From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  1 05:07:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16247;
	Sun, 1 Mar 1998 05:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 05:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000101bd4512$1f89e2e0$438cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Summary of O/U - Nuclear Effects From Light Lepton (LL +/-) Pair Production.
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 06:00:27 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"GNAXd3.0.nz3.QqL-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16225
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

P&F - Ceti:

H+ & D+ and M+ (cation)cathode reactions following LL Pair Production from
cathodoluminescence (real photons)and charge interaction (virtual photons)
resulting in production of Hydrinos-Deutrinos-Electrinos, Heat.

Sonoluminescence:

LL Pair Production from Real and Virtual photons.

Potatov and Griggs Pump:

Ditto

Mills' Hydrinos-Deutrinos:

Formation of H+ and D+ with an M+ "catalyst",
1, M+ + LL- ----> M*
2, M* + H or D ---> Hydrino or Deutrino + M + Energy
3, M* + D --->  Hydrino + Neutron + M (Stripping?)
4, Neutron + H ---> D
5, Neutron + D ---> T

Correa&Correa:

Plasma production of LL Pairs,Then, H+ or D+ with subsequent
Hydrino-Deutrino production.

Brown's Gas:

Formation of LL Pairs and H or D, Requires catalytic
amounts of Metal ion (M+) to form the Hydrinos-Deutrinos.

Hot Fusion:

Same Song, Second Verse.   :-)

Regards, Frederick





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  1 18:55:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA26848;
	Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:50:47 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Cosmology Article, Ross Tessien
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 02:48:43 +0000
Message-ID: <19980302024841.AAA17280 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"lwmFh2.0.QZ6.2wX-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16226
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross,

Is your theory developed to the point where it can make quantitative
guestimations, like for longitudinal forces in vacuum arc discharges?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  2 09:05:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01794;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 08:59:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 08:59:29 -0800
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03020900b12073da9ab4 [128.183.200.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:59:07 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"hGWGW3.0.sR.jLk-q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16227
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

  There has been considerable interest here on a revision of the E&M force.
There are two good articles in Infinite Energy #17, The Marinov Motor by
Jeffery Kooistra, p. 40, and Demystifying the Marinov Motor by Thomas
Phipps.  The major problem with these force revisions is that it is
generally conceded that the standard Lorentz force is the correct force
acting upon free charged particles.  There is just too much evidence to
that effect.  The Graneaus agree to this but then go on to argue that
through some effect caused by the charges being forced into condensed
matter, like wires, the force is changed.
  So right from the start we are faced with a major difficulty in that the
law of superposition of forces is assumed invalid due to some unknown
mechanism.  The Lorentz force works fine on a free particle but put that
particle in a wire with other charged particles, add up all the forces, and
we get a totally different result with no explanation for this difference.
  One point that can be made very clear is that all the proposed new forces
are not acceptable for a free particle.  Take for example the Phipps force.
He has an additional force given by:

 F(added) = - q (grad (v dot A))

Now this term is on the order of about 1/2 of the magnetic force on a free
particle.  This result, which is also the case with all the other alleged
new forces, is unacceptable.
  For the simple case of a constant magnetic field we can set

 A = 1/2 * B cross r

where r is the position vector of the charged particle.  Checking we have

  grad cross A = 1/2 (grad cross (B cross R)) = 1/2 (B div(r) -B) = B

so the magnetic field, B, is the curl of A.  The added force is then

 F(added) = -q/2 (grad (v dot(B cross r))) = -q/2 v cross B

The new magnetic force is given by

 F(new) = q v cross B + F(added) = q/2 v cross B

The new magnetic force is 1/2 of the old force.  This is totally
ridiculous.  So all the new force advocates need to make the argument used
by the Graneaus that the law of superposition of forces does not work for
charges in wires.  They have to agree to the Lorentz force for free
particles.  Their revised forces would give ridiculous results here.  Then
they have to argue that the combined forces in a wire do not add up in the
normal way but instead give their new forces.
  So the basic starting point of the E&M force revisionists appears to be
total nonsense.  They have to throw out a basic law of Physics, the law of
superposition of forces, without any justification.  On the other hand
there may be experimental evidence that the revision is necessary and that
issue will be discussed later.

