Brillouin scattering and coherent generation of intense hypersonic waves, Phys.Rev.Letters, 12:592,1964: E.Garmire and C.H.Townes, Stimulated Brillouin scattering in liquids,Applied Physics Letters 5:84,1964. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 16:08:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25974; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:02:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:02:43 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:39:01 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcf9d9$c80dd360$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"HZCva3.0.FL6.USsUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13276 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff >At 1:02 PM 11/25/97, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: >[snip] >>The low mass particles I selected for this purpose are phonons. >>To begin: >> >[snip] >> >>Does anyone else have any insights. >> >>Frank Znidarsic > >Yes. First phonons are not particles. They are a logical construct, based >on lattice mechanics, quantized lattice vibrations in particular, that is >viewed as an imaginary particle. This imaginary particle has the >charactristics of a boson. Phonons are not conserved as they can be created >or destroyed at any time. > True, Just ask Frank Stenger, he has a Phonongraph player that spirals too. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 16:31:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA26362; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:27:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:27:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971125192226.006957c8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:22:26 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971125134424.0069b120 imap2.asu.edu> References: <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"v6YiX1.0.kR6.OpsUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13278 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:44 PM 11/25/97 -0700, Lynn Kurtz wrote: >So why are you so dismissive of people like Dick Blue and other scientists >who take position 2 on pretty much the same grounds that you use regarding >magnetic motors? He raises questions about, for example, selection rules, >and all that happens is that the thread turns into a discussion of logic >and nobody responds to the central issue. Don't you think there is some >possibility that they (Blue and others) might be right? How can you be so >certain? So why are YOU so dismissive of the literature? Cold fusion is real, and too bad is confused with magnetic motors and other - some serious and other less so - purported o/u systems. Cold fusion is not o/u but creates helium-4 as nuclear ash leading to E=mc2 energy releases within the loaded active Group VIII metal. --> More info available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Consider: Dick Blue, and other handwaving TB-skeptics, have perhaps only begun to answer the key questions. 1. What is this selection rule to which he purports? Write it out, if it exists, in such as way as to prove cf cannot exist. 2. If helium-4 is produced at commensurate amounts to the excess heat, what is the implication? 3. The typical handwave of special relativity made confuses the energy width with the energy midrange. Why wont the skeptics correct the numbers, and acknowldge they confused delta-E with E? 4. Mossbauer coupling was brought up years ago by me as an example of nuclear-lattice coupling. We have learned much theoretically about what might, and what does not, occur between nucleus and lattice. Why, if this was brought up to show only the existence theorem, is this harped on endlessly out-of-context? 5. The power density levels of cold fusion have increased by more than one (perhaps two) orders of magnitude from '89 to '97. Hot fusion has not achieved a fraction of that success, or continued success, or probably degree of microscopic analysis the cf has had to endure, but has received taxpayer funding to the tune of billions of dollars. In summary, there were scores more questions which the TB-cold-fusion- critics have ignored long posted in s.p.f. over the last several years. but the above are a good start. While the answers to the above are pending from any of the TB-skeptics (Barry? Lynn? ?? ? ), hopefully people should not be dismissive of cold fusion based upon unsubstantiated handwave until they have had the opportunity to examine the literature themselves. BTW, perhaps Dick Blue, AND Richard Murray, and the other micro-retro-rockingchair-"analysts" might offer us all some complete references of THEIR peer reviewed, or other, publications, especially in experimental physics so that we all might more effectively learn their techniques better, and perhaps even offer similar critique of their work in similar spirit? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 18:20:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25761; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:14:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:14:40 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:14:37 -0700 From: Lynn Kurtz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19971125192226.006957c8 world.std.com> X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <3.0.2.32.19971125191437.00699260 imap2.asu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <3.0.2.32.19971125134424.0069b120 imap2.asu.edu> <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"qWnjO3.0.QI6.EOuUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13279 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:22 PM 11/25/97 +0000, you wrote: > > At 01:44 PM 11/25/97 -0700, Lynn Kurtz wrote: > >>So why are you so dismissive of people like Dick Blue and other scientists >>who take position 2 on pretty much the same grounds that you use regarding >>magnetic motors? He raises questions about, for example, selection rules, >>and all that happens is that the thread turns into a discussion of logic >>and nobody responds to the central issue. Don't you think there is some >>possibility that they (Blue and others) might be right? How can you be so >>certain? > > So why are YOU so dismissive of the literature? > I AM?? That's strange, I don't remember having read the literature. Did I say I was a physicist? Did I claim to be an expert in the field? Did I state that I have read and understand all the literature and consider it to be bogus? Or did I politely ask Jed why he takes his position with such certainty? > While the answers to the above are pending from any of the >TB-skeptics (Barry? Lynn? ?? ? ), hopefully people should >not be dismissive of cold fusion based upon unsubstantiated handwave >until they have had the opportunity to examine >the literature themselves. > Did it ever occur to you that there might be well educated and intelligent people who read vortex who don't happen to be physicists and aren't ever going to "read the literature themselves"? > > BTW, perhaps Dick Blue, AND Richard Murray, and the other >micro-retro-rockingchair-"analysts" might offer us all some complete >references of THEIR peer reviewed, or other, publications, >especially in experimental physics so that we all might more >effectively learn their techniques better, and perhaps even >offer similar critique of their work in similar spirit? > Is "micro-retro-rockingchair" a technical term or just a gratuitous disparaging phrase? I'd be glad to. Mine are in mathematics. You might start with: "Vector valued summability functions on a linear normed space", Proceedings of the Amer. Math. Society. Im not in my office at the moment to look up the exact reference, but it is mid-late '60s; it was my dissertation. I will even tell you there was a mistake in that paper, which I suspect you will have about as much possibility of finding as I would have of finding errors in the cf literature. Have at it. When you have your critique of it finished, let me know and I will give you some more. --Lynn From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 19:41:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA07725; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:37:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:37:09 -0800 Message-ID: <347B8B96.5C earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:38:14 -0600 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 Subject: CCD detectors for CF cells? References: <199711251820_MC2-29A2-FFF6 compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rscCG1.0.au1.abvUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13280 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nov. 25, 1997 Dear Jed Rothwell, Your review of CF research is firmly, clearly, and persuasively stated, and I look forward to studying your review of McKubre and Miles. You mentioned, "...more to the point, people have used another *system*: an electronic x-ray CCD detector I guess you would call it. The same fogging is seen..." Can you supply the references? I'm thinking about using electronic CCD detector systems, visible, UV, IR, x-ray, etc., because then specific hot spots could be located real-time. Could the Pd cathode be a large, thin flat horizontal plate, with a very shallow layer of electrolyte and a see-through fine wire screen anode above, so electrronic infrared photography could monitor the surface for hot spot events-- similar to setups used in telescopes. Tom Droege, if you read my repost about him a week ago, is now involved in setting up a world network of small low-cost camera telescopes, united via the Internet, to monitor large areas of the sky at bargain prices, using talented volunteers, looking for variable stars. [droege fnal.gov] Anyway, maybe a superior science strategy might be to give up trying to prove global heat excess at the dicey 10% level, but to search for direct evidence of specific reaction spots, even if only one event happens at each-- similar to nuclear physics work. Also, specific reaction spots probably would have some sort of acoustic signiture, so sensitive tiny microphones or transductors could be used to monitor the plate from its four corners, allowing the reaction sites to be located by the timing of the signals. Any ways to load Pd without electrochemistry? High voltages and silicone oil with some trace level of D or D compounds? Has anyone tried deuterated Pd microspheres as targets in conventional laser and particle-beam setups? This is fun. As one, Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 20:30:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01667; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:26:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:26:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347BA4DC.6365 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:26:04 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff References: <01bcf9d9$c80dd360$LocalHost default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IeaCQ1.0.zP.xJwUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13281 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > True, Just ask Frank Stenger, he has a Phonongraph player that spirals too. > :-) Hey, Fred, cut me some slack alright - sheesh! I'm a recovering spiral watcher - I didn't mean to become illusion dependent - it started small and kept getting smaller! - I just couldnt control it. One day at a time, Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 21:48:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA12443; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:42:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:42:39 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:28:37 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfa2c$259bbe00$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"0oNTN.0.K23.DRxUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13282 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Francis J. Stenger To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 9:50 PM Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> >> True, Just ask Frank Stenger, he has a Phonongraph player that spirals too. >> :-) > >Hey, Fred, cut me some slack alright - sheesh! I'm a recovering >spiral watcher - I didn't mean to become illusion dependent - it started >small and kept getting smaller! - I just couldnt control it. > >One day at a time, Frank Stenger Sounds like a typical Vortex malady to me,Frank. All you have to do is put on your 3-D glasses and you will see that it is a vortex,either that or a Thanksgiving Cornucopia. Better bring your turkey indoors where it can thaw out too. Horace put theirs in the freezer so it could thaw before Thursday. :-) Best Regards and happy Thanksgiving. Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 23:10:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA24206; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:00:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:00:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:59:54 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: "Frederick J. Sparber" cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg@eskimo.com, bx196@freenet.uchsc.edu Subject: Znidarsic vers Puthoff * TurkeyTime * FROZEN In-Reply-To: <01bcfa2c$259bbe00$LocalHost default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MKfa63.0.8w5.PayUq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13283 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: TIME to start thawing (if you havn't started yet! :) On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>From: Francis J. Stenger >>>Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>>One day at a time, Frank Stenger >> >>Sounds like a typical Vortex malady to me,Frank. All you have to do is put >>on your 3-D >>glasses and you will see that it is a vortex,either that or a Thanksgiving >>Cornucopia. >>Better bring your turkey indoors where it can thaw out too. Horace put >>theirs in the freezer so it could thaw before Thursday. :-) >> >>Best Regards and happy Thanksgiving. Frederick >> FS & FS, HAPPY THANKSGIVING too! :) Deep Fried Turkey :)' yumm Note: the 'Latest' fad or way to "cook" a Turkey is WHOLE Deep-Fried.. note to wifes.. this is DONE in 45 minutes total frying time..clock your hubby. :) Unit construction (see: whole/head down turkey in pipe with boiling/oil!) A cylinder (open end Metal TUBE/canister) about 15" across (enough width to hold a WHOLE 20#'er) and about 2 & 1/2' long (deep) is filled with oil (vegetable type only) and set upon a propane burner like you would find on your BB grill contain heat as ok! Seasoning is of course a matter of personal choice/taste... Bachelors remove GUTS first ;) I'd guess they heat the oil to just about smoking or 400-600 degrees F .. water droplets should sizzle on it. There is a company that 'sells' the whole set up, but jed would say we couldn't do it from scratch, so I'll just supply the above measurements. I havn't done this myself, and I hear a few houses have been lost to fire, but there are MANY a report about the GREAT CRISPY TASTE (rem:45 min NOT 4-5 hours) that this procedure emparts. Sounds like a big 'Kentucky Fried ****!' If we only knew the Secret 11 herbs and spices.. !!! :) umm umm good... I think the 'store bought tube-fryer has a lid too, (cover/foil it?) ------------------------- For a more traditional OVEN-COOKING of the American GOLDEN Turkey, see my WIFES home-page 'turk-turk - cheat sheet' guaranteed to be perfection by the pound (seasonings are yours). Her page is at: for times to thaw etc if frozen etc.. I'll try to get her recipe (seasonings) tomorrow, but I have noticed she basted it every 30 -45 minutes or so :: mostly butter & white wine and other secret stuff.. if any WOMAN needs help in this, call her (Laura) tollfree at 1-800-698-1100 and leave a message (she'll call you back asap). The bigger the turkey, the bigger the problem (hummm that rings a bell), any way to every-one on the web/net out there... HaPpY ThAnKsGiViNg to all and to all a good night! -=se=- Rem: Thanks to Ben Franklin The Turkey *IS* our American Bird. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Nov 25 23:55:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA14942; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:48:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:48:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:48:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711260748.XAA14492 denmark.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Minato's PPM Resent-Message-ID: <"DDVtr2.0.Jf3.ZHzUq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13284 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >Michael, > Please keep us appraised of your progress. Can you reproduce the >perpetual motion claimed by Minato's device? >Frank Will do. Haven't reproduced the perpetual motion yet, too many unknown variables. I wish there was some more pictures or video of the unit. A full view would help. The one picture at Minato's web site is limited to 1/4 view. Waiting for a reply from Minato to my queries. Regards, Michael From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 02:34:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA16703; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:31:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:31:08 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: "vortex" Subject: Re: Brillouin Scattering and Phonon-Electron Interaction Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:29:46 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <347cf66c.13172631 mail.eisa.net.au> References: <01bcf9de$f2b47560$LocalHost default> In-Reply-To: <01bcf9de$f2b47560$LocalHost default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4wVPd3.0.v44.gf_Uq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13285 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:16:00 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >With this bit of physics, it is entirely possible to send a radio beam or >laser beam down from a satellite and have it interact with the material in >the plasterboard of your abode and listen to what your are talking about. >:-) [snip] Of course it works just as well from the black van parked across the street, and is much cheaper :). 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 04:23:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA27122; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:22:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:22:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971126071747.006ad5bc world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:17:47 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971125191437.00699260 imap2.asu.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19971125192226.006957c8 world.std.com> <3.0.2.32.19971125134424.0069b120 imap2.asu.edu> <199711251200_MC2-2999-D16A compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"icIbF.0.gd6.oH1Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13287 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:14 PM 11/25/97 -0700, Lynn wrote: >>>So why are you so dismissive of people like Dick Blue and other scientists >>>who take position 2 on pretty much the same grounds that you use regarding >>>magnetic motors? He raises questions about, for example, selection rules, >>>and all that happens is that the thread turns into a discussion of logic >>>and nobody responds to the central issue. Don't you think there is some >>>possibility that they (Blue and others) might be right? How can you be so >>>certain? >> >> So why are YOU so dismissive of the literature? >> > >I AM?? That's strange, I don't remember having read the literature. > >Did I say I was a physicist? Did I claim to be an expert in the field? Did >I state that I have read and understand all the literature and consider it >to be bogus? > Excuse me. I thought your comments were based upon a background involving the litrature and education. Sometimes one can forget that ANYBODY can post almost anything on the Internet. ===================================================================== >Or did I politely ask Jed why he takes his position with such certainty? > > > So was the post with the questions, which no doubt will continue to remain unanswered while the unsupported and illogical assaults on cold fusioneers, and others, continue. ===================================================================== >> While the answers to the above are pending from any of the >>TB-skeptics (Barry? Lynn? ?? ? ), hopefully people should >>not be dismissive of cold fusion based upon unsubstantiated handwave >>until they have had the opportunity to examine >>the literature themselves. >> > >Did it ever occur to you that there might be well educated and intelligent >people who read vortex who don't happen to be physicists and aren't ever >going to "read the literature themselves"? > Anyone can read the literature. There are physics papers, but one need not be a physicist to read papers on cold fusion. Also, anyone can answer some of the questions. Even you, Lynn, since you obviously know enough to parrot the TB-skeptics. Well? ===================================================================== >I'd be glad to. Mine are in mathematics. You might start with: >"Vector valued summability functions on a linear normed space", Proceedings >of the Amer. Math. Society. Im not in my office at the moment to look up >the exact reference, but it is mid-late '60s; it was my dissertation. I >will even tell you there was a mistake in that paper, which I suspect you >will have about as much possibility of finding as I would have of finding >errors in the cf literature. Have at it. When you have your critique of it >finished, let me know and I will give you some more. > >--Lynn > > If we can w'ill take a look. Can you be me more specific of the reference? (vol, pag, year?)? Thanks. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 04:24:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26345; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:15:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:15:49 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Brillouin Scattering and Phonon-Electron Interaction Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:11:48 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfa64$78822540$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"VbZAL.0.ZR6.pB1Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13286 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin wrote: >Of course it works just as well from the black van parked >across the street, and is much cheaper :). Hmmm, funny you should mention that, there was a pizza delivery truck parked across the street for a few days. Its gone now, but there is a big yellow truck parked there just now. I noticed that the driver got out and is running like hell down.......! R e g a r d s F r eee..d e r i c k From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 04:52:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00666; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:49:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:49:18 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Brillouin Scattering and Phonon-Electron Interaction Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:46:06 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfa69$435e60e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"6rPEr3.0.FA.Bh1Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13288 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Whew that was close! Next time I'll give that pizza delivery kid more than a dime tip. :-) I promise to do better on Girl-Scout cookies too. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 06:15:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29657; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:02:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:02:36 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Brillouin Scattering and Phonon-Electron Interaction Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfa73$838efb20$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"DTRPK3.0.JF7.xl2Vq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13289 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In the E.Garmire-C.H.Townes, Stimulated Brillouin Scattering Experiment, ca.,1964 a LASER Amplifier was used to amplify the scattered light from a liquid cell. The scattered light was returned from the liquid cell along with the fundamental beam. "The system became a self-sustaining LASER at a definite power amplitude. The two light waves act through the electrostrictive effect in the liquid producing a very intense sound wave". "If crystals are used the sound wave is intense enough to fracture the crystal." Sounds like a good set-up for sonoluminescent-laser-CF to me. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 06:24:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10532; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:20:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:20:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971126091533.006b1a4c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:15:33 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-Reply-To: <199711251612_MC2-29A6-CDB4 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"CJGhA2.0.Ma2.I03Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13290 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:08 PM 11/25/97 -0500, Jed wrote: >I mentioned that medical IV pumps have to be accurate and reliable, or >patients will die. Mitchell Swartz (who has an MD) asks: > > Please explain. Are the pumps needed for these patients who "would > die"? > >That's a dumb question coming from a doctor! > Not at all. Neither from a doctor, nor anyone else. High priced antibiotics are NOT generally needed, similarly many devices are high-teched out of control, and Jed's comment is not necessarily in general supported. As one example, many sales barkers push the need for high-priced broad spectrum antibiotics, and other medications, beyond their need/range/cost-effectiveness It is not that these do not have a role, they do. Mr. Rothwell's comments of peristaltic IV pumps being required or patients "would die" might have similar origin. ============================================================ > Are they the best if they are peristaltic? Why? > >According to this Technical Review article in the Omega catalog they are. Read >it and you'll see why. Why ask me? Because the comments sounded like preaching in an extremely complicated subject of which broad brush strokes with generalizations may not apply. This is especially true for here where impurities may play a role. Such impurities can greatly impact electrode reactions. Specifically, it seems that given the variations in cylinder caliber, possibility for adsorption, possibility for very slow leakage of the materials in the walls of the perstaltic system (read plasticizers and UV-damage retardants), a screw-based glass syringe-drive system might be superior at those ultralow flow rates ~1 ml/day. Just asking for the comparison data. "The most precise peristaltic pumps can deliver as little as 1.5 ml per day." Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-Id: <"EcYN8.0._w2.HKmUq" mx2> BTW, we presently use a modified Sage 355 delivery pump system for such, when needed. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 08:18:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA19887; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:13:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:13:11 -0800 Message-ID: <347C4AA1.1C2 interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:13:21 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO (US) VORTEX FOLKS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cr76n3.0.ds4.Lg4Vq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13291 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 10:22:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17144; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:18:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:18:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <347C5F9A.8FF105BB verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:42:50 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: eprint: hep-th/9711168 (ZPE) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"02Ost2.0.mB4.YV6Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13292 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: High Energy Physics - Theory hep-th/9711168 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:27:43 GMT (11kb) Mode-by-mode summation for the zero point electromagnetic energy of an infinite solid cylinder Authors: A. V. Nesterenko, V. V. Nesterenko Available from http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9711168 Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 11:46:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA10685; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:41:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:41:54 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:34:27 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: CCD detectors for CF cells? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711261438_MC2-29CB-24CD compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"FahUK2.0.mc2.0k7Vq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13294 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray writes: You mentioned, "...more to the point, people have used another *system*: an electronic x-ray CCD detector I guess you would call it. The same fogging is seen..." Can you supply the references? Srinivasan et al. at BARC, Bombay. There are others in the U.S. but I don't recall the names. Kevin Wolf and the people who investigated his radioactive cathode used various gamma detectors. Could the Pd cathode be a large, thin flat horizontal plate, with a very shallow layer of electrolyte and a see-through fine wire screen anode above, so electronic infrared photography could monitor the surface for hot spot events-- similar to setups used in telescopes. I do not think so. This has been discussed. The consensus is that IR would be blocked or blurred by the anode, water, and the cell wall, particularly with a mesh anode. X-Rays, on the other hand, go through the water and glass. The anode blocks them, making a pronounced shadow. See, for example, ICCF6, O-001 P. L. Cignini, D. Gozzi, et al., "X-Ray, Heat Excess and 4He in the Electrochemical Confinement of Deuterium in Palladium." The x-rays constitute additional proof that the reaction is nuclear rather than chemical. Any ways to load Pd without electrochemistry? Lots and lots of ways. See any review by Storms, "Fire from Ice," any conference proceedings, or my home page. In fact, see just about any introduction to CF written by anyone. Rich: It is astounding that you do not realize this, yet you consider yourself qualified to "peer review" a CF paper! High voltages and silicone oil with some trace level of D or D compounds? I don't know what that means. Has anyone tried deuterated Pd microspheres as targets in conventional laser and particle-beam setups? I've never heard of anyone using microspheres. There is extensive literature on more conventional particle beam targets, like Pd sandwiched between Al. See, for example, A. Takahashi at Osaka National University. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 12:01:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02597; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:41:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:41:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:35:35 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Come on, Lynn: read the literature! Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711261438_MC2-29CB-24CE compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gvBBo1.0.Te.Mj7Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13293 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:kurtz imap2.asu.edu Lynn Kurtz writes: I AM?? That's strange, I don't remember having read the literature. Did I say I was a physicist? Did I claim to be an expert in the field? Did I state that I have read and understand all the literature and consider it to be bogus? Or did I politely ask Jed why he takes his position with such certainty? It was very polite. But I do not understand why you have not read any papers. With all due respect, that's mind-boggling! Imagine a person who avidly reads messages in a forum devoted to classical music, and the music reviews in the newspapers. Now imagine that person casually mentions that she has not been to a concert or listened to the radio or a recording in eight years. What's the point of talking about cold fusion and reading other people's opinions about it if you never see the real thing? Did it ever occur to you that there might be well educated and intelligent people who read vortex who don't happen to be physicists and aren't ever going to "read the literature themselves"? Why on earth not?!? It isn't difficult! It is basic calorimetry. You see similar experiments at high school science fairs all the time. (I am sure about this. I've see a many science fairs because, my daughter won first prize twice. I had to sneak that in! High school experiments are exactly the same in principle but they employ less sophisticated instruments.) Look, it's simple. The "skeptics" claim that McKubre must have repeatedly made errors ranging from 5 to 300% when he measured 1 or 2 watts excess heat. Okay, his technique is to measure input electricity, flow rate, Delta T temperature (outlet minus inlet temperature), and the compensation heater input. So, you read his papers and ask yourself how likely it is that he and his co-workers spend five years making astoundingly errors in an experiment that any competent 8th grade chemistry student could perform. Think about how he measures these parameters. Look at the graphs showing the noise levels way down there and the signal way up there. It does not require an expert or a physicist to evaluate these papers. Any person conversant with instruments and work-a-day laboratory techniques can understand what McKubre does, how he establishes the error limits, and how likely it is that he has done it wrong hundreds of times, year after year. Here are some paragraphs his 1991 ICCF2 paper. I doubt that you, Dick Blue, or anyone else would have trouble understanding this, which is one of the tougher papers on calorimetry: Mass flow rates were measured using a Setra model 5000L digital balance with an accuracy of better than 0.01% (200 +/- .01g /240 +/- .01 seconds). This accuracy reflects the determination of the mass delivered to the balance. Precautions were taken to ensure that fluid was not lost following its transit through the cell before flow rate determination. This was checked, and assured, by employing a 1/4" line with Swagelok (R) fittings from calorimeter to pump, and pump to mass balance. The calorimeter vessel was placed on the negative pressure side of the constant displacement pump so that potential leaks from the bath into the calorimeter would be of fluid conveyed past the outlet temperature sensors. Beyond this point leaks would have allowed air into the system, this would not have produce errors in flow rate determination (although this may influence the flow rate). . . . Input power was determined for both the cell and the heater as the product of two measure voltages normalized by a precalibrated resistance. Voltages were measured using a Keithley 195A 5-1/2 digit digital multimeter with 0.01% do volt accuracy and 0.01% resistance accuracy. Resolution was l ppm (ohm) and 19 ppm (dcV). Each 5-1/2 digit measurement was averaged 32 times before being recorded. Resistance standards were calibrated periodically against NIST traceable standards using NIST traceable calibration- instruments yielding an accuracy of ~0.l % It is important to note that experiments typically were run with a single controlled current passing through two or more electrochemical cells in series. All measurements were multiplexed to a single multimeter that was periodically interchange with another precalibrated meter. In this way, a series cell effectively acted as a standard for the others if P[u] was observed not to be zero in one cell while zero in another, then its origin was unlikely to be an artifact of voltmeter miscalibration. Monotonic calibration drift was monitored by multimeter interchange. The current was monitored independently in each of the cells in series so that R[c] for each cell acted as a standard for other series cells. The resistors were interchanged, replaced, and removed and recalibrated during periods of excess power production (P[u] > 0), reducing the likelihood that errors were associated with the measurement of current. The Great Eight Year Debate over cold fusion boils down to one simple issue: McKubre, Miles, Storms, Fleischmann and a few hundred others have written high quality papers showing that their calorimetry errors range from 0.1 to 3%, and their excess heat ranges from 30 to 300%. They have employed every common type of water-based calorimeter. The skeptics claim that all of these papers are incorrect, and actual errors range are 30 to 300%. They never give a reason for this belief. They never cite a potential errors in a paper -- any paper. Most of them have never read any papers. The question is, who is right? Are the errors 3% or 300%? To judge the issue you must confront the evidence. You must carefully read original source material, use your best judgement, and decide for yourself. Please note that the debate has nothing to do with nuclear theory. Branching ratios, selection rules, neutrons and everything else of that nature is *totally irrelevant* to the experimental evidence published by McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann, et al. Calorimetry is the only issue: net energy in, net energy out. Since the ouput energy exceeds the limit of chemistry a hundred thousand times over in some cases, we know it cannot be coming from a chemical reaction. And, since some experiments produce nuclear transmutations, neutrons, tritium, x-rays, and other nuclear effects at levels 10^40 times greater than you would expect, we assume the heat must be somehow related to those nuclear effects. The causal connection between the heat and the nuclear effects has not been established. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 12:42:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12129; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:36:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:36:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347C7979.A8458A52 pavilion.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:33:17 +0100 From: Rob Dowse X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: Bayes's theorem on statistical significants Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ccsdw.0.Rz2.8X8Vq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13295 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote on Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:18:18 -0500 Look at statistics, for example. Miles found high sigma excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry correlated with helium in 33 experiments. As he points out: "[A] statistical treatment shows that the odds are approximately one in 750,000 that our complete set of heat and helium results could be this well correlated due to random experimental errors in our calorimetry and helium measurements. New Scientist magazine 22 Nov No2109. An article in this issue discusses how p-values are in themselves arbitrary and that significance based on them may be misleading. Bayes's theorem take into account your existing beliefs and shows how to up date them in the light of new data. The thorn seems to be in assigning values to existing belief. See for FirstBayes freeware. I'm not even a mathematician but I can see how this could impact on the validation of C.F. Appologies, if this is old or inappropriate news to anyone. Thanks to all for this fascinating on and on going debate! --------- Rob Dowse From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 14:11:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA11290; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:56:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:56:09 -0800 From: ehammond pacbell.net Message-ID: <347DECEE.4DDE pacbell.net> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:58:06 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-PBME (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff References: <971125130158_-1474663725 mrin51.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"C043d3.0.Jm2.th9Vq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13296 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The universe is filled with Chi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 16:00:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16871; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) Sender: jack mail2.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <347CA746.4B1B8576 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:48:38 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Come on, Lynn: read the literature! References: <199711261438_MC2-29CB-24CE compuserve.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6DC0348C192AA55029E654DE" Resent-Message-ID: <"sTw2w2.0.W74.KTBVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13297 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6DC0348C192AA55029E654DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jed Rothwell wrote: ... "The Great Eight Year Debate over cold fusion boils down to one simple issue: McKubre, Miles, Storms, Fleischmann and a few hundred others have written high quality papers showing that their calorimetry errors range from 0.1 to 3%, and their excess heat ranges from 30 to 300%. They have employed every common type of water-based calorimeter. The skeptics claim ...." Hi Jed, Regarding invincible ignorance, I thought you might find the following quote amusing: "The crushing victory of the theoretical approach over the experimental approach lasted only until the theory was used to make experimentally verifiable predictions. From the theory, it was concluded that plasma could be easily confined in magnetic fields and heated to such temperatures as to make thermonuclear release of energy possible. When attempts were made to construct thermonuclear reactors, a confrontation between the theories and reality was unavoidable. The results were catastrophic. Although the theories were generally accepted, the plasma itself refused to believe in them." I'm attaching a longer quote from which this quote was extracted. Jack Smith --------------6DC0348C192AA55029E654DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x" To define the problem, please read the first two paragraphs of the one the book that nobody wants to read _Cosmic Plasmas_ by Hannes Aflven: "Plasma physics started along two parallel lines. One of them was the hundred-year-old investigation into what was called 'electrical discharges in gases'. To high degree, this approach was experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly did it reach some degree of technological sophistication. Most theoretical physicists looked down on this field which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations, double layers, and an assortment of oscillations and instabilities. The electron temperature was often found to be several orders of magnitude larger than the gas temperature, with the ion temperature intermediate. In short. it was a field which was not well suited for mathematically elegant theories." The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that, with a limited amount of work, this field could be extended to include ionized gases. The theories were mathematically elegant and claimed to derive all of the properties of a plasma from first principles. In realty, this was not true. Because of the complexity of the problem, a number of approximations were necessary which were not always appropriate. The theories had very little contact with experimental plasma physics; all awkward and complicated phenomena which had been observed in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. ....... Unfortunately, the progress along these lines [Birkeland's turn of the century work on plasma physics, jc] was disrupted. Theories about plasmas, at that time called ionized gases, were developed without any contact with laboratory plasma work. In spite of this--or perhaps because of this--belief in the theories was so strong that they were applied directly to space. One of these results was the Chapman-Ferraro theory...which became accepted to such an extent that Birkeland's approach was almost completely forgotten. For thirty or forty years, Birkeland's results were often ignored in textbooks and surveys, and all attempts to revive and develop them were neglected. The crushing victory of the theoretical approach over the experimental approach lasted only until the theory was used to make experimentally verifiable predictions. From the theory, it was concluded that plasma could be easily confined in magnetic fields and heated to such temperatures as to make thermonuclear release of energy possible. When attempts were made to construct thermonuclear reactors, a confrontation between the theories and reality was unavoidable. The results were catastrophic. Although the theories were generally accepted, the plasma itself refused to believe in them." As the labs failed to verify the application of ordinary gas theory to ionized gases, the scientific community's first reaction was apparently to ignore or deny the Alfven approach: a collision course with reality. This was explored in great detail by Stephen G. Brush in an article titled _Alfven's Programme in Solar System Physics_ in the IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science, Vol 20, No 6, December 1992. It is found that the success or failure of these predictions had essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfven's theories, even such concepts such as "Alfven waves" have become firmly entrenched in space physics. Perhaps the importance of predictions in such has been exaggerated: if a theory is not acceptable to the scientific community, it may not gain any credit from successful predictions." Dr. Brush finds that some of Alfven's prediction have been verified while others are still subject to question. He gives one reason for ignoring Alfven was Alfven's abrasive style. ... What Dr. Brush does not say is that Alfven also drew the ire of the scientific community by his rejection of the Big Bang theory. Since Dr. Brush's article, human knowledge expanded and more of Alfven's theories are being accepted, even if the old Nobel Laureate is denied a citation or two. A quick look at the latest volume of _Icarus_ or Vol 278 of the magazine _Science_ tends to prove this point. Planetary scientists are now actively considering plasma effects and they are not using kinetic theory of ordinary gases as the basis of their analysis. Nature is providing those scientists with some brilliant observable plasma scenarios. The Io/Jupiter plasma interaction drew two 1997 _Science_ papers. The SL-9 encounter mentioned in the latest issue of _Icarus_ is another. --------------6DC0348C192AA55029E654DE-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 19:30:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA17029; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:20:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:20:29 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971127112008.00684880 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:20:08 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: Come on, Lynn: read the literature! In-Reply-To: <199711261438_MC2-29CB-24CE compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"owTp23.0.w94.xREVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13298 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote to Lynn: >... how likely it is that he and his co-workers >spend five years making astoundingly errors in an experiment that any >competent 8th grade chemistry student could perform. ... So if any competent 8th grade chemistry student could do it, how come it is so difficult for our Scott to manage! ;^} Or was that the selection of the palladium that was the difficult part. ;-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Nov 26 23:24:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA17033; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:19:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:19:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:18:52 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO (US) VORTEX FOLKS In-Reply-To: <347C4AA1.1C2 interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"atq-D1.0.3A4.5yHVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13299 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >>Subject: HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO (US) VORTEX FOLKS >>Frank Stenger >> "Hello, world." ( <--one of the first ascii programmed OUTputs) Happy Thanksgiving to ALL ! -We ARE blessed- -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 04:57:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA19251; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 04:48:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 04:48:48 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:45:30 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Come on, Lynn: read the literature! Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711270748_MC2-29DE-4C47 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"IW08R.0.ji4.kmMVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13300 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex John Winterflood, tongue-in-cheek, writes: So if any competent 8th grade chemistry student could do it, how come it is so difficult for our Scott to manage! ;^} Scott will tell you that if his cell generated a watt or two excess, he would have no trouble detecting it. Producing the effect is hard, detecting it is easy. Or was that the selection of the palladium that was the difficult part. ;-) In all seriousness, yes. That is the most difficult part. Selecting and correcting, that is, fixing problems like surface contamination. I suppose we should say manufacturing the material is the difficult part. As I have often pointed out, Miles found that with one source of Pd, zero out of 30+ samples worked. With Johnson-Matthey special Pd, four out of four worked. That tells you something! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 05:43:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17192; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 05:36:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 05:36:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971127083136.006b07d0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:31:36 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump In-Reply-To: <199711251612_MC2-29A6-CDB4 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MdTUq2.0.XC4.4TNVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13301 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: re: Jed Rothwell's claim "Those pumps are accurate and reliable. They have to be or the patients would die. The most precise peristaltic pumps can deliver as little as 1.5 ml per day." Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-Id: <"EcYN8.0._w2.HKmUq" mx2> At 04:08 PM 11/25/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > "What/where is this data for accuracy, etc. at 1.5 ml/hr? !" > > Jed Rothwell: "See Omega catalog." > OK. did. and here is what the larger Omega Flow and Level Handbook (a catalog actually as well) indicates. *** NOTA BENE: Here is a Thankgiving FREEBEE for vortexians and those interested in flow, temperature, and mass xfer. These handbooks are excellent and free from a toll free # 1 800 TC OMEGA We use scores of Omega equipment. Now back to the purported "data for accuracy, etc. at 1.5 ml/hr". The catalog has several peristaltic pumps. They are in section L. ~L29-L42 perhaps the best on pages 41. The catalog does not appear to support Jed's statement. First, the pumps [e.g. FPU250 $472] are rated for 0.36 to 5.5 mL per minute, which is larger than 1.5 ml/hr. The FPU500 page L-29 rates 0.5 to 2280 ml/min which is also much larger than 1.5 ml/hr. Second, these pumps are only rated for precision at highest flow rates and that is 8% "repeatability from one pump to the next" (page L-39). This precision is for a low range OEM style model but the other models do not have obvious accuracy or precision data or figures. Also missing are graphs of how backpressure impacts the ultralow flow rates, which was not considered in my previous post, but should be considered after Jed's good suggestion to look at the Flow catalog again. In summary, so far the purported data for accuracy at 1.5 ml/hr is not supported by the cited ref, and the only statement on precision in Mr. Rothwell's citation is at the highest flow rates and seems hardly exceptional at ~8%, which could easily be improved upon. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 06:40:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA21361; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 06:28:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 06:28:43 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:27:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971127092726_800204465 mrin42.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: CETI & ABC-TV? Resent-Message-ID: <"4xxLU1.0.bD5.PEOVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13302 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, In a post last March, you said that when you arranged free publicity on ABC-TV for CF scientists they just got mad at you and accused you of interfering in their business. That sounded like a reference to the fabulous publicity that CETI got on ABC-TV. What was your role in the 1996 publicity there and the followup in 1997? Are the people at CETI still mad at you for that? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 07:32:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05485; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:28:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:28:48 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCFB0E.E2934EF0.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:31:39 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EaB2e1.0.dL1.l6PVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13303 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Best wishes for a SAFE and happy holiday season The Champion Family From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 15:13:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24521; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:08:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:08:49 -0800 Message-ID: <347DEFA0.79BA earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:09:36 -0600 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, storms@ix.netcom.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, blue pilot.msu.edu, jones@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, droege fnal.gov, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless@rmii.com, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, mizuno@athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti msn.com, design73@aol.com, "jlagarde cyberaccess.fr.ghlin"@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.edu, shellied sage.dri.edu, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com, yekim physics.purdue.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, Bennett.Miller@mailgw.er.doe.gov, bockris acs.tamu.edu, jjones@ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, nick7 itl.net, shkedi@bose.com, rooster@mail.utexas.edu, lentin imaginet.fr, ceti_gcollins@msn.com, kurtz@imap2.ASU.EDU Subject: Steven Jones: CF calorimetry errors Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"x9qdH2.0.--5.0sVVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13304 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Received: from physc1.byu.edu (physc1.byu.edu [128.187.18.9]) by finland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA15651 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:41:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711262241.OAA15651 finland.it.earthlink.net> Received: from physics1.byu.edu by physc1.byu.edu (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:41:33 MST/MDT Received: from ESC_PHYSICS1/SMTPQUEUE by physics1.byu.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 26 Nov 97 15:40:48 MST7MDT From: "STEVE JONES" Organization: BYU Dept. of Physics and Astronomy To: rmforall earthlink.net Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:40:39 MST7MDT Subject: Re: corrected Murray: 1993 CETI cells; Order of the Tortoise Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Rich: I would appreciate an opportunity to respond to Jed Rothwell's comments concerning me, to wit: "You remind me of Steve Jones. He still claims that all cold fusion claims, including McKubre's, are caused by recombination. When a person ignores corrections and circulat[es] the same mistakes for years, I suspect he is not interested in the truth." [Jed Rothwell to Rich Murray, forwarded to Jones 21 Nov. 1997] Mr. Rothwell is incorrect in his statements. I never claimed that ALL cold fusion claims are caused by recombination, nor do I believe or claim that at this time. Recent publications to the contrary demonstrate that I (with colleagues) have studied and published numerous possible and probable errors in calorimetry by those claiming cold-fusion excess heat. These include: 1. Journal Phys. Chem. 99:6966-6972, Steven Jones and Lee Hansen, "Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments." Here we delineate problems in the Miles calorimeter such as "The heat leak paths from Miles calorimeters are neither well-defined nor constant with time or cell conditions. ... there are multiple heat leak paths that carry major fractions of the heat transferred in both designs. Furthermore, these paths have greatly different time constants." Additional detailed discussion of Miles' calorimetry problmes is given. We concluded "Miles' results simply illustrate the problem of sorting calorimetric errors from real effects in a poorly designed calorimeter." Thus, many systematic errors in addition to recombination need to be checked, as we emphasized in the paper. 2. Jonathon Jones, Lee Hansen, Steven Jones, David Shelton and James Thorne, "Faradaic Efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water ...", J. Phys. Chem 99:6973-6979, 1995. Here we delineate several probable errors in 'excess heat' experiments, along with recombination as one possibility (not the only possibility). In particular, we present results of our study of the Notoya excess-heat demo. at the Nagoya CF conference. By on-the-spot measurements, we "discovered that a resistance of 2.0 ohms in the heater leads accounted for 36% of the total resistance in the control cell heater circuit. In contrast, power loss was negligible in the leads to the electrolysis cell. Thus, 36% of the total power going to the control cell was being dissipated from the leads into the air, and not into the control cell... The temperature difference in this demonstration did not clearly indicate excess heat but rather experimental error." Here is a clear and pointed example of systematic error that did not, however, involve recombination -- nor did I ever claim that recombination was the source of error in the Notoya work! Jed is just incorrect in his statement above, as I have shown again. 3. Our latest paper appears in Thermo. Acta 297:7-15; published in 1997. Jed must have missed this one, for it describes experiments in which we push to several watts of power and find (empirically) numerous errors which can creep in to give the false impression of excess heat. Here we note that "thermal gradients present in the solution or the surroundings could greatly influence the results. This systematic error may also be the basis for claims of 'excess heat' in flow calorimeters such as those of McKubre." Aha! This is what we said of McKubre's work. Demonstrably, then, Mr. Rothwell is lying or incorrect when he writes: "..Steve Jones. He still claims that all cold fusion claims, including McKubre's, are caused by recombination." (Rothwell, cited above.) This is not the case. Indeed, I never claimed that. Yours truly, Professor Steven E. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 17:42:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA10896; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:38:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:38:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:38:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711280138.TAA22432 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Steven Jones: CF calorimetry errors Resent-Message-ID: <"FOsFx2.0.Ag2.82YVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13305 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:09 PM 11/27/97 -0600, Rich Murray wrote: >From: "STEVE JONES" re: the Notoya excess-heat demo >we discovered that a resistance of 2.0 ohms in the heater leads >accounted for 36% of the total resistance in the control cell heater >circuit. In contrast, power loss was negligible in the leads to the >electrolysis cell. Thus, 36% of the total power going to the control >cell was being dissipated from the leads into the air, and not into >the control cell... This is a good example of what I recently referred to as "hidden systematic errors". Of course it was only hidden until Steve Jones found it. Wires are usually in the milliohm range. You've got to be pretty diligent to go around measuring the voltage drop across all the wires in your experiment! Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 18:04:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA05885; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:01:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:01:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <347E25A9.22EC math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:00:09 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Steven Jones: CF calorimetry errors References: <199711280138.TAA22432 natasha.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YRHlk.0.tR1.RNYVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13306 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > > re: the Notoya excess-heat demo > > >[Jones] discovered that a resistance of 2.0 ohms in the heater leads > >accounted for 36% of the total resistance in the control cell heater > > ...Wires are usually in the milliohm range.... Unless they are heater wire such as nichrome resistance wire, which for useful gauges has a resistance of ~ 1 ohm/foot, and can be as high as ~ 1 ohm/inch. Because of this, when I built my Patterson cell, I took great pains to have all the resistance wire located within the flow. I guess I should have been more sloppy and I could have gotten good results like the Notoya demo. > You've got to be pretty diligent to go > around measuring the voltage drop across all the wires > in your experiment! > Actually, that is the *least* I would expect from anyone who claims to have an experiment demonstrating a heretofore unkown form of energetic reaction. Any group that would put forth a public demo without doing that deserves the harshest criticism. It is simply very sloppy science...bordering on non-science (and nonsense) I would say. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 18:56:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23052; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:52:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 18:52:52 -0800 From: ehammond pacbell.net Message-ID: <347F83FF.7EB9 pacbell.net> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:54:55 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-PBME (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden References: <01BCFB0E.E2934EF0.JoeC transmutation.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jDDCm1.0.6e5.38ZVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13307 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Could you give me a experimental procedure a sixth grader could follow to prove your principles? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 19:03:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23865; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:01:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:01:58 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128110141.00747e74 cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Sender: jwinter cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:01:41 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: John Winterflood Subject: Re: Steven Jones: CF calorimetry errors In-Reply-To: <347E25A9.22EC math.ucla.edu> References: <199711280138.TAA22432 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ldvZp3.0.kq5.bGZVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13308 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: >Scott Little wrote: >> >> re: the Notoya excess-heat demo >> >> >[Jones] discovered that a resistance of 2.0 ohms in the heater leads >> >accounted for 36% of the total resistance in the control cell heater >> >> ...Wires are usually in the milliohm range.... > >Unless they are heater wire such as nichrome resistance wire, >which for useful gauges has a resistance of ~ 1 ohm/foot, >and can be as high as ~ 1 ohm/inch. Because of this, when >I built my Patterson cell, I took great pains to have all the >resistance wire located within the flow. I guess I should >have been more sloppy and I could have gotten good results >like the Notoya demo. > >> You've got to be pretty diligent to go >> around measuring the voltage drop across all the wires >> in your experiment! >> A four-wire arrangement solves the problems of voltage drops along heavy current wires. You have two wires carrying the current, and two separate wires running back for sensing across the load. They carry negligible current and thus you get a correct reading of the voltage between the points where they are connected. Rather a well known and standard technique. You will find it on typical high- current power supplies (ie 5Volts at 50Amps). There will be "sense +" and "sense -" connections for the voltage regulator to sense the voltage at the point where it is actually delivered to the computer backplane or whatever. The power supply thus puts out maybe 5.5 or 6.5 volts on its main terminals so that when it arrives at the backplane it is well regulated to 5.0 volts. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 20:14:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17629; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:11:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:11:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347E3672.59CA earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:11:46 -0600 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 Subject: Britz: George & Arata & Zhang Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"qGgft2.0.NJ4.eHaVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13309 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!mr.net!visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.flash.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news.daimi.aau.dk!kemi.aau.dk!britz From: "d.b" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Murray: Eightth Miley Critique; Bush Fe-57 anomaly; Merriman praise; Rothwell apology. Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:42:26 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Message-ID: References: <347AB868.358 earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: kemi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: britz kemi.aau.dk In-Reply-To: <347AB868.358 earthlink.net> On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Rich Murray wrote: [...] > Can anyone provide independent confirmation of the exciting news that > Russ George [rgeorge hooked.net] is collaborating with Arata and Zhang, > and that both their He production results have been and are being > confirmed at a major laboratory? I can confirm that he says he is collaborating with A&Z, because he told me so in an email he sent me not long ago. He did not say anything about results, however. From the nature of the correspondence with him, I deduce that he is not physically present in their labs, however, so it may be collaboration at a distance. -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 22:24:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11551; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:21:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:21:04 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:21:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711280621.AAA06914 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Jed, is this your Miles? Resent-Message-ID: <"QDzUz3.0.Pq2.FBcVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13310 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:09 PM 11/27/97 -0600, Rich Murray wrote: >From: "STEVE JONES" >1. Journal Phys. Chem. 99:6966-6972, Steven Jones and Lee Hansen, >"Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold >Fusion Experiments." >Additional detailed discussion of Miles' calorimetry problmes is >given. We concluded "Miles' results simply illustrate the problem of sorting >calorimetric errors from real effects in a poorly designed calorimeter." Wait a minute, I thought Miles' work was one of Jed's favorite high-sigma replications of the CF excess heat effect! Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Nov 27 22:38:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA01348; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:34:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:34:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <347EE932.6C66 bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:54:26 -0800 From: "Terry J. Blanton" Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: CF on Strange Universe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NcdcV2.0.zK.YNcVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13311 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts, Vorts! Dr. Eugene Mallove did his usually superb job advocating CF on the syndicated TV program Strange Universe yesterday. I think Gene has a future in broadcasting! The show also mentioned that Dr. Hal Fox's lab is the same lab that Fleischmann and Pons used. I was unaware of that. SU also said that Hal was selling a test cell for $3,000. Did they confuse him with Ragland, CETI or the CG? Or is Dr. Fox selling demonstration cells also? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 00:19:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA23880; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:14:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:14:23 -0800 X-ROUTED: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 03:10:54 -0500 X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula Message-ID: <347E03FF.5A2FFF7F southconn.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:36:32 -0800 From: steve/paula Organization: Sisters of Silicon, Inc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Question on Grigg's Device References: <347E028A.368A2E12 southconn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ztYuj2.0.zq5.UrdVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13312 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: steve/paula wrote: Has anyone any knowledge whether Griggs, or anyone else, has used any fluid besides water in a device of this type (am thinking of oil, in particular)...also would like to know if anyone knows the spacing of the holes, and the inner and outer drum spacing...thanks.. ....steve From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 04:23:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA10362; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:10:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:10:53 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128070651.006c2eb0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:06:51 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Jed, is this your Miles? In-Reply-To: <199711280621.AAA06914 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ZcLgo2.0.qX2.CJhVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13313 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:21 AM 11/28/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >At 04:09 PM 11/27/97 -0600, Rich Murray wrote: >>From: "STEVE JONES" > >>1. Journal Phys. Chem. 99:6966-6972, Steven Jones and Lee Hansen, >>"Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold >>Fusion Experiments." > >>Additional detailed discussion of Miles' calorimetry problmes is >>given. We concluded "Miles' results simply illustrate the problem of sorting >>calorimetric errors from real effects in a poorly designed calorimeter." > >Wait a minute, I thought Miles' work was one of Jed's favorite high-sigma >replications of the CF excess heat effect! > >Scott > Dr. Miles' (US NAVY) work is excellent. The complaint posted here made comments which were fully addressed, but the comments addressing the "critique" was not posted here. In fact, several responses have been made, and several published in the COLD FUSION TIMES. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 04:29:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA11858; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:24:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:24:42 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128072040.006d1514 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:20:40 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Jed, is this your Miles? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_hf8h3.0.4v2.9WhVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13314 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:21 AM 11/28/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: > >Wait a minute, I thought Miles' work was one of Jed's favorite high-sigma >replications of the CF excess heat effect! > Since the discussion has been focused on calorimetry by Scott Little, here is a comment in response to Scott's TV appearance two weeks ago. Scott, could you please explain the following? It is curious based upon the TV show, that it appears that you implied that because YOU cant make a good calorimeter with a completely stable baseline, (the pink/red output) that you, Scott, do publically infer that ALL the other researchers must have similar errors (wink ). Why should YOUR inability to make a stable baseline, have anything to do with serious researchers who are less interested in TV than yourself, but more interested in the slow scientific accumulation of data? Do you agree that if you make better noise free equipment you might have an improved opportunity to examine the conditions under which ZPE (or CF, etc)may manifest itself? Do you still adhere to your belief that these reactions MUST be SO high in rate, that the power generated MUST be so massive that your noisy equipment (as you pointed out on the TV show, and as your web page indicates) is not important? Thank you very much for clarifying this important matter. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 05:41:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA29690; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:38:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:38:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711281338.IAA25854 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: CF on Strange Universe Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 08:46:01 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: , "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"fxpSt3.0.qF7.6biVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13315 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Gnorts, Vorts! > >Dr. Eugene Mallove did his usually superb job advocating CF on the >syndicated TV program Strange Universe yesterday. I think Gene has a >future in broadcasting! > Thanks, Terry -- I did not know when the program was to be broadcast. It was taped some months ago. Did anyone tape it and could I purchase a tape from you? The test cell discussed was a Cincinnati Group cell. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 06:41:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03472; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:35:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:35:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:34:50 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711281434.IAA08638 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Jed, is this your Miles? Resent-Message-ID: <"qi21J3.0.7s.OQjVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13316 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:20 AM 11/28/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > Do you still adhere to your belief that these reactions MUST be >SO high in rate, that the power generated MUST be so >massive that your noisy equipment (as you pointed out on the >TV show, and as your web page indicates) is not important? As I recall, the last time we were discussing the wanderings in our baselines, you were arguing that they might be indications of low-level excess heat. Did seeing it explained on TV help you? Since you got so much out of that show, Mitch, can you tell us what the magnitude of that error was? It was so small that that even the lowest level of excess heat you claim to be produced by your "tested Pi-notch" Ni electrodes (advertised in your Cold Fusion Times) would make that "wandering" trace shoot off-scale vertically!! We are still keenly interested in testing one of your electrodes, Mitchell. We are willing to purchase it from you in order to facilitate preparation and delivery. There is no question that our calorimeter is sufficiently sensitive and stable to confirm your excess heat claims...or are you worried that the actual heat output will be 20 times less than you advertise in Cold Fusion Times? 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 06:59:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28323; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:53:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:53:32 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128094928.006b6850 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:49:28 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Jed, is this your Miles? In-Reply-To: <199711281434.IAA08638 natasha.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"IKQxH2.0.Ew6.hhjVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13317 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:34 AM 11/28/97 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >At 07:20 AM 11/28/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >> Do you still adhere to your belief that these reactions MUST be >>SO high in rate, that the power generated MUST be so >>massive that your noisy equipment (as you pointed out on the >>TV show, and as your web page indicates) is not important? > >As I recall, the last time we were discussing the wanderings in our >baselines, you were arguing that they might be indications of low-level >excess heat. Did seeing it explained on TV help you? > Oh no, Mr. Little. But thank you for the opportunity to distinguish between the two. Your noise is NOISE. You may be proud of it, but it masks good experiments as well as the Bernard instability that amplifies the effect in vertical flow calorimeters at low flow rates. In contrast to the NOISE issue, Scott, I pointed out to you previously that after examining your data, and attempting to eliminate the noise (which is better done BEFORE and DURING the experiment), there was evidence that there might be low excess heat output at the lower drive levels. Too bad you still dont understand the difference, and have refused to answer the questions, or look more closely at the experiment in that range which is under the pi-notch. Suggest, Scott, that you do not attempt to fool the good people of vortex with any notion other than your wavy baselines (coupled with no long term initial data in the post info we've seen)are other than a failure to stabilize the baseline. That is elementary thermometry, and must be mastered before calorimetry. BTW, your interests in zero point energy, and "remote viewing" at Earthtech apparently dont require the diligence required for careful thermometry and calorimetry. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 07:51:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03288; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:47:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:47:08 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:46:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971128104631_-221213064 mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Znidarsic vers Puthoff Resent-Message-ID: <"o6O3O1.0.Bp.xTkVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13318 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Indeed! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 08:53:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15730; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:46:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:46:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:37:46 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Patterson used IV pump Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711281142_MC2-29FA-5AF8 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"uW8GE.0.er3._KlVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13319 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:mica world.std.com Mitchell Swartz writes: . . .here is what the larger Omega Flow and Level Handbook (a catalog actually as well) indicates. Now back to the purported "data for accuracy, etc. at 1.5 ml/hr". You looked at the wrong book. See my reference: "Peristaltic Pumping," Watson-Marlow, Inc., Omega Engineering catalog Vol 29, Supplement, p. F-103 That's the Supplement book, not Flow and Level. It refers to the 1.5 ml/hr on page F-105. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 08:54:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13676; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:50:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:50:39 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128114632.006b7e18 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:46:32 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Patterson used IV pump Cc: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199711281142_MC2-29FA-5AF8 compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_G7E02.0.XL3.UPlVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13322 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:37 AM 11/28/97 -0500, Jed wrote: >You looked at the wrong book. See my reference: > >"Peristaltic Pumping," Watson-Marlow, Inc., Omega Engineering catalog Vol >29, Supplement, p. F-103 > >That's the Supplement book, not Flow and Level. It refers to the 1.5 ml/hr on >page F-105. > Thank you, Jed. Will get it. They certainly have a voluminous literature. Best wishes. Mitchell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 08:54:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16540; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:50:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:50:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:37:58 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: More nonsense from Steve Jones Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711281142_MC2-29FA-5AF9 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6EZsC.0.M24.WPlVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13321 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little notes that Steve Jones wrote 1. Journal Phys. Chem. 99:6966-6972, Steven Jones and Lee Hansen, "Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments." He comments: Wait a minute, I thought Miles' work was one of Jed's favorite high-sigma replications of the CF excess heat effect! That is correct. If you read papers by Miles and Jones you will see that the Jones critique has no merit. Read both, think for yourself. Elsewhere, Jones claimed that he "discovered" that "a resistance of 2.0 ohms in the heater leads accounted for 36% of the total resistance in the control cell heater circuit." in the Notoya demo. Scott Little immediately buys his statement. Perhaps he is one of these "skeptics" who never questions, doubts, or even checks a claim made by another "skeptic." He writes: This is a good example of what I recently referred to as "hidden systematic errors". Of course it was only hidden until Steve Jones found it. . . . This is nonsense. Jones found nothing. He rearranged the demo and tried to measure resistance indirectly when Notoya was away -- without her permission. She returned, put it back the way it was, whipped out a proper meter, and showed that the Jones' claims had no merit. He has been bragging about it ever since. Dieter Britz used this farcical exchange as an excuse to accuse me of staging a hoax. This was a remarkable accusation when you consider that I had nothing to do with her, I never saw, heard of or touched the gadget prior to the demo, and I subsequently published several reports showing that she was unable to replicate her own work. Jones denies that he constantly beats the recombination drum. I do not follow his messages closely. The last time I recall he did that was a few years ago when he posted several messages on s.p.f. claiming that "recombination" can explain the CETI Power-Gen demo. John Logajan is the most patient person I know, but I recall that even he got tired of reading this barrage of misinformation. I will not bother to dig up the messages or discuss this any further. The formal papers by Jones are so full of mistakes and deliberate misinformation you do not need to look at his Internet messages to judge his work. Of course, Scott Little does not need to read the papers. He reads the titles and he automatically assumes that Jones is right and Miles is wrong. Apparently he judges these papers by clairvoyance, which is fast and convenient and easier than actually reading them. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 08:54:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA12936; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:47:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:47:20 -0800 Message-ID: <347EE7CD.6FCB earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:48:29 -0600 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 Subject: [Fwd: Murray respects copyright not to repost] Content-Type: message/news Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"I5ur73.0.-93.NMlVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13320 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Path: nntp.earthlink.net!usenet From: Rich Murray Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Murray respects copyright not to repost Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:23:26 -0600 Organization: Room For All Message-ID: <347E392E.1389 earthlink.net> Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.254.197.114 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) Nov. 27, 1997 Dear Jim Carr and others, I will honor all requests by authors not to repost their messages from sci.physics.fusion or private email or Vortex-L, etc. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 09:00:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15188; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:58:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:58:18 -0800 Message-ID: <347F7B06.23EC bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:17:16 -0800 From: "Terry J. Blanton" Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "E.F. Mallove" Subject: Re: CF on Strange Universe References: <199711281338.IAA25854 mercury.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"J4Yt41.0.Ej3.eWlVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13323 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: E.F. Mallove wrote: > Thanks, Terry -- I did not know when the program was to be broadcast. It > was taped some months ago. Did anyone tape it and could I purchase a tape > from you? I'm home fighting a bout of urticaria probably due to something I ate yesterday; so, I duped a copy of your segment. I'll get it in Monday's mail, gratis; although, successful samples from your Champion furnance would not be unwelcomed. > The test cell discussed was a Cincinnati Group cell. That's what I suspected. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 09:28:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18042; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:18:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:18:10 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCFBE7.53EE3AF0.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:21:01 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BNx2n3.0.jP4.GplVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13324 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: ehammond pacbell.net [SMTP:ehammond@pacbell.net] Could you give me a experimental procedure a sixth grader could follow to prove your principles? One of the most repeatable laboratory experiments can be found at: http://207.204.154.98/student.htm Joe Champion Tel: 602-951-6816 Fax: 602-607-3689 JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 10:07:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27485; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:59:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:59:01 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:53:34 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Patterson used IV pump Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711281258_MC2-29FA-61B5 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gCDqV.0.Kj6.ZPmVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13326 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitch writes: "They [Omega] certainly have a voluminous literature." Yeah, and it is repetitive too. Huge full page color spreads are repeated in three or four books. It is a waste of paper. Their home page, www.omega.com, also has voluminous information from the catalogs. The home page has some technical papers, including an interesting one on the water hammer effect, but it does not have this paper on peristaltic pumps. I can't find it there, anyway. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 10:10:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27452; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:58:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:58:55 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:53:23 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Murray respects copyright not to repost Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711281258_MC2-29FA-61B4 compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"0xf8m3.0.si6.UPmVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13325 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray says he will "honor all requests by authors not to repost their messages from sci.physics.fusion or private email or Vortex-L, etc." This is a trivial matter, but those requests do not constitute a "copyright" (per Murray's message header). If you want to copyright a document you have to write on it: "Copyright [name of copyright holder], [year]." Congress recently revised the copyright laws. Please note that a copyright is not absolute. The so-called "fair use" interpretations of the law allow you to quote messages without permission in reviews, news reports in some cases, for non-profit educational use, and so on. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 10:17:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA31369; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:14:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:14:38 -0800 Message-Id: <199711281814.NAA23672 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: CF on Strange Universe Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 13:22:40 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: , "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"0shJH1.0.0g7.CemVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13327 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I'm home fighting a bout of urticaria probably due to something I ate >yesterday; so, I duped a copy of your segment. I'll get it in Monday's >mail, gratis; although, successful samples from your Champion furnance >would not be unwelcomed. > Thanks, Terry! If we get any gold coming out of the furnace, we will not be stingy in disseminating samples , but those would be tiny, indeed. I wonder whether Joe and Barry, reportedly now "joined at the hip," would be able to distribute a few grams of gold from their commercial reactors? Certainly this would not break anyone's bank. Issue #15/16 is coming back from the printer next Monday (128 pages). They'll all go out immediately via bulk mail -- except to a few of our more active information-dispersing nodes. 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 10:29:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00287; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:22:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:22:45 -0800 Message-Id: <199711281823.NAA24343 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Cold fusion poster placement Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 13:31:19 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"lFQIZ.0.K4.plmVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13328 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Points of information: Since I'm an old hand at observing TV producers and their information-disinformation techniques, I would like to ask Scott Little how it came to be that the Cold Fusion poster (from the May 1989 Santa Fe meeting) was so conveniently in view of the camera during some of the discussions? Questions: 1. Was the poster there before the camera crew arrived? 2. If not, who decided to put it there? 3. Was there discussion of cold fusion and its possible mechanisms put on tape that was not aired? Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 11:05:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04252; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:49:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:49:42 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:48:45 -0500 From: Debbie Subject: Re: CF on Strange Universe Sender: Debbie To: Vortex Message-ID: <199711281348_MC2-2A02-2C3E compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA04231 Resent-Message-ID: <"yBQH4.0.L21.59nVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13329 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry, >>I'm home fighting a bout of urticaria probably due to something I ate yesterday; so, I duped a copy of your segment.<< You get today off, anyway, you silly contractors. Us *real* government contractors have to work. (Or at least be in the office!) Too much sushi? Any chance I can get a copy? >>successful samples from your Champion furnance would not be unwelcomed. << Isn't that illegal? Or do you have a permit to carry 'em? Debbie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 11:51:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13537; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:43:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:43:32 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCFBFB.A431EE30.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: CF on Strange Universe Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:46:25 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iNtM-2.0.RJ3.ZxnVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13331 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Debbie [SMTP:Debbie_Hagar compuserve.com] >>successful samples from your Champion furnance would not be unwelcomed. << Isn't that illegal? Or do you have a permit to carry 'em? In the '70's Congress passed a law saying that private citizens could own gold. Assuming that this is true, it would not be illegal, nor require a permit. Of course when they passed this law, they did not understand the difference between mined gold and transmuted gold! Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 11:52:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12923; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:40:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:40:08 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCFBFB.2888AC60.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: CF on Strange Universe Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:42:58 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"HgLN22.0.n93.MunVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13330 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: E.F. Mallove [SMTP:editor infinite-energy.com] I wonder whether Joe and Barry, reportedly now "joined at the hip," would be able to distribute a few grams of gold from their commercial reactors? Certainly this would not break anyone's bank. Gene, Supplying gold is not a problem. The question is - "What can anyone learn from analysis?" Au = Au. To my knowledge it is not radioactive (years of test on this one). Au has only one isotope (197) and an established density. Point being, studies of Au may not be that interesting. However Pt with its multitude of stable isotopes would make for an interesting study. Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 12:14:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05119; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:06:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:06:30 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:04:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971128150445_1873736347 mrin38> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cold fusion poster placement Resent-Message-ID: <"paiqE.0.lF1._GoVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13332 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/28/97 7:04:45 PM, Gene Mallove asked (with regard to Cold Fusion poster in background in our lab of the PBS Sci. Am. Frontiers presentation): <<1. Was the poster there before the camera crew arrived? Yes, been there for a number of years. 2. If not, who decided to put it there? See above. 3. Was there discussion of cold fusion and its possible mechanisms put on tape that was not aired?>> I don't recall anything coming up about cold fusion during taping. Off taping I might have mentioned that I thought that some of the reported cold fusion results might be zero-point energy conversion instead. However, they were really interested only in ZPE ideas, and the various tests we were carrying out to obtain experimental evidence for its applicability as an energy resource. There was quite a bit of taping on ZPE as the mechanism behind inertia, and its possible connection to gravity, but this ended up on the cutting room floor. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 12:48:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22959; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:42:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:42:27 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:41:37 +0100 (MET) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More nonsense from Steve Jones In-Reply-To: <199711281142_MC2-29FA-5AF9 compuserve.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"dCpIb2.0.dc5.nooVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13333 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Scott Little notes that Steve Jones wrote 1. Journal Phys. Chem. > 99:6966-6972, Steven Jones and Lee Hansen, "Examination of Claims of Miles et > al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments." He comments: > I might have got this mixed up with another Jones/Miles encounter but I distinctly remember a situation where Miles was not allowed to respond to the Jones et al. rebuttal. Deiter Britz spent some time looking into it. At one stage he called the situation a potential "scandal". Once again my recollection is that put the episode down to mis-understandings but the bottom line is that Miles never got back into print to refute the Jones rebuttal. To my knowledge Jones still does not know why Miles says his arguments are invalid. One has to be VERY careful of taking statements from some people at face value. It is one of the fascinating and infuriating aspects of this whole saga. There's nuggets of knowledge hidden in these mounds of information. There are certainly people who will jump at any straw at both ends of the believer/skeptic spectrum. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 13:30:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA32461; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:21:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:21:28 -0800 From: ehammond pacbell.net Message-ID: <348087D2.41D4 pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:23:30 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-PBME (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden References: <01BCFBE7.53EE3AF0.JoeC transmutation.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FBhMR.0.1x7.NNpVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13334 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some of the ingredents seem to be toxic. What precautions should be taken during the expeiment? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 13:44:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18773; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:41:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:41:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:37:19 -0500 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: More nonsense from Steve Jones Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com Message-ID: <199711281639_MC2-29F8-8D7F compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gJZ-a1.0.Bb4.pfpVq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13335 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: I might have got this mixed up with another Jones/Miles encounter but I distinctly remember a situation where Miles was not allowed to respond to the Jones et al. rebuttal. That's the one. They published without telling Miles. That is highly unusual. In academic journals it is customary to let an author see a paper like this in advance, and let him comment on it and include a letter or a formal rebuttal in the same issue. After the paper came out Miles wrote a rebuttal. They turned it down. They would not even accept a letter. He campaigned for years to overrule the decision. I think he mentioned the other day that it was finally accepted, but maybe I am wrong about that. I'll ask him. They gave strange reasons for turning down the Miles rebuttal. One amusing example was that Miles cited an article in the LaRouche magazine "21st Century Science and Technology." A referee said that magazine has no scientific credibility. Miles pointed out that Jones cited the same article! (It was a debate between Jones and Miles. I cited it and quoted from it in my I.E. review, which will be mailed Monday.) To my knowledge Jones still does not know why Miles says his arguments are invalid. Oh, he knows! Miles circulated it to him. One has to be VERY careful of taking statements from some people at face value. Yeah, and there is never a need to take statements at face value. You can get both papers, read them, meditate for months, ask questions, and then pick sides. There are certainly people who will jump at any straw at both ends of the believer/skeptic spectrum. Yup. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 15:47:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25407; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:46:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:46:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199711282346.SAA26166 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: Cold fusion poster placement Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 18:54:38 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: "VORTEX" , "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"Zu8ZN.0.tC6.wUrVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13337 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks, Hal. Your response answers all my questions. Best wishes, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 15:47:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24733; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:41:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:41:52 -0800 Message-ID: <347FD995.4158 bellsouth.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:00:05 -0800 From: "Terry J. Blanton" Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CF on Strange Universe References: <199711281348_MC2-2A02-2C3E compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Fl7iX3.0.N26.-QrVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13336 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Debbie wrote: > You get today off, anyway, you silly contractors. Us *real* government > contractors have to work. (Or at least be in the office!) Nope, this gov't consultant took vacation. Hekuva way to spend it. > Too much sushi? Don't know what caused it. Thank God for Benadryl. > Any chance I can get a copy? I'll pick up some blanks tomorrow. Gene photographs well. Watch out, Tom Selleck! Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 16:50:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02415; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:44:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:44:05 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:43:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971128194327_1315653296 mrin38> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: News from Blacklightpower website Resent-Message-ID: <"2CPml.0.Vb.JLsVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13338 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: All, The following (and much more) was posted at the BLP website on 11-26-1997 http://www.blacklightpower.com/newinfo.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ October 1, 1997 SECOND SHAREHOLDER NEWSLETTER '97 (Edited for General Distribution) Corporate The Company has raised $10,620,000 in its most recent private placement offerings. A second offering was prepared to absorb the oversubscription of the March 1997 offering. The company projects that it has sufficient capital to execute its plan to develop the Self Sustaining Cell, obtain UV spectroscopic validation of its process, obtain patent issuance, and develop engineering designs for a "converter." Following the achievement of these milestones, the Company is optimistic that an OEM auction, for a manufacturing license with rights to lease power equipment only, will substantially capitalize the Company. With substantial positive cash flow, the Company may consider an initial public offering ("IPO") to fund a rapid expansion of the business. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Cell Development/Recent Demonstrations SCALED-UP HYDROGEN GAS POWER CELL PROTOTYPE The design and research on the hydrogen gas energy cell has culminated in a scaled-up prototype energy cell design. The goal is a BlackLight power cell which operates in a self sustaining manner ("Self Sustaining Cell") defined as producing sufficient power to maintain the operating temperature without input power to heat the reaction chamber. A high temperature test bed consisting of a vacuum furnace and supporting equipment has been designed and is being installed in conjunction with the scaled up prototype energy cell. The test bed will be capable of serving as a platform for continuing evolution of cell geometry toward configurations required for commercial applications. With successful operation of the prototype energy cell, design and installation of an additional test bed with provisions for further cell development including forced convection cooling is anticipated. The Company is continuing to review concept design options for application of hydrogen gas energy cells and is developing application patents for options likely to be pursued for early commercialization. The basic cell technology, test facility design and operation experience, and application patents will be used to develop and support joint ventures with the objective of accelerating the commercialization of the hydrogen gas energy cells. The Company is also pursuing the identification of lower-energy hydrogen transitions by ultraviolet (UV) emission spectroscopy to be confirmed at a European physics institute by a leading expert in UV spectroscopy. The Company believes this will provide definitive confirmation of the BlackLight process. The Company anticipates that successful test results from its Self Sustaining Cell and UV spectroscopy, and patent issuance all projected for the first quarter of 1998 will permit the Company to establish joint ventures and/or licensing agreements for the commercial use of the hydrogen gas energy cells. <> (to avoid all using all the vortex bandwidth) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There is much more info contained in the Blacklight Power News Page. The above is just the first two paragraphs. Interesting reading. Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 18:01:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13562; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:57:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:57:54 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:59:33 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"nUSfs3.0.qJ3.XQtVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13339 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Speculations Regarding Orbital Stressing Mechanisms An Edited Collection of November, 1979 Vortex Posts by Horace Heffner One reason bound electron capture (E.C.) rates are small is the fact that the probability that electrons occupy the nucleus is small. This is due primarily to the quantized mechanics of the atom. After all, if it weren't for the mechanics the electrons would simply fall into the nucleus and all matter would collapse. Typically the net translational force between the nucleus and the electron cloud is zero. The nucleus occupies a neutral position in the electron cloud, called the center of charge of the cloud. This center of charge can be displaced, however. This displacement can be accomplished by applying an electric field, for example. In that case the nucleus and center of charge find a new equilibrium point, where the force of external electric field is balanced with the force from the center of charge. If a sufficient force can be exerted on the nucleus relative to the electron cloud, the center of charge can also be made to displace from the nucleus. In this case an electric field is generated by the atom. Such a displacement can be generated by gravitational or inertial forces. Electrostatic fields can be generated by use of centrifuges using this principle, for example. The main thought here is that when the center of charge is displaced, the nucleus should then occupy a volume of the electron probability distribution, psi^2, that is much larger than the neutral zone. If this is the case, then the probability of electron capture should be measurably higher. Here are the basic practical methods of displacing the nucleus on a continual basis in order to affect the rate of electron capture: (a) Apply a strong electrostatic force (b) Use centrifugal force by placing sample in a centrifuge or rotating it (c) Rattle the sample with ultrasonics (d) Rattle the sample with electrostatics (e) Rattle the sample with electromagnetics (f) A hybrid of the above Note that (a) may be a clue as to why the Barker experiment, increasing decay rates of radio isotopes by placing them on the edge of a charged empty sphere, may work. Of further interest may be the fact that at the interface, the layer at the surface of an electrode in an electrolysis cell, enormous electrostatic field gradients occur, even though the total voltage differential is small. However, there are means for greatly increasing the voltage differential and field gradient, so maybe these should be explored further with the aim of creating electron capture and energy production or transmutation effects. As suggested by Frank Stenger (vortex posting 11:25 PM 11/18/97), a suitable microwave wave guide arrangement could provide a rotation rate of 2400 MHz, or 144,000,000,000 rpm. However, without some way to spin up to that angular velocity, it is unlikely the nuclei could ever catch up. There is also the problem of heat generated. One possibility to explore is making the whole electron lattice vibrate in synch, though the amplitude would be small and the frequency very fast. The sample might be suspended in a vacuum between fibers, or magnetically suspended. Other possible problems are radiation, and resistance heating, due to the lattice electrons vibrating back and forth. It does seem that the electron capture rate should go up measurably though, even if the sample is only shaken acoustically, or placed in a strong gradient. The combination of the two is even better. So, if that can work, it seems like spinning at 144,000,000,000 rpm, if it is possible, should work well. However, since the nuclei are 1000 times heavier, assuming the idea can work at all, the electron cages are, for the most part, going to move around the nuclei as a single lattice unit. Thus the amount of mass involved in motion is small, which is good for creating higher speed action. The hard part, it seems, is keeping the lattice electron motion uniform throughout the sample, thus avoiding heat loss. To achieve (f) above, a hybrid approach, one method may be to get the nucleus to slide around inside the cloud like a piece of ice inside a basketball, thus generating centrifugal force to displace the nucleus relative to the cloud. Here's a design: o--------o---------------------- HV AC | --- | | | | ------ \/\/\/ | | | T1 ====== | -----| Sample |--- /\/\/\ | | | | | | | | | ------ | | --|----- | | | | | | | | | | o---------|------o-------------- | | | ------------------------------ Note that T1 may be air core or replaced with other circuitry which can maintain the horizontal and vertical plates 90 degrees out of phase. The main objective is to create a rotating electrostatic field (that possibly initially increases in frequency) that drags the nuclei along around in circles inside their atoms. One interesting fact of this approach is that there appears to be no resonant frequency involved, except secondarily. If the nucleus did not slide around the cloud uniformly, due to heat effects for example, then the rotational energy could be diverted into the nucleus rattling around bouncing off the walls, an effect which would initially have its own resonant frequency, depending on the atom, and eventually result in heat. Placing the atom in a strong magnetic field would at least tend to divert such rattling around into a plane perpendicular to the magnetic field, and provide a chance for the nucleus to come back into synch. Combining these thoughts, such a device might best operate at the resonant frequency for the atom, with a strong magnetic field coming out of the page in the drawing above. Some things are bothersome about the fact E.C. does not occur where conservation of energy (C of E) forbids it, and even some cases where it does not. What are the mechanics of this conservation? If an e and p are within range of operation of the weak force, then what mechanism prevents the reaction? It seems the reaction might take place within the boundaries of the time in which borrowed energy is available from the uncertainty principle, but that would be an extremely short period of time - and there is the problem of that escaping neutrino. If any sizable delay of the electron inside the nucleus can be made to exist, especially in hydrogen, then a possible mechanism for permitting the nucleus to tunnel through a coulomb barrier into another nucleus then also exists. More significantly, it seems to me that if some portion of a stable nucleus can undergo an E.C., which then makes the nucleus unstable with respect to the two portions, the E.C. capturing portion, and the remaining portion, then fission can be produced by that electron capture. If E.C. can result in fission, then there is an open question as to whether the energy of the fission might be used to negate the impossibility of the reaction due to C of E. It seems unfortunate that the heavy isotopes subject to E.C., regardless of other decay pathways involved, with few exceptions, have very short half lives, and thus are not a problem for remediation. (Some exceptions are 149Eu 150Eu 152Eu, 157Tb, 158Tb, 163Ho, 173Lu, 174Lu, 193Pt, 194Hg, 204Tl, 202Pb, 205Pb, 207Bi and 208Bi.) This makes me wonder if possibly some alpha decays, or other decay modes, are actually precipitated by an unseen initial E.C.. The E.C. could be readily missed if any of the fission products resulted in short half life beta decays? It seems strange that the other long half life heavy nuclei, within the above isotope range between 149Eu and 205Pb, have no E.C. pathway. I know this is grasping at straws to say electrons can have a role in fission processes, but on the other hand it could explain a few things if electrons are involved in the fission process. E.C., its mechanisms per se, need not even be an issue. The issue really is more whether bound electrons may be involved in an energy exchange with the nucleus that triggers nuclear decays, especially alpha decay, in long half life heavy elements. However, the nice thing about studying E.C.s from the point of view of stimulating the atom by kinetics, heat, or EM, is that there just seems there is a direct bearing on the issue by the increased presence of the electrons in the nucleus. There is a direct bearing on the issue by the increased *energy* of the electrons being in the nucleus as well, and maybe that is more to the point when it comes to remediation. By vibrating electron shells, or a lattice as a whole, by electromagnetic stimulation, or by kinetic stimulation, the displacement of the center of charge from the nucleus should also increase the probability of orbital electrons being within the nucleus. Orbital electron(s) that enter within a nucleus carry a significant amount of energy. If a nucleus is unstable, and is suddenly endowed with the externally supplied energy of the electron interacting with the nucleus, via either the weak force or the EM force, it seems such a presence of such electrons could push the nuclear energy over a threshold and trigger a nuclear disintegration. This is an implication that half lives might be reduced by kinetic or EM stimulation, and thus has a bearing on nuclear remediation. Further, then, is the question: have bound electrons played a role in half lives all along without detection? By the orbital stressing hypothesis, decay times should decrease with increased heat. However, heat would be a very ineffective way to accomplish decay acceleration, and results would be difficult to measure. The reason for this is that an average kinetic energy of only 1 eV = 11,600 Deg. K. Further, atoms in a high state of thermal excitement would not have their nuclei exposed to maximum electron density for the full cycle either. For this reason it is more desirable to use an electrostatic method vs a thermal method, preferably in a steady state condition, to achieve higher electron concentrations in the nucleus. It seems to me the trick is to create strong electrostatic conditions without creating heat. One means to think about for achieving this may be to oscillate an entire electron matrix together simultaneously in phase. Another method is simply to attempt to maximize an electrostatic field gradient. Here is a prescription for achieving enhanced decay rates using a static field gradient: (1) Use an electrolytic cell with the reactant dissolved in the electrolyte (2) Pump the electrolyte through the cell slowly and use primarily diffusion of the cell to carry the reactant the final small distance to the electrode insulator surface and to carry away byproducts from that surface. (3) Use electrodes covered with the highest dielectric strength material available. (4) For best energy utilization use a DC cell with small or no current. The electrodes are fully insulated, so there is no current with the exception of leakage. (5) Use the thinnest possible coating that provides a reliable uniformity of breakdown potential in the environment (6) Operate the cell at the highest voltage that does not break down the electrode surface insulation. (7) The distance between electrodes has no effect on the gradient achieved at the insulator surface, but still should be minimized in order to archive maximum effect per cell volume (8) When the above is achieved the volume of material that can be processed per unit time is then just a linear function of area, so electrode area per cell volume should be maximized. (9) When the above is achieved, additional stimulation from heat, etc., to the extent it does not affect any of the above adversely, can only add to the effect. However, the benefits should be minimal in comparison to the field gradient method. The application of the basic practical methods of displacing the nucleus, and combinations of them, apply to a wide range of purported energy creating devices, and in particular, to the Mills hydrino creating devices. There should not be much tolerance, other than due to calculation accuracy, on the 27.21 eV hydrino formation energy calculated by Mills and Kneizys. Such a formation is quantized, true? Unlike bonds, which deform and have a range of quantized energies, hydrino formation should be limited to strictly the orbital energy values, i.e. the series of values corresponding to the various quantum states 1/n. Also, given that there are many 1/n states, there should be many more formation energies besides 27.21 eV. An interesting method to give rise to a wider range of energies of formation, even if only one quantum state, n fixed, is available for hydrino formation, is the application of a very strong magnetic field to the hydrino forming environment. This would deform the hydrino orbital and, if sufficient magnetic flux is available, deform the hydrino electron orbital into a Rydberg style orbital, extending parts out where orbitals become fuzzy, lose their quantized values, and where orbital hops result in randomized and continuous photon energy distributions. If emission distribution changes then so does the energy absorption distribution. It may even be possible to detect a hydrino in a sufficiently strong magnetic field, assuming hydrinos exist, of course, which would provide a good confirmation of this idea, as well as of the hydrino theory. More importantly, it may help provide a far more robust hyrino creation method, by greatly broadening the hydrino formation energy tolerance. Some possible candidate reactions for hydrino formation listed by Mills (Mills and Kneizys, Fusion Technology, Vol 20, pp 65-81,1991) and Strojny (vortex post of 11/12/97, which included prior reference) are: K + K++ ---> K+ + K+ + 27.28 eV Ti+++ + e- ----> Ti++ + 27.491 eV Rb++ + e- ----> Rb+ + 27.28 eV Li + Pd+++ ----> Li+ + Pd++ + 27.54 eV Note that if the range of energies for hydrino formation can be extended sufficiently, other prospects emerge: Al+++ + e- ----> Al++ + 28.45 eV Ar++ + e- ----> Ar+ + 27.63 eV He+ + e- ----> He + 24.59 eV C++ + e- ----> C+ + 24.38 eV Mo++ + e- ----> Mo+ + 27.13 eV In++ + e- ----> In+ + 28.03 eV Te++ + e- ----> Te+ + 27.96 eV Note that the distortion of the standard electron orbital of the catalyst electron into a Rydberg orbital may be sufficient to catalyze hydrino formation. No distortion of the hydrino orbital is required, though it is clear some distortion of even a hydrino orbital must occur in a sufficiently strong magnetic field. The combination of distortions may be sufficient to bridge the energy gap for hydrino formation catalysis, especially in the case of Ar. Ok, so all we need do is evacuate and then charge up a cell with Ar and H, place in strong B, and start an electrical discharge, preferably using Mo, Ti, or Al electrodes. Mo is better for heat characteristics. It is speculated that this will generate lots of hydrinos. One issue is the best way to manage hydrinos so they don't get away, and so they combine to make energy. One way may be to enclose the discharge tube in a large water tank. Those hydrinos that leak through discharge tube walls then get absorbed in the H2O. The H in the H2O should act as a moderator, thus permitting a hydrino buildup in the region of the discharge tube. I don't fully understand Mill's theory, but the ideas and speculations here may still be of interest. Unlike as portrayed in the Bohr and Mills standard theories, Rydberg orbitals are not simple orbitals, but very complex geometrical shapes involving multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus per orbital, at least as seen in some two dimensional projections of the Rydberg orbital. It makes some sense that such orbitals might be viewed as folded into an overtone harmonic of a Bohr orbital and it may be that (another wild conjecture) the creation of a Rydberg style orbital might be used as a preliminary step in the creation of a hydrino. which itself could be view as a folded harmonic of a Bohr orbital. Of further interest, and relevant to achieving method (f) above, the hybrid approach, is the fact that electrons in Rydberg orbitals, in addition to being driven out into non-quantized fringe areas, thus producing fuzzy spectra, are also driven in deep close to the nucleus. Thus, the near nucleus electron density is increased in a strong magnetic field. A combination of strong magnetic field combined with the increase of near nucleus density provided in Rydberg orbitals may provide significant changes in E.C. rates and other electron-nuclear interactions (e.g see my Partial Orbital Hypothesis posted on vortex earlier) - all with no energy expenditure, only the cost of establishing the static fields. The use of a strong magnetic field combined with a material sample adjacent to a strong dielectric electrostatically stressed to the maximum, has the advantage of eliminating all ongoing input energy, thus greatly simplifying calorimetry and reducing signal/noise ratio. Of course, the big question remains - does it work? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 18:17:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA15995; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:14:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:14:23 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 20:14:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711290214.UAA07698 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: More nonsense from Steve Jones Resent-Message-ID: <"oEUgP3.0.rv3.-ftVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13340 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:37 AM 11/28/97 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Of course, Scott Little does not need to read the papers. He reads the >titles and he automatically assumes that Jones is right and Miles is wrong. Calm down, I was just bringing Jone's paper up for discussion. I've got Miles' papers and they do seem pretty solid to me. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 18:30:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA17955; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:23:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:23:51 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:25:44 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"UXtsY.0.TO4.rotVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13341 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I posted "Speculations Regarding Orbital Stressing Mechanisms" because: (1) As ususal there were a bunch of ideas posted in a disjoint fashion which might have more utility put together in one document. This was an attempt to clean up my act a little anyway. (2) There were few responses to the posts. I am interested to know why. I can think of a number of reasons: (a) lack of experimental content, (b) dislike of discussing ideas for experimental approaches, (c) dislike of wild eyed speculation, (d) disdain for lack of algebraic or computational content (seems unlikely, except in a few hard core cases like FJS who doesn't like to hide the physics 8^), or maybe (e) just seems too stupid to possibly work given the mountain of accumulated history and data. It seems like (e) is the most likely, but I kind of like some of the ideas, so am curious if I am way out in left field - or over the fence and far afield. (3) Since my lab is temporarily out of comission the only fun thing left to do is write. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 20:53:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA07787; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 20:46:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 20:46:49 -0800 From: VCockeram aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:46:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971128234614_-1994246204 mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: News from Blacklightpower website Resent-Message-ID: <"SMVaG3.0.Uv1.uuvVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13342 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 97-11-28 19:52:41 EST,I wrote: << The following (and much more) was posted at the BLP website on 11-26-1997 http://www.blacklightpower.com/newinfo.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ October 1, 1997 SECOND SHAREHOLDER NEWSLETTER '97 (Edited for General Distribution) <=====edited by BLP, not I. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just wanted to make it clear, I do no editing. Vince Las Vegas <> From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 22:03:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18810; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:58:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:58:38 -0800 Message-ID: <347FAFFC.E1E82CE2 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:32:36 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Smot Mk4 Kit Update Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Wfkso.0.Tb4.CywVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13343 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I have received all 50 bases from the CNC guys and returned 35 for better polishing. I am currently testing the 15 bases I have accepted. I am testing in batches of 3, mixing the 3 bases, magnet arrays & balls in a 3 x 3 x 3 matrix (27 tests per batch). Will update the shipping schedule when I finish the testing. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 22:31:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA23507; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:22:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:22:46 -0800 Message-Id: <347FA740.3AA71494 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:25:20 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8-te03.0.8l5.rIxVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13344 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This news is somehow related to the subject: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 348 November 26, 1997 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein CAN ELECTRONS BEHAVE LIKE PLANETS? According to quantum mechanics, an electron in an atom forms a hazy cloud of possible positions around the nucleus. Recently, physicists have pondered the possibility of creating a "Trojan state" in which an electron would conform to quantum mechanical principles yet occupy a small region in space and orbit the nucleus like a little planet. The name comes from Trojan asteroids which revolve around the sun in the same orbit as Jupiter, some in advance of the planet and some behind. To bring about a Trojan state, lasers would first put the electron into a "circular Rydberg state" in which the electron exists in a thin donut of possible positions. A microwave beam would subsequently cause the donut to coalesce into a small sausage-shaped region which then revolves around the nucleus. Two potential obstacles to the creation of Trojan states are the possibility that the electrons would be ionized by the microwave fields (a fear since discounted) or that they would fall to a lower-energy state by spontaneously emitting a photon. Now, researchers in Poland have calculated that such spontaneous emission is millions of times less likely than ionization, paving the way for experimental realization of Trojan electrons. (Physical Review A, November 1997; Iwo Bialynicki-Birula, Center for Theoretical Physics, Warsaw, birula theta1.ifpan.edu.pl; www.aip.org/physnews/graphics) * * * BTW, (forgive me If this told before, I did not well follow the thread) I recall that "weak force" impose a serious repelling action between proton and electron. Even head on head collision of p and e does not lead to neutron creation but scattering. On Horace posting i could not found the E.C definition. I suggest that he pr opose a mode which electron is travelling inside the nucleus without forming neutron. Maybe this is possible by removing all the kinetic energy of electron and building a balance between coulomb forces and weak forces. In the case of neutron formation, may the kinetic energy required to overcome this repelling force could be greater than the difference of mass of n and sum of mass of p and e. If so formation of neutron may not be quiescent. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Nov 28 23:34:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA05842; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:27:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:27:04 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:28:56 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"J2BUT.0.7R1.6FyVq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13345 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:25 AM 11/29/97, Hamdi Ucar wrote: [snip interesting news] > >BTW, (forgive me If this told before, I did not well follow the thread) > >I recall that "weak force" impose a serious repelling action between >proton and electron. Even head on head collision of p and e does not lead >to neutron creation but scattering. On Horace posting i could not found >the E.C definition. I suggest that he propose a mode which electron is >travelling inside the nucleus without forming neutron. >Maybe this is possible by removing all the kinetic energy of electron and >building a balance between coulomb forces and weak forces. > > >In the case of neutron formation, may the kinetic energy required to >overcome this repelling force could be greater than the difference of mass >of n and sum of mass of p and e. If so formation of neutron may not be >quiescent. > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar Apologies for my poor writing. When I say E.C. I mean the standard definition of E.C. Also, I am not talking about e + p -> n at all. Here is what I am trying to say about as briefly as I can make it: (1) Maybe it is possible, by applying stress on orbitals, to greatly increase the probability of electrons being in the nucleus or in very close proximity to the nucleus. (2) If so, for unstable isotopes capable of E.C. it should be possible, through sufficient orbital stress, to reduce the half life, and selectively increase the branching ratio for E.C. (3) I made a wild speculation that electrons may be involved, possibly primarily as energy donors, in catalyzing nuclear *fissions* of normal radionucelotides. In such a case the branching ratio may or may not change, but the half life would still be reduced. (4) An even wilder speculation: possibly fission of even stable nuclei (heavy) can be achieved with enough donor energy from electrons, and a "hidden" E.C. (5) Electrons do enter the nucleus in normal hydorgen atoms, but very infrequently. This infrequency is partly because electrons contain about .5 MeV energy while in the vicinity of the nucleus. Conservation of energy prevents E.C. in a hydrogen nucleus. However, if some mechanism can, on occasion, sufficiently delay the electron while in the H nucleus or vicinity (and I am suggesting a weak force interaction that does not result in an E.C., or even some EM interaction, but which only delays the electron in or near the nucleus, and possibly momentarily excites the nucleus) then possibly such a resulting neutral body could overcome the coulomb barrier and slip into some nearby nucleus, causing *fusion* or even a fission. This is really a way out idea and should not be confused with standard E.C., and maybe could be called "electron delay" or "electron delay catalyzed fusion." By this definition Hydrino catalyzed fusion is a form of electron delay catalyzed fusion because the electron delay in the vicinity of the nucleus (though not *really* close) is sufficiently close to enable the fusion. (7) I'll go further and mention the possibility of a 2 electron delay in the nucleus, which seems even more bizarre, impossible and outlandish than any of the above. This possibility was brought up in my prior posts on Electron Pair Condensates. Based on the logic posted there, electron delay in pairs does not seem so unlikely to me, and there is reason to think it is far more likely than (3), (4), or (5) above. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 04:09:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA23725; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:02:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:02:48 -0800 Sender: jack mail2.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <347FF486.2C125C37 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:55:02 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden References: <01BCFBE7.53EE3AF0.JoeC transmutation.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TPrvZ1.0.do5.dH0Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13346 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: "-----Original Message----- One of the most repeatable laboratory experiments can be found at: http://207.204.154.98/student.htm" Hi Joe, .../student.htm is a well-designed web page, but I have one question: What is the "torch" referred to in the below statement? "The ingredients were thoroughly mixed and placed in a 3lb. coffee can and ignited with a torch." Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 04:53:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA25837; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:49:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:49:04 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:45:33 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfcc4$afd9b000$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"bL3Yx.0.dJ6._y0Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13347 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Friday, November 28, 1997 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms >I posted "Speculations Regarding Orbital Stressing Mechanisms" because: > >(1) As ususal there were a bunch of ideas posted in a disjoint fashion >which might have more utility put together in one document. This was an >attempt to clean up my act a little anyway. > >(2) There were few responses to the posts. I am interested to know why. >I can think of a number of reasons: (a) lack of experimental content, (b) >dislike of discussing ideas for experimental approaches, (c) dislike of >wild eyed speculation, (d) disdain for lack of algebraic or computational >content (seems unlikely, except in a few hard core cases like FJS who >doesn't like to hide the physics 8^) Ok Horace. In Your first post you wrote: >One reason that electron capture (E.C.)rates are small is the fact that the probability that electrons occupy the nucleus is small. > This is due primarily to the quantized mechanics of the atom.< Now you are saying that mathematics dictates the workings of nature? :-) The rest mass of the Proton is 1.007825 AMU. The rest mass of the Neutron is 1.008665 AMU. The rest mass of the electron is 0.00055 AMU. The Neutron decays in about 12 minutes to an electron, electron neutrino and a Proton, releasing 0.7862 Mev. Now you tell me, how in the World you are going to get a proton to "swallow" an electron, create a neutrino and become a neutron ie., a heavier particle again? On the other hand, 2 Protons can combine with an electron forming Deuterium which is a Proton "joined" to a neutron and release 1.544 Mev while doing so. The first isotope know to "swallow" an electron and release energy in the process, is 4 Be7 and this transmutes to 3 Li7. In other words, only nuclei (unstable) heavier than Lithium are able to "swallow" electrons,because it is energetically favorable, not because of statistical probability. This leaves the conjecture that for "Hydrinos" and/or "Deutrinos" and "Electrinos" to form they would have to donate mass/energy to the electron or Light Lepton being "swallowed" for an energy release depending on W = kq^2/r or V = kq/r. Not necessarily impossible that you could end up with neutral particles lighter that a neutron or a couple of electrons and these are the "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles,WIMPs or "Dark Matter" that supposedly "make up over 90% of the mass of the Universe". In other explanation (as I see it) implies creation of energy, or tapping into ZPE. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 05:33:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA30104; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:30:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:30:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:32:34 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"4KQwB.0.BM7.0a1Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13348 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:45 AM 11/29/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >Ok Horace. In Your first post you wrote: > >>One reason that electron capture (E.C.)rates are small is the fact that the >probability that electrons occupy the nucleus is small. >> This is due primarily to the quantized mechanics of the atom.< Notice that the above says "nucleus" and not "hydrogen nucleus". I am talking about established E.C. decays there. Later on I do talk about hydrogen nuclei, which includes D and H. There I am suggesting that, though capture is impossible, maybe the electron "hanging around a while", by either a weak force or EM interaction, is not. If some mechanism *does* exist for such, then the suggested means for orbital stressing should make it show up. The suggested means also makes other possibilities show up. The best part of what I have suggested is that, for various overlapping reasons, an indirect design objective is now available that can readily be engineered. > >Now you are saying that mathematics dictates the workings of nature? :-) > >The rest mass of the Proton is 1.007825 AMU. > >The rest mass of the Neutron is 1.008665 AMU. > >The rest mass of the electron is 0.00055 AMU. > >The Neutron decays in about 12 minutes to an electron, electron neutrino and >a Proton, releasing 0.7862 Mev. > >Now you tell me, how in the World you are going to get a proton to "swallow" >an electron, create a neutrino and become a neutron ie., a heavier particle >again? No neutrino, no neutron, just a delay. One method is to cause two electrons to enter the nucleus in synchronization in opposite directions. One means of conjecturing this might be to have a pair which occupy the same shell, or intersecting orbitals, but orbiting in opposing directions, intersect the nucleus simultaneously. Another means is for paired electrons to simultaneously tunnel into the nucleus, as per the Pair Condensates hypothesis posted here previously. > >On the other hand, 2 Protons can combine with an electron forming Deuterium >which is a Proton >"joined" to a neutron and release 1.544 Mev while doing so. > >The first isotope know to "swallow" an electron >and release energy in the process, is 4 Be7 and this transmutes to 3 Li7. > >In other words, only nuclei (unstable) heavier than Lithium are able to >"swallow" electrons,because it is energetically favorable, not because of >statistical probability. Yes, subject of prior discussion. Both criteria are necessary. However, it seems like the energy of the electron(s) involved should be added to the input energy of such a C of E test. Further, it seems to me that energetic orbital electrons proximal to the nucleus should be important to nuclear decay processes. I haven't seen any such discussion before. Have you? Also, (talking heavies now) if a fission is triggered, the fission energy should be availble for an E.C. reaction - at least C of E is not a criteria then, only a mechanistic argument then applies. > >This leaves the conjecture that for "Hydrinos" >and/or "Deutrinos" and "Electrinos" to form they would have to donate >mass/energy to the >electron or Light Lepton being "swallowed" for an energy release depending >on W = kq^2/r or >V = kq/r. > >Not necessarily impossible that you could end up with neutral particles >lighter that a neutron or a couple of electrons and these are the "Weakly >Interacting Massive Particles,WIMPs or "Dark Matter" that supposedly "make >up over 90% of the mass of the Universe". What I am talking about would be too fast to be stable or to make up more than the tiniest trace of the universe. > >In other explanation (as I see it) implies creation of energy, or tapping >into ZPE. :-) > >Regards, Frederick Yes - ZPE plays a role in what I have suggested, especially as the Partial Orbital, Atomic Expansion, and Pair Condensate hypotheses may apply. Thanks for your poinient reply and for ignoring my joke. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 05:42:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA31436; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:40:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:40:29 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:42:22 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell Resent-Message-ID: <"JKM7q2.0.6h7.Cj1Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13349 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, Here are some old public domain ideas that may be of interest to other amateurs like myself, if new to the list: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Electrolytic (MOE) Cell Horace Heffner - 4/22/96 We have established experimentally that cell EMF equalization rates and cell chemistry should not be affected by changing the electrolyte flow direction from longitudinal, as in the Patterson Power Cell (PPC), to a direction orthogonal to electrolytic current flow. Provided electrolyte flow is upward, an orthogonal electrolytic cell should work as well as the longitudinal flow PPC. It is superior in that the H2 and O2 can be obtained from separate degassing stations, and thus it is possible to avoid recombination, avoid explosion risks, and possible to utilize the evolved gasses later in a fuel cell or by other means. In an orthogonal cell it is also possible to combine many simultaneous forms of stimulation into a single multi-resonant electrolytic cell design. Assume two vertical electrodes with a gas barrier between, and verticle (y axis) fluid flow, and horizontal (x axis) electrolytic current flow. It is then possible to place a major magnetic field B in the z axis direction. This has several advantages: (1) MHD forces will move the electrolye so no pump is needed. This permits a much higher electrolysis current with the same efficiency because it is doing triple duty doing electrolysis and acting as two pumps, one for O2 bearing and one for H2 bearing electrolyte. As a bonus, there are no moving parts. (2) There is still room for a small perturbing magnetic field generation in the x direction, thus it is possible to stimulate the protons or deuterons with an NMR resonant frequency. This will put the protons in a continual state of precessiona nd flipping. At very least this proton motion stimulation should increase adsorbtion rates. At best it may assist in phaselocking deuterons or protons interacting at lattice site boundaries and in the fluid phase of the cell, permitting other forms of stimulation to trigger fusion events. In addition, should an energetic electron "fall into" the coulomb well, an interaction with the magnetic field of the flipping nucleus should increase the probabiliy of an energetic photon emission, thus temporarily binding the electron to the nucleus until it can sap enough energy from the ZPE sea to climb back out. This series of events, as described in the Partial Orbital Hypothesis of Cold Fusion, would transfer energy from the ZPE sea to the lattice as heat. This process would be assisted by alloying particle emitters, especially beta emitters, into the cathode. (3) Storms' paper "Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion" Effect", March 1, 1996, page 42 mentions 82 MHz RF signals and high current micropulses (through the cathode) as being heat enhancing stimuli. For this reason, it may be desirable to combine the 82 MHz signal superimposed on the electrolytic potential with the NMR perturbing magnetic force generating current, thus the NMR resonant frequency should be 82 MHz. This means, for light water (proton) applications, that B must be 1.9524 weber/meter^2. Then the NMR perturbing field coil can be excited by the same 82.0 MHz current that is superimposed on the DC electrolytic current, making the AC portion of the electrolytic current do double duty, once as an electrode/interface stimulator, and second as an NMR perturbing field generator. (4) The electrolytic cell has it's own innate capacitance which is controllable through choice of electrode geometry and electrolyte chemical composition. It should be possible to design the cell so, used with additional inductance, tuning and control circuitry, it will resonate at 82 MHz. (5) The 82 MHz electrolyte stimulation signal will also make protons in the solution oscillate up and down in the y direction, generating accousic vibrations in the cell. The dimensions and geometry of the electrolytic fluid containing walls of the cell can be adjusted to create an accoustically resonant environement. Also, electrode geometry and surface geometry may be designed to reflect and/or utilize this ultrasound to aid in adsorbtion or other desired effects. Such an electrolytic cell would therefore clearly be multiply resonant. In addition to gaining large effect with small input by utilizing resonance, the proposed design gains efficiency by utilizing a single electric waveform to drive all of the cell functions and stimulate all of the cell's resonances. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 05:58:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA01948; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:55:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:55:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <34800F2B.83E1877E verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:48:43 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden References: <01BCFBE7.53EE3AF0.JoeC transmutation.com> <347FF486.2C125C37@mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_DdvD2.0.MU.Rx1Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13350 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Taylor J. Smith wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > .../student.htm is a well-designed web page, > but I have one question: What is the "torch" > referred to in the below statement? > > "The ingredients were thoroughly mixed and placed > in a 3lb. coffee can and ignited with a torch." > > Jack Smith A quick answer before Joe is the "torch" is seen on the picture held by "student". Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 06:05:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03224; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:02:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:02:12 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:04:07 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Simple static orbital stressing experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"p-n6T1.0.Io.Y12Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13351 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following portrays a very simple design, suggested earlier, for static orbital stressing: G G G G (+)M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M(-) M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G M G EEEEEEEEEEEE G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG M - Metal plates with HV DC applied G - Glass or very high dielectric strength vessel E - Electrolyte Note - strong magnetic field into (or out of) page above, or vertically aligned. Operating voltage just below breakdown voltage for combined thickness of side walls of vessel. Place in dewar or highly insulated surroundings and look for temperature increase. Try various electrolytes and look for transmutations. Not for amateurs - try various radioactive electolytes and look for enhanced decay rates. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 06:13:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03450; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:11:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:11:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:13:11 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Simple static orbital stressing experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"3N3Or2.0.qr.iA2Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13352 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following portrays a very simple design, suggested earlier, for static orbital stressing: G (+) (-) G G IMI IMI G G IMI IMI G G IMI IMI G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E IMI EE IMI E G G E III EE III E G G E EE E G G EEEEEEEEEEEEEE G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG M - Metal or conductive plates with HV DC applied G - Glass or very high dielectric strength vessel I - Very high dielectric strength insulator coating electrodes E - Electrolyte Note - strong magnetic field into (or out of) page above, or vertically aligned. Operating voltage just below breakdown voltage for combined thickness of side walls of vessel. Place in dewar or highly insulated surroundings and look for temperature increase. Try various electrolytes and look for transmutations. Not for amateurs - try various radioactive electolytes and look for enhanced decay rates. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 06:39:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA05207; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:33:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971129093342_1139982950 mrin44.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Brush on Alfven's Work Resent-Message-ID: <"4IjEG.0.DH1.JW2Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13353 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks to Taylor J. (Jack) Smith for posting the material about the reception of Hannes Alfven's pioneering work in plasma physics. Stephen Brush is a distinguished historian of science, but I hadn't known about his study of how Alfven's work was received by other physicists. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 06:39:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08329; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:36:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:36:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199711291436.JAA15276 mercury.mv.net> Subject: Re: CF on Strange Universe Date: Sat, 29 Nov 97 09:44:53 -0000 x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: "E.F. Mallove" To: , "VORTEX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Resent-Message-ID: <"rdCpt3.0.122.ZX2Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13355 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I'll pick up some blanks tomorrow. Gene photographs well. Watch out, >Tom Selleck! > >Terry Thanks again, Terry, but I think I'm a bit more like Richard Dreyfus. Some say I look like him and sound like him (act like him?), especially when I'm building large mashed potato models of cold fusion cells! When we do the REAL cold fusion movie, eventually, (the one with the MIT anti-cold fusion data fudging, etc.), we'll have to call on Richard D. to play me! We'll use Tom Selleck to play Dr. Mitch Swartz :) Best, Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 06:42:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA05239; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:35:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:35:09 -0800 (PST) From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:33:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971129093347_584966375 mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons Resent-Message-ID: <"N5dod.0.jH1.QW2Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13354 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: H. A. Haus, Institute Professor of electrical engineering at MIT, 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. Haus derived his conclusion by straightforward, classical, Maxwellian math. Haus pointed out that Cherenkov radiation (radiation from particles moving through a medium in which the light velocity is less than c) was a natural consequence of this derivation. See H. A. Haus, "On the radiation from point charges," Am. J. Phys. 54, 12 (December 1986), pp. 1126-1129. I asked Larry Wharton twice for his opinion of this article and its implications, as a result of his post of Sept. 4 about his work on "some of the modifications to the EM field that result from gravity," but he didn't reply. Now the recent discussion of ZPE, including a mention of the possibility that ZPE may replenish the energy allegedly lost by an orbiting electron, makes me wonder whether Hal Puthoff or Martin Sevior or Michael Schaffer have an opinion about the relevance of Haus' condition for explaining why orbiting electrons don't radiate. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 09:27:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA19600; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:22:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:22:08 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:14:53 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfcea$4f7a6760$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"Bd3Xy3.0.7o4.py4Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13356 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 6:39 AM Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms > >Notice that the above says "nucleus" and not "hydrogen nucleus". I am >talking about established E.C. decays there. Later on I do talk about >hydrogen nuclei, which includes D and H. There I am suggesting that, >though capture is impossible, maybe the electron "hanging around a while", >by either a weak force or EM interaction, is not. If some mechanism *does* >exist for such, then the suggested means for orbital stressing should make >it show up. The suggested means also makes other possibilities show up. > >No neutrino, no neutron, just a delay. One method is to cause two >electrons to enter the nucleus in synchronization in opposite directions. The established"Radius" R of the electron at rest is: R = kq^2/W where W is the rest energy of the electron (8.176E-14 joules) kq^2 a constant in MKS is 2.301E-28. Thus the classical rest radius of the electron is 2.81E-15 meters. The only way to "shrink" it so that it will fit into the nucleus (which has a radius of about 4.6E-18 meters) is to give it enough energy (312 Mev relativistic energy)to reduce its radius enough to fit. The concept of this huge electron (in which the tiny nucleus that weighs about a ton compared to about a pound for the electron)"falling into the nucleus" is a bit of a fable. :-) Granted there are "coupling orbits-energies" between these energy waves that are at the heart of Q.E.D. >One means of conjecturing this might be to have a pair which occupy the >same shell, or intersecting orbitals, but orbiting in opposing directions, >intersect the nucleus simultaneously. Good? Now you want to stuff 2 two-inch diameter balloons(actually just two standing waves with a wavelength of Pi*D) into a 0.006" diameter one-ton grain-of-sand (three waves each with a wavelength 1/612th that of the electron and a rest mass 612 times that of the electron). :-) >Another means is for paired >electrons to simultaneously tunnel into the nucleus, as per the Pair >Condensates hypothesis posted here previously. > However, >it seems like the energy of the electron(s) involved should be added to the >input energy of such a C of E test. Further, it seems to me that >energetic orbital electrons proximal to the nucleus should be important to >nuclear decay processes. > Also, (talking heavies now) if a fission is triggered, the fission >energy should be availble for an E.C. reaction - at least C of E is not a >criteria then, only a mechanistic argument then applies. Seems to me that pushing a "highly stressed" camel through the eye of a needle would be easier. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 10:59:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13455; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:49:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:49:36 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:51:19 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons Resent-Message-ID: <"SGGZD2.0.8I3.-E6Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13357 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:33 AM 11/29/97, Tstolper aol.com wrote: >H. A. Haus, Institute Professor of electrical engineering at MIT, found that >a charge moving at a constant velocity less than c doesn't radiate because it ***************** Electrons moving a constant linear velocity are not known to radiate, except by Cherenkov radiation, and atoms aren't flat, so the above must mean constant angular velocity when applied to orbitals? If so, the above still seems to be nonsense. The ZPE argument applies to electrons in orbitals. No charged particle is known to go faster than light in a vacuum, and atoms alone in a vacuum do not radiate. Charged particles coasting in a cyclotron are known to radiate, but by the above (Haus) should not. Electrons in Rydberg orbitals in atoms in a strong magnetic fields have wave functions that, in outlying portions of the orbital, cancel in all but classical orbital pathways, and these resulting classical knotty orbitals exhibit *almost anything but* uniform angular rotation, yet the electrons there do not radiate. Could you be more specific about the assumptions of the article? >has no Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of >light, not because it isn't accelerated. > >Haus derived his conclusion by straightforward, classical, Maxwellian math. > Haus pointed out that Cherenkov radiation (radiation from particles moving >through a medium in which the light velocity is less than c) was a natural >consequence of this derivation. See H. A. Haus, "On the radiation from point >charges," Am. J. Phys. 54, 12 (December 1986), pp. 1126-1129. > >I asked Larry Wharton twice for his opinion of this article and its >implications, as a result of his post of Sept. 4 about his work on "some of >the modifications to the EM field that result from gravity," but he didn't >reply. > >Now the recent discussion of ZPE, including a mention of the possibility that >ZPE may replenish the energy allegedly lost by an orbiting electron, makes me >wonder whether Hal Puthoff or Martin Sevior or Michael Schaffer have an >opinion about the relevance of Haus' condition for explaining why orbiting >electrons don't radiate. > >Tom Stolper Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 11:05:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14461; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:59:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:59:13 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re:Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:55:54 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfcf8$6b8b1fe0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"7blZa3.0.oX3.0O6Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13358 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FWIW, Horace. Regardless of what one can come up with for a model of electron-nucleus interaction, you will find that for any atom or molecule that the momentum mv of the electron cloud equates with the momentum MV of the atom or molecule. Thus mv = MV if you let the velocity of the electrons equal c/137. For instance for H2, mv = 2*9.1E-31*c/137 = 3.98E-24 = 2*1.66E-27*V. Thus V = 1.2E3 meters/second. At 300 K, KT = 1.38E-23*300 = .5 MV^2 solving; V = (kT/.5M)^1/2 = 1.58E3 meters/second. I would say that that is close enough to say that "The Tail Wags The Dog", or does it? :-) Given that the "electron cloud" of H2 (according to the wave equation)is at a most probable distance of 5.3E-11 meters, the potential X = kq/R = 1.438/5.3E-11 = 27.2 ev. The electric field strength is X/R = 27.2/5.3E-11 = 5.13E11 volts/meter. I don't think that field ion microscopy or rattling the H2 atom,is going to distort that field very much. Then again, if you want to hit it with gamma or x-rays you can knock it around a bit and/or ionize it. The clouds of heavier atoms/molecules can be distorted by electric fields this is known as Polarizability and the data for many species is given in the CRC "bible". Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 11:27:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA29873; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:18:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:18:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:19:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"G2fQt1.0.hI7.Eg6Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13359 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:14 AM 11/29/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Horace Heffner >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 6:39 AM >Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms >> >>Notice that the above says "nucleus" and not "hydrogen nucleus". I am >>talking about established E.C. decays there. Later on I do talk about >>hydrogen nuclei, which includes D and H. There I am suggesting that, >>though capture is impossible, maybe the electron "hanging around a while", >>by either a weak force or EM interaction, is not. If some mechanism *does* >>exist for such, then the suggested means for orbital stressing should make >>it show up. The suggested means also makes other possibilities show up. >> >>No neutrino, no neutron, just a delay. One method is to cause two >>electrons to enter the nucleus in synchronization in opposite directions. > >The established"Radius" R of the electron at rest is: R = kq^2/W where W is >the rest energy of the electron (8.176E-14 joules) kq^2 a constant in MKS is >2.301E-28. Thus the classical rest radius of the electron is >2.81E-15 meters. The only way to "shrink" it so that it will fit into the >nucleus (which has a radius of about 4.6E-18 meters) is to give it enough >energy (312 Mev relativistic energy)to >reduce its radius enough to fit. It appears you are overlooking two things: (1) the shrinking miracle actually happens in standard E.C. and (2) quantum waveforms cancel. If orbitals can be distored sufficiently that waveform cancellation in the vicinity of the nucleus leaves only a pathway through the nucleus then voila! Again, it is a way out speculation, I'll grant you. Further, the electron's energy and momentum might be borrowed by the nucleus momentarily, exciting it, while the electron momentarily expands (or not) during such a delay. Such a delay may not be detectable under normal circumstances, in which orbitals are more normal. One prospect for investigating this might be hydrogen molecular disassociation. > >The concept of this huge electron (in which the tiny nucleus that weighs >about a ton compared to about a pound for the electron)"falling into >the nucleus" is a bit of a fable. :-) > >Granted there are "coupling orbits-energies" between these energy waves that >are at the heart of Q.E.D. > >>One means of conjecturing this might be to have a pair which occupy the >>same shell, or intersecting orbitals, but orbiting in opposing directions, >>intersect the nucleus simultaneously. > >Good? Now you want to stuff 2 two-inch diameter >balloons(actually just two standing waves with a wavelength of Pi*D) into a >0.006" diameter one-ton grain-of-sand (three waves each with a wavelength >1/612th that of the electron and a rest mass 612 times that of the >electron). :-) If one can fit (see above) then two can fit, provided spins are opposed. > >>Another means is for paired >>electrons to simultaneously tunnel into the nucleus, as per the Pair >>Condensates hypothesis posted here previously. >> > However, >>it seems like the energy of the electron(s) involved should be added to the >>input energy of such a C of E test. Further, it seems to me that >>energetic orbital electrons proximal to the nucleus should be important to >>nuclear decay processes. >> Also, (talking heavies now) if a fission is triggered, the fission >>energy should be availble for an E.C. reaction - at least C of E is not a >>criteria then, only a mechanistic argument then applies. > >Seems to me that pushing a "highly stressed" camel through the eye of a >needle would be easier. :-) > >Regards, Frederick Hmmmm... homogenate the camel? Big needle? If any of the assertions of low energy nuclear reactions are true (and I'll readily admit the possibility that none are), then *some* new explanation must be forthcoming to account for it. I offer an explanation (orbital electrons are involved in radioactive decay) that, if correct, (a) is useful for engineering and experimental design purposes (b) seems to fit a wide range of reported anomalies and (c) appears to be relatively easy to test on a low budget. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 11:38:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA17399; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:28:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:28:58 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:30:36 -0900 To: "Frederick J. Sparber" , "vortex" From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re:Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"Vbe7Z2.0.nF4.wp6Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13360 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:55 AM 11/29/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >FWIW, Horace. Regardless of what one can come up with for a >model of electron-nucleus interaction, you will find that for any atom or >molecule that the momentum mv of the electron cloud equates with the >momentum MV of the atom or molecule. > >Thus mv = MV if you let the velocity of the electrons equal c/137. For >instance for H2, mv = 2*9.1E-31*c/137 >= 3.98E-24 = 2*1.66E-27*V. Thus V = 1.2E3 meters/second. > >At 300 K, KT = 1.38E-23*300 = .5 MV^2 solving; >V = (kT/.5M)^1/2 = 1.58E3 meters/second. I would say that that is close >enough to say that "The Tail Wags The Dog", >or does it? :-) > >Given that the "electron cloud" of H2 (according to the wave equation)is at >a most probable distance of 5.3E-11 >meters, the potential X = kq/R = 1.438/5.3E-11 = 27.2 ev. > >The electric field strength is X/R = 27.2/5.3E-11 = 5.13E11 >volts/meter. I don't think that field ion microscopy or rattling the H2 >atom,is going to distort that field very much. If electrons are presently involved in nuclear decay, as they certainly are in E.C. reactions at least, then increasing the probability of electron presence by 50% should increase the electron induced decay rate by 50%. This should be achievable and detectable. The primary method is by magnetic distortion of the orbitals, with additional electrostatic stress. Again, waveform cancellation plays a huge role. > >Then again, if you want to hit it with gamma or x-rays you can knock it >around a bit and/or ionize it. > >The clouds of heavier atoms/molecules can be distorted by >electric fields this is known as Polarizability and the data for many >species is given in the CRC "bible". > >Regards, Frederick It is the heavies that are most desirable to remediate. However, the lights are the starting ingredients for fusion. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 12:15:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21504; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:09:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:09:36 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:11:31 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re:Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"CXOav2.0.vF5._P7Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13361 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:30 AM 11/29/97, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >>The electric field strength is X/R = 27.2/5.3E-11 = 5.13E11 >>volts/meter. I don't think that field ion microscopy or rattling the H2 >>atom,is going to distort that field very much. > Well, if a two molecule thick interface is, say 5 Angstoms thick, then a 20 volt differential there will provide a gradient of (20 V)/(5x10^-10 m) = 4x10^10 V/m. The problem is then the small amount of radioactive material that can end up in the interface. It appears a better strategy is to use a very high dielectric strength very thin electrode coating. Didn't you say you knew how to make such a thing Fred? (Hint) I might have a few ideas myself. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 12:21:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22601; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:19:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:19:35 -0800 Sender: jack mail2.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <348068EF.38FA87D mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:11:43 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SEuzg1.0.-W5.LZ7Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13362 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Speculations Regarding Orbital Stressing Mechanisms > > An Edited Collection of November, 1979 > > Vortex Posts by Horace Heffner > > One reason bound electron capture (E.C.) ... At 5:45 AM 11/29/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: "Ok Horace. In Your first post you wrote: "One reason that electron capture (E.C.) rates are small is the fact that the probability that electrons occupy the nucleus is small. This is due primarily to the quantized mechanics of the atom." Now you are saying that mathematics dictates the workings of nature? :-)" Regards, Frederick [Jack Smith writes: I find your "Speculations Regarding Orbital Stressing Mechanisms" very rich in mechanism. It was a pleasure to read this.] > After all, if it weren't for the mechanics the > electrons would simply fall into the nucleus > and all matter would collapse. "Not necessarily impossible that you could end up with neutral particles lighter that a neutron or a couple of electrons and these are the "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles,WIMPs or "Dark Matter" that supposedly "make up over 90% of the mass of the Universe". > What I am talking about would be too fast to be > stable or to make up more > than the tiniest trace of the universe. "... other explanation (as I see it) implies creation of energy, or tapping into ZPE. :-) Regards, Frederick" [Jack Smith writes: Did you see the article in the December, 1997, "Scientific American" on zero-point energy? (starting on p. 82): "... orbiting electron lose energy through radiation; what keeps the electron zipping around the nucleus is, according to Puthoff, zero-point energy that the electron continuously absorbs." (p. 84).] > If emission distribution changes then > so does the energy absorption > distribution. It may even be possible to detect a > hydrino in a sufficiently strong magnetic field, assuming > hydrinos exist, of course, which would provide a good > confirmation of this idea, as well as of the hydrino theory. [Jack Smith writes: Is it possible that absorption (fusion) and emission of radiation is a useful mechanism for guiding data collection?] > However, the nice thing about > studying E.C.s from the point of > view of stimulating the atom > by kinetics, heat, or EM, ... > > Regards, Horace Heffner Hi Horace, I'm in the process of setting up a Cavwendish balance, (Leybold-Heraeus Cavendish balance, model number 33210}, to exanine whether or not heating (or cooling) the weights changes the deflection. Of course, we are dealing with a heavy metal, not hydrogen; but I was wondering if you had any suggestions to make this experiment more revealing, (other than taking air currents into account). Thanks, Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 12:58:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25135; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:46:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:46:02 -0800 Sender: jack mail2.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <34806F2F.54C0A097 mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:38:23 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: May Your Holiday Season Be Golden References: <01BCFBE7.53EE3AF0.JoeC transmutation.com> <347FF486.2C125C37@mail.pc.centuryinter.net> <34800F2B.83E1877E@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9eK8o.0.a86.9y7Wq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13363 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Taylor J. Smith wrote: > > "Hi Joe, > > .../student.htm is a well-designed web page, > but I have one question: What is the "torch" > referred to in the below statement? > > "The ingredients were thoroughly mixed and placed > in a 3lb. coffee can and ignited with a torch." > > Jack Smith" > > A quick answer before Joe is the "torch" > is seen on the picture held by "student". > > Regards, hamdi ucar Thanks Hamdi, I hope Joe gives me more specs. I like pyrotechnics, and this looks like a neat experiment. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 13:59:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16799; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:56:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:56:45 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: "vortex" Subject: Re:Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:52:31 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfd11$1866e880$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"9xazD2.0.K64.Q-8Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13364 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: >If electrons are presently involved in nuclear decay, as >they certainly are in E.C. reactions at least,then >increasing the probability of electron presence by 50% >should increase the electron induced decay rate by 50%. Okay the E.C. by 4 Be7 based on the particle model "catalyzed" according to your hypothesis: 5A - Z entities make up any nucleus. 2A "up" or pos units, Shrunken positrons (about 312 Mev)? 2A - Z "down"neg units, Shrunken electrons (about 312 Mev)? A - Z neutrinos (charge zero, paired net spin 1/2 units)? Z external (negative) electrons except for antimatter which would be positive electrons (positrons). Total = 5A - Z; for 4 Be7 = 35 - 4 = 31, the E.C. swallows an electron making 3 Li7 = 35 - 3 = 32 units in the nucleus. Thus Z has decreased by one, but A remains the same and energy release and C of E and charge balance is okay. This can be applied to positron or negatron decay along with photon (gamma) emission as well as the undetectable neutrino and the heavy neutral bound pairs (624 Mev ea) (radiationless-Aneutronic) emission and Alphas. While we are speculating, it is not necessarily required for created pairs to annihilate. With positron-negatron pair annihilation the annihilating negatron is most likely to be an "external" electron, which suggests that most of the mass created from the "Big Bang" was coupled pairs and the stable Triad (Hydrogen)was created from these with the emission of a negative unit with a rest mass of about 312 Mev that decayed into the stable external electron. Thus a Universe that is over 90% non-interacting "Dark Matter" ie., WIMPs (and neutrinos). Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 14:15:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA18974; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:14:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:14:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3480938D.10B9 interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:13:33 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kNcrw2.0.Ne4.kE9Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13365 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > At 10:30 AM 11/29/97, Horace Heffner wrote: > [snip] > >>The electric field strength is X/R = 27.2/5.3E-11 = 5.13E11 > >>volts/meter. I don't think that field ion microscopy or rattling the H2 > >>atom,is going to distort that field very much. > > > > Well, if a two molecule thick interface is, say 5 Angstoms thick, then a 20 > volt differential there will provide a gradient of (20 V)/(5x10^-10 m) = > 4x10^10 V/m. The problem is then the small amount of radioactive material > that can end up in the interface. It appears a better strategy is to use a > very high dielectric strength very thin electrode coating. Horace, it seems to me that the "material under stress" must BE the dielectric coating. The high electric stress is only in the dielectric, right? In the electrolytic (aluminum oxide) capacitors we seem to have the stress you seek in the aluminum oxide. Now, how can we list a group of potential materials for test that are either excellent dielectrics themselves, or, form, say, stable oxides which are good dielectrics (here's where Frederick should step in!). It would also be very easy to place one of my electrolytics in the bore of an electromagnet. The magnetic field would happen to be as you specified if the cap axis is parallel to the field. Hey Fred, is'nt tantalum another good oxide dielectric candidate? Frank Stenger > > Didn't you say you knew how to make such a thing Fred? (Hint) > > I might have a few ideas myself. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 15:06:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23278; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:01:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:01:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <34809D80.4B7D math.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:56:00 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons References: <971129093347_584966375 mrin46.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NHIUj1.0.dh5.Sx9Wq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13366 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > ...an opinion about the relevance of Haus' condition for explaining > why orbiting electrons don't radiate. > Of course, Haus's condition is the stated foundation for the BLP-Mills/Farrel theory of the electron, which in turn suppoedly leads them to the existence of hydrino (sub ground) states for H. I don't doubt the validity of the Haus condition---though it is misleading to say "it is the reason moving charges don't radiate", since that implies a causality not present in his condition. As for its applicability to the stability of bound electrons, I think it is a bit of a red herring. You don't need this theorem to explain why a electron modeled as a spinning spherical shell (a la Mills)---or any other distribution of charge that is unchanged by rotation---doesn't radiate...it is obvious by symmetry, since the charge distribtuion is not changing in time. This is major hole #1 in the Mills theory, since they want to use this condition to obtained certain discrete allowed electron non-rad. configurations (leading to the n = 1,2,3,...,1/2,1/3,... orbitals) but it is obvious that there is a vast family of non-rad solutions---i.e. any cylindrically symetric charge distribution would be a nonradiative model for the orbiting electron---not just these discrete "orbitsphere" ones they selectively pick out. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 15:18:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24304; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:16:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:16:46 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:02:44 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfd1a$e6fdc8e0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"byupU1.0.gx5.S9AWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13367 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Francis J. Stenger To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >> At 10:30 AM 11/29/97, Horace Heffner wrote: >> [snip] >> >>The electric field strength is X/R = 27.2/5.3E-11 = 5.13E11 >> >>volts/meter. I don't think that field ion microscopy or rattling the H2 >> >>atom,is going to distort that field very much. >> > >> >> Well, if a two molecule thick interface is, say 5 Angstoms thick, then a 20 >> volt differential there will provide a gradient of (20 V)/(5x10^-10 m) = >> 4x10^10 V/m. The problem is then the small amount of radioactive material >> that can end up in the interface. It appears a better strategy is to use a >> very high dielectric strength very thin electrode coating. > >Horace, it seems to me that the "material under stress" must BE the >dielectric coating. The high electric stress is only in the dielectric, >right? In the electrolytic (aluminum oxide) capacitors we seem to have >the stress you seek in the aluminum oxide. Now, how can we list a group >of potential materials for test that are either excellent dielectrics >themselves, or, form, say, stable oxides which are good dielectrics >(here's where Frederick should step in!). The dielectric constant of "anodized" aluminum films runs about 10.6. The Ta2O5 is apparently much higher,but I don't have any data on it. The Titanates, MTiO3, where M is Barium,Strontium,Calcium,Magnesium, and Lead, run from 15 to 12,000 and are stable against water. The Alkalis, Lithium, Sodium, and Potassium,etc.,might be getting the same effect in the electrolysis cells. That kind of Physical Chemistry is out of my bailiwick. :-) > It would also be very easy to >place one of my electrolytics in the bore of an electromagnet. The >magnetic field would happen to be as you specified if the cap axis is >parallel to the field. Hey Fred, is'nt tantalum another good oxide >dielectric candidate? Surely. Might get the tantalum to transmute too. > >Frank Stenger > >> >> Didn't you say you knew how to make such a thing Fred? (Hint) Hint away, I'm retired. (thought experiments only) :-)However most of these "monolayer" oxide films can be done electrolytically and fast. >> >> I might have a few ideas myself. Figures! :-) Regards, Frederick >> >> Regards, >> >> Horace Heffner > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 15:28:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10810; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:20:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:20:18 -0800 Message-Id: <348091A9.A1B5F226 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:05:29 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex Subject: "Uniformly accererated charges radiates ?" papers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PcCa61.0.ke2.nCAWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13368 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, I complied below letter few weeks ago. Now these references seems more useful respect to current thread "Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons". - - - - - - - - - - - - This issue is heating up currently on scientific papers and leading important conclusions. Here is list of the papers that I acquired (some of them announced today): physics/9711009 Does the electromagnetic field of an accelerated charge satisfy Maxwell equations? Authors: Andrew E. Chubykalo (EFUAZ, Mexico), Stoyan J. Vlaev (EFUAZ, Mexico and IGIC, Bulgaria) We considered the electromagnetic field of a charge moving with a constant acceleration along an axis. We found that this field obtained from the Lienard-Wiechert potentials does not satisfy Maxwell equations. gr-qc/9711027 Radiation from a Charge Uniformly Accelerated for All Time Author: Stephen Parrott A recent paper of Singal [Gen. Rel. Grav. 27 (1995), 953-967] argues that a uniformly accelerated particle does not radiate, in contradiction to the consensus of the research literature over the past 30 years. This note points out some questionable aspects of Singal's argument and shows how similar calculations can lead to the opposite conclusion. gr-qc/9303025 Date (revised): Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:55:20 GMT Radiation from a Uniformly Accelerated Charge and the Equivalence Principle Author: Stephen Parrott We argue that purely local experiments can distinguish a stationary charged particle in a static gravitational field from an accelerated particle in (gravity-free) Minkowski space. Some common arguments to the contrary are analyzed and found to rest on a misidentification of ``energy''. hep-th/9707006 Classical Electrodynamics: Problems of Radiation Reaction Author: Alexander A. Vlasov 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 physics/9711008 On the difference between the charge-free and the charge-neutral solutions of Maxwell equations Authors: Andrew E. Chubykalo (Escuela de Fisica, Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas), Hector A. Munera (Centro Internacional de Fisica, Bogota, Colombia), Roman7 Smirnov-Rueda (Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales, CSIC, Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain) These are available from xxx.lanl.gov. (Eg. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9711008) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 16:02:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16297; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:58:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:58:15 -0800 Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:58:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711292358.PAA01588 franc.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szdanq blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Smot Mk4 Kit Update Resent-Message-ID: <"hA5ng1.0.V-3.LmAWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13369 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: >I am testing in batches of 3, mixing the 3 bases, magnet arrays & >balls in a 3 x 3 x 3 matrix (27 tests per batch). I'm curious, why is there a need to test a mix of parts from kits? Isn't it sufficient that each individual kit work with its particular ramp/magnet/ball set? Dan Quickert From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 16:54:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21409; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:48:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:48:37 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:47:41 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3484b719.14082333 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Oz4P_3.0.QE5.ZVBWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13371 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:59:33 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >(b) Use centrifugal force by placing sample in a centrifuge or rotating it [snip] Horace, a quick calculation shows that the force exerted on a nucleus of Fe, in a centrifuge with a radius of 20 cm, rotating at 10000 rpm, is about 10^17 times less than the electrostatic force on the innermost electrons. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this one to show a profit :). 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 16:54:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21379; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:48:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:48:30 -0800 From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:47:39 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3480ab8c.11124680 mail.eisa.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"K0zjy1.0.yD5.SVBWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13370 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip] >At 10:14 AM 11/29/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >>The established"Radius" R of the electron at rest is: R = kq^2/W where W is >>the rest energy of the electron (8.176E-14 joules) kq^2 a constant in MKS is >>2.301E-28. Thus the classical rest radius of the electron is >>2.81E-15 meters. The only way to "shrink" it so that it will fit into the >>nucleus (which has a radius of about 4.6E-18 meters) is to give it enough >>energy (312 Mev relativistic energy)to >>reduce its radius enough to fit. [snip] Frederick, I was under the impression that your average nucleus had a size of about 10 F. I.e. 10x10^-15 m (10^-14), not 10^-18 m. This also agrees with a nucleus being "about 100000 times smaller than an atom". 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 17:32:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26261; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:29:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:29:30 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-ID: <3480C173.15B math.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:29:23 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons References: <971129093347_584966375 mrin46.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lvqQz2.0.AQ6.v5CWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13372 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > the relevance of Haus' condition for explaining why orbiting > electrons don't radiate. > No particular relevance, since it is just a general statement of a criteria for a current distribution to be non-radiative. It is well understood in E&M courses that special configurations such as a charge in uniform motion, a spherically symetric charge distribution oscillating radially, and rotating but steady charge distributions do not radiate, because of symetry reasons. The main interesting question I see related to Haus's criteria is: can you use it to discover some previously unkown non-radiative current configurations that are *not* simply byproducts of symeetry considerations? For example, is there a nontrivial motion for a *point charge* that produces no radiation field? -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 18:48:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA17302; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:44:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:44:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3480EF3C.1D77 keelynet.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:44:44 -0800 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Resonant Power Transmission References: <347FAFFC.E1E82CE2 microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZG9cc3.0.FE4.uBDWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13373 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! Got an interesting file from Elling Olsen in Norway about Russian work with improving efficiency by establishing a resonance between the source and the load....quite interesting....the file is posted at; http://www.keelynet.com/energy/rpe.htm if you are interested... -- 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 18:50:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA04040; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:47:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:47:13 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:58:30 -0500 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: <19971130025041093.AAA251 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"f8HmO2.0.y-.mEDWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13374 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In case anyone hasn't noticed, the findings of Prof. Haus quoted by Tom Stolper are essentially those of Mill's Classical QED and a key aspect of the theory of the BLP process. Haus is referenced in Mill's book. Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Tstolper aol.com > To: vortex-L eskimo.com > Subject: Nonradiation of Orbiting Electrons > Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 9:33 AM > > H. A. Haus, Institute Professor of electrical engineering at MIT, 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. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 19:02:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05254; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:00:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:00:14 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:01:56 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"X9mZ-.0.vH1.yQDWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13376 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:11 PM 11/29/97, Taylor J. Smith wrote: [snip] > Did you see the article in the December, 1997, > "Scientific American" on zero-point energy? Not yet. Intend to. This has been a busy time. [snip] > > Is it possible that absorption (fusion) and emission of > radiation is a useful mechanism for guiding data collection?] Yes. Hydrino absorbtion lines might develop in a strong magnetic field that would reveal the hydrinos. The though is the hydrino electon orbital would unravel due to wave cancellation from the distortion casue by the magnetic field. I'm talking ordinary photon absorbtion, not fusion. If there are a sufficient density of hydrinos in a sample, it also seems blatantly obvious that they would show up under NMR analysis. The close tight electrons should affect the resonance of the hydrogen nucleus. > > I'm in the process of setting up a Cavwendish balance, > (Leybold-Heraeus Cavendish balance, model number 33210}, > to exanine whether or not heating (or cooling) > the weights changes the deflection. Of course, we are dealing > with a heavy metal, not hydrogen; but I was wondering if you > had any suggestions to make this experiment more revealing, > (other than taking air currents into account). > > Thanks, Jack Smith OK, I'll comment with some ideas, useful or not. One risk is for electrostatic forces from meandering electons (boiling off the hot object) to overwhelm the force of gravity. There would also be photon pressure and, as you mention, air convection. I would suggest coating the hot masses (lead balls) with several layers: (1) a grounded outer conductive layer (lead maybe?) for electrostatic sheilding, (2) a foam insulation layer, (3) a steel pressure envelope to contain a vacuum, (4) a reflective innner layer, (5) a vacuum layer, if possible, (6) a heater layer, and (7) the surface of the heavy ball. Having these layers attached to and swinging with the ball presents an outer layer that is a close as possible to the outer surface Cavendish used with his lead balls. It would be easier to heat the stationary balls and place the layers about them. It would of course be best to have the swinging balls in a vacuum chamber to eliminate convection. Great care would have to be used to gather lots of data points and analyse to be sure the swing dynamics are OK. Just measuring the pendulum period and maximum deflection doesn't seem to me to cut it. Thanks for your comments Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 19:05:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05211; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:00:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:00:08 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:01:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"mlSO5.0.LH1.sQDWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13375 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:47 PM 11/29/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:59:33 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >[snip] >>(b) Use centrifugal force by placing sample in a centrifuge or rotating it >[snip] >Horace, a quick calculation shows that the force exerted on a nucleus >of Fe, in a centrifuge with a radius of 20 cm, rotating at 10000 rpm, >is about 10^17 times less than the electrostatic force on the >innermost electrons. >So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this one to show a profit :). > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Consider the facts that (1) in a low gravity and a magnetically and electrically neutral environment there is *no* net force on the nucleus relative to the electron cloud (2) to create *any* force on the nucleus the electrons must displace on average, thus the nucleus is forced into a higher electron flux and (3) the force between the nucleus and the electrons is attractive, not repulsive. The repulsive qualities all derive from the wave mechanics, which are what I am suggesting we twiddle. I would also like to add a personal anecdote that may or may not be relevant. I should pre-qualify the remarks with the fact my memory is not what it used to be. 8^) In the early sixties I used a centrifuge and sugar density gradients to separate cell bodies. Tha centrifuge rotor and cabinet were made of metal, thus provided electric shielding. Yet the glass gradient tubes had notable electrostatic fields upon removal. Any ideas how that could be? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 20:07:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA13923; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:58:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:58:24 -0800 Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:58:19 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More nonsense from Steve Jones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_H33A3.0.TP3.UHEWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13377 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin Sevior wrote to Jed -snip- >>There are certainly people who will jump at any straw at both ends of the >>believer/skeptic spectrum. >>Martin Sevior >> Slide your bead(s) just a 'Little' one way or the other to stay in Balance. -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 20:39:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18509; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:33:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:33:22 -0800 Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:33:07 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711300433.WAA16570 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: EarthTech Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"-mKOz.0.1X4.HoEWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13378 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Howdy Vorts, The calorimeter that was highlighted on the recent Scientific American Frontiers "Beyond Science?" episode is known as the Dual Method Calorimeter. This calorimeter was originally conceived as a road show instrument by Martin Sevior and myself when we were planning to visit Cravens' lab to confirm the heat output of the famous cell he demonstrated at the Anaheim PowerGen show. One thing led to another..we never got to measure that particular cell...and it ended up being a permanent fixture at the EarthTech lab. The calorimeter was designed specifically to measure the "several watt" excess heat signal reported for the CETI Patterson bead cells. It employs two independent methods to measure the heat being liberated from a cell. One measure of the heat is obtained via the delta-T across the cell in a flowing electrolyte stream. The other heat measurement is obtained via the delta-T across the insulated walls of a chamber which encloses the entire experiment. When properly adjusted, this calorimeter can easily detect an excess heat signal as small as 0.1 watt. In the "Beyond Science?" show, you see an example of improper zero adjustment where one of the independent heat measuring methods is showing about +0.1 watts when it should be reading zero. A complete description of this calorimeter is available at: http://www.eden.com/~little/dual.htm 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 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 23:09:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA06100; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:03:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:03:37 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:05:31 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbtial Stressing Mechanisms Resent-Message-ID: <"zz5sq.0.DV1.8_GWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13379 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:13 PM 11/29/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] > >Horace, it seems to me that the "material under stress" must BE the >dielectric coating. The high electric stress is only in the dielectric, >right? In the electrolytic (aluminum oxide) capacitors we seem to have >the stress you seek in the aluminum oxide. Now, how can we list a group >of potential materials for test that are either excellent dielectrics >themselves, or, form, say, stable oxides which are good dielectrics >(here's where Frederick should step in!). It would also be very easy to >place one of my electrolytics in the bore of an electromagnet. The >magnetic field would happen to be as you specified if the cap axis is >parallel to the field. Hey Fred, is'nt tantalum another good oxide >dielectric candidate? > >Frank Stenger There is a gradient falloff beyond the interface, but it is dramatic. Only atoms adjacent to or in the interface will experience much of a gradient. Atoms do penetrate the interface from time to time. A good dielectric, however, especially one containing many 1 to several angstrom diameter by 1 angstrom deep pits as active sites, for example, might be effective. Scott Little's underwater spark apparatus creates and utilizes a similar environment. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Nov 29 23:43:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA19738; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:33:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:33:33 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:29:22 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfd61$adea4dc0$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"_xWhx2.0.Kq4.BRHWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13380 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 5:54 PM Subject: Re: Speculations on Orbital Stressing Mechanisms >[snip] >>At 10:14 AM 11/29/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>>The established"Radius" R of the electron at rest is: R = kq^2/W where W is >>>the rest energy of the electron (8.176E-14 joules) kq^2 a constant in MKS is >>>2.301E-28. Thus the classical rest radius of the electron is >>>2.81E-15 meters. The only way to "shrink" it so that it will fit into the >>>nucleus (which has a radius of about 4.6E-18 meters) is to give it enough >>>energy (312 Mev relativistic energy)to >>>reduce its radius enough to fit. >[snip] >Frederick, I was under the impression that your average nucleus had a >size of about 10 F. I.e. 10x10^-15 m (10^-14), not 10^-18 m. >This also agrees with a nucleus being "about 100000 times smaller than >an atom". Traditionally the size of the atom (including the electron cloud)is given as a few angstroms or about 2.0E-10 meters (2.0E5 Fermi). Electron scattering experiments, by no small coincidence show the "radius" of the nucleus to be about 3.0 Fermi, ie., the "radius" of the electron. :-) In other words, the nucleus because it is heavier is considered to be bigger. Applying the same equation, R = kq^2/W says that the more massive nucleus has to be smaller than the electron,or just the opposite of traditional thinking. Singularities are smaller than electrons! :-) Then if energy equals .5C*V^2,since the capacitance of the vacuum of space (permittivity 8.85E-12 farads/meter)decreases as length decreases, then Potential V has to increase, doesn't it? And since the fundamental unit of charge: plus/minus 1.602E-19 = C*V/4(pi)^2, (coulombs)it is a "Universal Constant". Thus the only TWO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES needed to describe the UNIVERSE is CAPACITANCE and POTENTIAL, neither of which is material. :-) Regards, Frederick > >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! >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 02:29:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA28865; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 02:24:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 02:24:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34813EBE.DD1AF54E microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:53:58 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Smot Mk4 Kit Update References: <199711292358.PAA01588 franc.ucdavis.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PdHfv3.0.q27.mxJWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13381 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dan Quickert wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > >I am testing in batches of 3, mixing the 3 bases, magnet arrays & > >balls in a 3 x 3 x 3 matrix (27 tests per batch). > > I'm curious, why is there a need to test a mix of parts from kits? Isn't it > sufficient that each individual kit work with its particular > ramp/magnet/ball set? > > Dan Quickert HI Dan, Just looking for any large variations that should not be there. It's also a good exercise to get a solid "Gut" understanding of the dynamics of the system. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 02:41:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA21458; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 02:38:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 02:38:26 -0800 Message-ID: <34814221.49B936AA microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:08:25 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Smot Mk4 Shipping Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ljseb1.0.2F5.X8KWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13382 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: HI All, I have finished the first matrix test. I found 2 magnet / ball combinations that would not work. I am looking into why. The reworked bases are due back on Tuesday. I plan to ship the kits in one bulk shipment and hope to achieve a arrival time variation of 24 hours or less. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 04:53:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA31952; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 04:50:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 04:50:26 -0800 Sender: jack mail2.centuryinter.net Message-ID: <34815129.6B9C621B mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 06:42:33 -0500 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: My work ... and Jed's Standard and Scott and The specs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LlNNs3.0.Ap7.H4MWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13383 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: "1] I have a system which will phyiscally attract and hold against gravity, or repel, non ferrous metals such as silver, copper and aluminum. I have a USAF report showing this is so and this was circulated to over 30 DoD branches. This is circa 1983. Be great for sorting trash, if nothing else. No takers. 2] I have a simple method wherein I use an inexpensive material at about 0.75 cents [yes, less than one cent] a square foot and with no adhesive you can put it on nearly any surface, glass, painted drywall, wood, and it will support 6 ounces with 20" by 20" sheet.... I have a can of tuna fish hanging from such a piece now. Although is does not fit any nice neat pigeon hole it is sort of like tape... but there is no adhesive and when you are done with it it is so biologiaclly intert you could eat it ... it wouuld not be much different than any roughage .. or chop it up and plant corn on it ....or just re use it. No takers. ... 7] Ignite carefully with propane torch. Wait until reaction is complete. Let me know what you find! Good hunting! The above is from experience. JHS" Hi John, Thank you for the directions. Would it be possible for me to light the coffee can with a magnesium strip rather than put the torch directly into the can? I generally light thermite that way. Or would this introduce contamination which would ruin the reaction? I will definitely do this outside. Because students will be involved as spectators, I'll probably wait till warm weather. You could be very helpful in determining what I find. Antioch is not that far from Cleveland, and I could send or bring the clinker to you. I was curious about your two inventions mentioned above. Are you able to release any details? I'm especially interested in the system for attracting non-ferrous metals. It's okay if you can't say anything more. Everything I did for industry was kept secret becuase management thought it would be too difficult to enforce patents. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 07:16:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09824; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:12:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:12:31 -0800 Message-ID: <3481826A.3E46 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:12:42 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: My work ... and Jed's Standard and Scott and The specs References: <34815129.6B9C621B@mail.pc.centuryinter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9q2uw2.0.JP2.T9OWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13384 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Taylor J. Smith wrote: > > John Schnurer wrote: > > "1] I have a system which will phyiscally attract and hold > against gravity, or repel, non ferrous metals such as silver, > copper and aluminum. Be great for > sorting trash, if nothing else. No takers. > ---- Or, for sorting gold (etc.) flakes from desert sand, mountain-wash stuff, or old mine tailings?? Mount system on the back of a jeep, John, - spend 2-3 months in summer roaming around - finance research rest of the year. No wash water required? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 07:30:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16244; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:27:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:27:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 06:28:04 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EarthTech Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"h5rmq2.0.kz3.2NOWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13385 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:33 PM 11/29/97, Scott Little wrote: [snip] > >In the "Beyond Science?" show, you see an example of improper zero >adjustment where one of the independent heat measuring methods is showing >about +0.1 watts when it should be reading zero. > >A complete description of this calorimeter is available at: > >http://www.eden.com/~little/dual.htm > > > >Scott Little Just visted your nicely detailed web page on this, as I hadn't had time to look at it earlier. I know there was some discussion of this before, so I hope I am not retreading old ground by bringing up some ideas. Except for being boring and time wasting, hopefully excess ideas are harmless and can be cheaply discarded or recycled. 8^) Your web page says: "Despite the insulation in the walls of the outer enclosure and the tight temperature control provided by the computer, the NLC calorimetry exhibits a small but noticeable sensitivity to ambient temperature changes. The effect is positive and appears to be related to both the temperature of the room and the rate of change of the room temperature. The error due to this effect is typically less than 0.1 watts and can be seen in some of the examples presented below." I would suggest a thermal mass covering for your outer enclosure. This could be concrete pavers or bricks, steel plates, etc. The ultimate would be a phase change material like ice and water or various near room temp phase change salts. This then should be covered with several inches of an outer foam covering. The combination of thermal mass and outer insulation and will reduce your time constant for responses to ambient temperature changes. Your web page says: "Despite the stirring of the air inside the inner enclosure, the response of the NLC system is somewhat sensitive to the location of the heat source. The maximum observed "location error" is approximately 10% relative1 . For optimum accuracy in the NLC calorimetry, a calibration can be performed using a calibration resistor that closely resembles the size, shape, power, and location of the experimental device being evaluated." Covering the inside of the inner chamber with heavy copper sheet, displaced slightly from the wall, should help reduce this problem by rapidly spreading the hot spots across the highly thermally conducting surface. Your web page says: "For reference, the fans are approximately 20 milliwatts each and the friction losses in the pump head amount to about 0.25 watts." It seems like losses in the pump head would vary significantly with fluid temperature, as might the volume pumped. One way to check this is to compare a hot run with a cold run. Do the hot run using your joule heater, and a cold run using a test cell comprized of a thermos full of ice and water with two holes in the lid for tubing leads going to and from a coil of Tygon tubing inside. This would permit checking for both temperature and volume drift due to pump tubing temperature changes. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 07:47:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18212; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:46:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:46:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 06:47:40 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EarthTech Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"WvSLg.0.US4.EfOWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13386 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I just wrote: [snip] > >I would suggest a thermal mass covering for your outer enclosure. This >could be concrete pavers or bricks, steel plates, etc. The ultimate would >be a phase change material like ice and water or various near room temp >phase change salts. This then should be covered with several inches of an >outer foam covering. The combination of thermal mass and outer insulation >and will reduce your time constant for responses to ambient temperature >changes. > The above should say "increase your time constant". This brain-check was pointed out to me courtesy Mitchell Swartz. The idea is to smooth out effects of ambient temperature changes by increasing the time constant. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 08:38:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA22776; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 08:32:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 08:32:16 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:30:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971130113055_719233033 mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: non-radiation of an electron Resent-Message-ID: <"hcqE_.0.nZ5.CKPWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13387 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Did you see the article in the December, 1997, "Scientific American" on zero-point energy? (starting on p. 82): "... orbiting electron lose energy through radiation; what keeps the electron zipping around the nucleus is, according to Puthoff, zero-point energy that the electron continuously absorbs." (p. 84).] .............................................................................. ............... I've came up with an alternate idea. That the mass energy of the electron is reflected back in upon itself. This reflection produces a force (2E/C). This force induces gravity. Gravity = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) The Source of Inertia l and Grav. Mass My model is an inside out version of Puthoff's model. I believe that my model is correct because the forces in my model have the correct direction (sign) to result in the negative gravitational field of matter. My model also shows that local fields exist. The rotation of these local fields produce the gravitomagnetic Tampere effect. What produces the reflections that confine matter? The energy is confined by a reflection. All reflections are produced by a change in the characteristic impediance of some medium. Free space has a material elasitic limit (quantum of capacitance). This quantum of capacitance reflects matter waves back in upon theirself under certain conditions. The forces that result induce the gravitational field of matter. This model does not upset the Cosmos with a huge mass of energy. This model also shows that new gravity may be induced by exploiting the forces in a ZP system. Capacitance quantum of = 3.42 x 10xp -24 farads To me its simple. To others I way out there. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 09:45:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25197; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:39:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:39:20 -0800 Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:39:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199711301739.LAA03805 natasha.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: EarthTech Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"JvCy4.0.Y96.6JQWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13388 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:28 AM 11/30/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >I would suggest a thermal mass covering for your outer enclosure. This >could be concrete pavers or bricks, steel plates, etc. Good idea, I think. Sure would be HEAVY. The outer enclosure is almost a 3 foot cube. >Covering the inside of the inner chamber with heavy copper sheet, displaced >slightly from the wall, should help reduce this problem by rapidly >spreading the hot spots across the highly thermally conducting surface. This might help some but remember that I'm sensing the AIR temperature inside the inner chamber. More vigorous stirring would definitely help but that would raise the fan power tare (i.e. the background thermal noise). >It seems like losses in the pump head would vary significantly with fluid >temperature, as might the volume pumped. Yes, and I have also observed that you can significantly affect the friction losses in the pump by the way you tension the tubing when you load it into the pump. Regarding the volume pumped, I have been pleasantly surprised at how immune these pumps are to fluid temperature. I haven't done a careful study but I can estimate that the change in mass flow rate in going from 20C to 60C is only 2% or perhaps less (this is with Norprene tubing which provides the best tubing life). Thanks for the constructive suggestions. That calorimeter has been idle for some months now and I'm going to have to recommission it soon... Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 12:06:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11538; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:59:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:59:15 -0800 Message-Id: <3481B344.DA7B9764 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:41:08 +0300 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Smot Mk4 Shipping References: <34814221.49B936AA microtronics.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Tx53N.0.yp2.IMSWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13389 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > HI All, > > I have finished the first matrix test. Great news! > > I found 2 magnet / ball combinations that would not work. I am > looking into why. I am amazed by the methods of Greg. Is there a name for the above case on engineering? Phantom defect? Experimental tolerance analysis? This finding may be useful for speed up testing the next batch. Instead of trying all combination of bases, balls and magnets, testing magnets against "defected balls" on one base, and testing balls against defected magnets on one base will suffice to *in crease* the number of defected balls and magnets. :-) Of course the validity of this method should be tested by repeating this procedure at least on another base. It is a very fortunate that no phantom defected base was found. Don't look deeply into "why". This is statistics. Anything can be occur. No great (physical) science could be build on statistics. :-) > The reworked bases are due back on Tuesday. > > I plan to ship the kits in one bulk shipment and hope to achieve a > arrival time variation of 24 hours or less. Dont put all your eggs in one basket. :-) > > -- > Best Regards, > Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson Regards, hamdi ucar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 13:59:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA27328; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:52:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:52:55 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:54:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EarthTech Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"DkGo_3.0.wg6.r0UWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13390 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:39 AM 11/30/97, Scott Little wrote: >At 06:28 AM 11/30/97 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: > >>I would suggest a thermal mass covering for your outer enclosure. This >>could be concrete pavers or bricks, steel plates, etc. > >Good idea, I think. Sure would be HEAVY. The outer enclosure is almost a 3 >foot cube. > >>Covering the inside of the inner chamber with heavy copper sheet, displaced >>slightly from the wall, should help reduce this problem by rapidly >>spreading the hot spots across the highly thermally conducting surface. > >This might help some but remember that I'm sensing the AIR temperature >inside the inner chamber. More vigorous stirring would definitely help but >that would raise the fan power tare (i.e. the background thermal noise). I would mount the thermocouples on the copper sheet, and keep them as far as possible away from the fan motors. > >>It seems like losses in the pump head would vary significantly with fluid >>temperature, as might the volume pumped. > >Yes, and I have also observed that you can significantly affect the friction >losses in the pump by the way you tension the tubing when you load it into >the pump. Regarding the volume pumped, I have been pleasantly surprised at >how immune these pumps are to fluid temperature. I haven't done a careful >study but I can estimate that the change in mass flow rate in going from 20C >to 60C is only 2% or perhaps less (this is with Norprene tubing which >provides the best tubing life). [snip] Totally subjective on my part, but I get the impression that when I first turn mine on it is slower, kind of like it has to warm up or stretch or something. Norprene is pretty rigid stuff, especially compared to Tygon. A warm up "stretch" effect, if real, wouldn't have much impact on an actual run though. Still makes me wonder about the coefficient of expansion for the Norprene tubing. Also, because it is so rigid, it must push the motor close to being able to skip a phase now and then. I suppose a counter on the revolutions, at least for a test, would fix that worry though. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 16:03:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20122; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:51:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:51:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3481FC0D.B1F8E332 microtronics.com.au> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 10:21:41 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Smot Mk4 Shipping References: <34814221.49B936AA microtronics.com.au> <3481B344.DA7B9764@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EKqgS1.0.Aw4.KmVWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13391 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > > HI All, > > > > I have finished the first matrix test. > > Great news! > > > > > I found 2 magnet / ball combinations that would not work. I am > > looking into why. > > I am amazed by the methods of Greg. Is there a name for the above case on engineering? Phantom defect? Experimental tolerance analysis? Experimental tolerance analysis sounds good. I just call it "Finding the Margins". > This finding may be useful for speed up testing the next batch. Instead of trying all combination of bases, balls and magnets, testing magnets against "defected balls" on one base, and testing balls against defected magnets on one base will suffice to * increase* the number of defected balls and magnets. :-) Of course the validity of this method should be tested by repeating this procedure at least on another base. > > It is a very fortunate that no phantom defected base was found. Other than polishing defects, the CNC produced bases are tightly margined. Its the magnets that seem to have the variations. Remember that they are just mass produced "Fridge Magnets". > Don't look deeply into "why". This is statistics. Anything can be occur. No great (physical) science could be build on statistics. :-) I look into the physical construction of the arrays and look for soft magnets using a Hall effect probe. Have found several really dud units with pole face flux densities only 10% of the norm. I now pre-check each small magnet in both attractive and repulsive mode (checks two points on the magnet's B/H curve) before I assemble them into the arrays. > > The reworked bases are due back on Tuesday. > > > > I plan to ship the kits in one bulk shipment and hope to achieve a > > arrival time variation of 24 hours or less. > > Dont put all your eggs in one basket. :-) I plan to release photos & videos on my site after the kits have shipped. > Regards, > > hamdi ucar -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 19:20:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00636; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 19:15:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 19:15:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <01BCFDC8.BEE8B6E0.JoeC transmutation.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 19:47:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FerTm.0.r9.ykYWq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13392 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: George wrote: Subject: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Richard Blue has stated categorically that there ain't no such thing as neutrons from arc welders. Allow me to describe some experiments which I have carried out recently. I took a standard arc welder and rods and made large welds on some scrap steel, old farm gate hinges. I did not knock off the slag, and allowed the welds to cool naturally. I then placed the alpha window of a Geiger counter over the weld and logged the counts/min. over a period of several days. This experiment has now been done 5 times with similar results in each case. I certainly kept the counter well out of the way during the actual welding. The type used was an RM-80 from Aware Electronics (see www.aw-el.com for details), using the data logging software provided with it. Initially, the count rose to two to three times background, due obviously to the slight radioactivity of the flux on the rods. Thereafter, it rose by a further 20 - 30% over the next few days, tending to a limit exponentially with a time constant of about 100 hours. Perhaps Blue can explain why the radioactivity from a weld can change in this way. I am not able to state the type of radiation. Adding some medicinal borax powder while welding seemed to enhance the effect. Of course with the slag still present on the weld, derived from the radioactive flux, there will be some radiation observed, but why the change? George, I think that you can find an easy answer. The flux and a standard contaminate of borax is potassium. You are probably observing a chemical reaction of the potassium within the flux. Over time, K will convert to its oxide state KOH. In this process you will have a chemical migration of K to the surface. Of course, K40 (found in nature) is radioactive. The increases in your counts are probably related to a slow chemical change/concentration of K near the surface. I have experienced this migration with Na numerous times in my research. The only way that you could know for sure would be to measure the energy level to determine the exact isotope. Joe Champion www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 20:23:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA31053; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:17:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:17:09 -0800 Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:13:28 -0700 Message-ID: <01bcfe0f$7aa92040$LocalHost default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Resent-Message-ID: <"uPDkr.0.7b7.4fZWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13393 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -----Original Message----- From: Joe Champion To: 'vortex-l eskimo.com' Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 8:27 PM Subject: RE: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders > >George wrote: >Subject: Blue: Neutrons from arc welders > >Richard Blue has stated categorically that there ain't no such thing as >neutrons from arc welders. Look out for "Old Blue". :-) > >Allow me to describe some experiments which I have carried out recently. >I took a standard arc welder and rods and made large welds on some scrap >steel, old farm gate hinges. I did not knock off the slag, and allowed the >welds to cool naturally. I then placed the alpha window of a Geiger >counter >over the weld and logged the counts/min. over a period of several days. >This experiment has now been done 5 times with similar results in each >case. The scrap steel old farm gate hinges contain a goodly portion of carbon 6 C12 and also nitrogen which may have diffused in over the years. if hit with a high energy cosmic ray neutron,undergoes the reaction: neutron + 7 N14 -----> Proton + 6 C14 in addition to the one part/trillion Carbon 14 in the steel. The Carbon 14 with a half-life of 5730 years decays with the emission of a 156.5 Kev Beta particle (100% no gammas). The rule-of-thumb is 13 counts/minute/gram of carbon in the sample. Since the Carbonates of sodium and potassium should do the same thing, and KOH or NaOH will grab up CO2 like crazy,no surprises there. Regards, Frederick > >I certainly kept the counter well out of the way during the actual welding. >The type used was an RM-80 from Aware Electronics (see www.aw-el.com >for details), using the data logging software provided with it. > >Initially, the count rose to two to three times background, due obviously >to >the slight radioactivity of the flux on the rods. Thereafter, it rose by a >further 20 - 30% over the next few days, tending to a limit exponentially >with a time >constant of about 100 hours. > >Perhaps Blue can explain why the radioactivity from a weld can change in >this >way. I am not able to state the type of radiation. Adding some medicinal >borax powder while welding seemed to enhance the effect. > >Of course with the slag still present on the weld, derived from the >radioactive flux, there will be some radiation observed, but why the >change? > > > >George, I think that you can find an easy answer. The flux and a standard >contaminate of borax is potassium. > >You are probably observing a chemical reaction of the potassium within the >flux. Over time, K will convert to its oxide state KOH. In this process >you will have a chemical migration of K to the surface. Of course, K40 >(found in nature) is radioactive. The increases in your counts are >probably related to a slow chemical change/concentration of K near the >surface. > >I have experienced this migration with Na numerous times in my research. > >The only way that you could know for sure would be to measure the energy >level to determine the exact isotope. > >Joe Champion >www.transmutation.com > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Nov 30 21:23:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA08799; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:11:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:11:35 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:11:24 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: Melvin Miles cc: "'vortex-L eskimo.com'" Subject: fwd: CF Calorimetry In-Reply-To: <01BCFE49.0F43CAA0 miles.nhelab.iae.or.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IHanx1.0.I92.5SaWq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13394 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Forwarded message, see below... .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Melvin Miles wrote: > An eminent scientist, Dr. Fritz G. Will,has totally shot down Steve > Jones' concept that recombination can account for most reports of excess > heat. Details are available in Dr. Will's publication: Journal of > Electroanalytical Chemistry,Vol.426,pp.177-184, 1997. > > Roger M. Hart, an expert on calorimetry, visited my laboratory in 1995. > He agreed with my published error range, i.e. 20 mW or 1 % of the input > power, whichever is larger. My reply to Steve Jones will hopefully soon > be published by the Journal of Physical Chemistry after a long, > difficult battle for me to be permitted to respond.