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 Mar  2 12:30:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA28576;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD662 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:20:43 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"Oi-XZ3.0.O-6.QKn-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16228
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry
	Haven't you noticed? Since the discovery of the new laws, your
computer monitor and TV sets are out of adjustment, at least if they
have magnetic deflection.
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Larry Wharton[SMTP:wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 02, 1998 8:59 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	The New E&M Force, part 1
> 
>   There has been considerable interest here on a revision of the E&M
> force.
> There are two good articles in Infinite Energy #17, The Marinov Motor
> by
> Jeffery Kooistra, p. 40, and Demystifying the Marinov Motor by Thomas
> Phipps.  The major problem with these force revisions is that it is
> generally conceded that the standard Lorentz force is the correct
> force
> acting upon free charged particles.  There is just too much evidence
> to
> that effect.  The Graneaus agree to this but then go on to argue that
> through some effect caused by the charges being forced into condensed
> matter, like wires, the force is changed.
>   So right from the start we are faced with a major difficulty in that
> the
> law of superposition of forces is assumed invalid due to some unknown
> mechanism.  The Lorentz force works fine on a free particle but put
> that
> particle in a wire with other charged particles, add up all the
> forces, and
> we get a totally different result with no explanation for this
> difference.
>   One point that can be made very clear is that all the proposed new
> forces
> are not acceptable for a free particle.  Take for example the Phipps
> force.
> He has an additional force given by:
> 
>  F(added) = - q (grad (v dot A))
> 
> Now this term is on the order of about 1/2 of the magnetic force on a
> free
> particle.  This result, which is also the case with all the other
> alleged
> new forces, is unacceptable.
>   For the simple case of a constant magnetic field we can set
> 
>  A = 1/2 * B cross r
> 
> where r is the position vector of the charged particle.  Checking we
> have
> 
>   grad cross A = 1/2 (grad cross (B cross R)) = 1/2 (B div(r) -B) = B
> 
> so the magnetic field, B, is the curl of A.  The added force is then
> 
>  F(added) = -q/2 (grad (v dot(B cross r))) = -q/2 v cross B
> 
> The new magnetic force is given by
> 
>  F(new) = q v cross B + F(added) = q/2 v cross B
> 
> The new magnetic force is 1/2 of the old force.  This is totally
> ridiculous.  So all the new force advocates need to make the argument
> used
> by the Graneaus that the law of superposition of forces does not work
> for
> charges in wires.  They have to agree to the Lorentz force for free
> particles.  Their revised forces would give ridiculous results here.
> Then
> they have to argue that the combined forces in a wire do not add up in
> the
> normal way but instead give their new forces.
>   So the basic starting point of the E&M force revisionists appears to
> be
> total nonsense.  They have to throw out a basic law of Physics, the
> law of
> superposition of forces, without any justification.  On the other hand
> there may be experimental evidence that the revision is necessary and
> that
> issue will be discussed later.
> 
> 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 Mar  2 13:42:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07304;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:12:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v0300780bb120cb531ea0 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <v03020900b12073da9ab4 [128.183.200.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:10:49 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"ag3jH.0.xn1.d2o-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16229
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry Wharton wrote:
>  There has been considerable interest here on a revision of the E&M force.
>There are two good articles in Infinite Energy #17, The Marinov Motor by
>Jeffery Kooistra, p. 40, and Demystifying the Marinov Motor by Thomas
>Phipps.....

I read these, too, and I was thinking obout commenting when I got around to
it. So, Larry's comments have pushed me into motion. Actually, I only read
Kooistra's article on Marinov Motor experiments carefully, so I limit my
comments to his experiments.

Kooistra's experiments are only qualitative, not quantitative, but they
appear to to be good. He claims that his experimental results cannot be
explained by conventional electromagnetism, and therefore, that the
conventional theory is overturned. He claims to have shown that there must
exist an electromagnetic force acting _parallel_ to an electric current.

I say that this is not true, because Kooistra's application of
electromagnetism was incomplete. In his main experiment, the small force he
observed can be explained conventionally as the interaction between the
fringe magnetic field (in the vertical direction in his drawings) of the
permanent magnet rotor crossed with the radial current in the wires leading
to the ring-shaped "field winding" or stator. This explanation is also
consistent with Kooistra's experiment where the annular stator was replaced
by a cylindrical stator, to eliminate the possibility of having a radial
current in the ring stator. However, this geometry modification does not
eliminate the radial current in the feed wires to the stator.

In his last experiment, Kooistra held the permanent magnet rotor fixed and
left the annular ring stator free to rotate, which it did. Although he does
not explicitly state it, Kooistra's words make it seem that the ring
rotation was very weak under these circumstances. If true, this would be
consistent with a force consisting of just the radial current in the ring,
crossed with the fringe magnetic field as before, driving the ring to
rotate. I propose two tests that can check my logic.  (1) Brush the current
to the _inner_ circumference of the annular ring. This would reverse the
direction of the radial current in the ring and should reverse its
direction of rotation. (2) Test for ring rotation using the _cylindrical_
ring. In this geometry there should be negligible radial current, and
conventional electromagnetism  would predict an equally negligible torque.

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 Mar  2 14:34:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19523;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:28:03 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:26:43 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd462a$47834d40$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"tYbiD.0.ym4.i9p-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16230
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael Schaffer wrote:
>Kooistra's experiments are only qualitative, not quantitative, but they
>appear to to be good. He claims that his experimental results cannot be
>explained by conventional electromagnetism, and therefore, that the
>conventional theory is overturned. He claims to have shown that there must
>exist an electromagnetic force acting _parallel_ to an electric current.
>
>I say that this is not true, because Kooistra's application of
>electromagnetism was incomplete. In his main experiment, the small force he
>observed can be explained conventionally as the interaction between the
>fringe magnetic field (in the vertical direction in his drawings) of the
>permanent magnet rotor crossed with the radial current in the wires leading
>to the ring-shaped "field winding" or stator. This explanation is also
>consistent with Kooistra's experiment where the annular stator was replaced
>by a cylindrical stator, to eliminate the possibility of having a radial
>current in the ring stator. However, this geometry modification does not
>eliminate the radial current in the feed wires to the stator.


I agree that the fringing field of the torus is required to get motor
rotation. I built two models, one with a ferrite torus and another with
a supermendur tape wound cut C core torus. The measured fringe field
in the ferrite case was 35 gauss and with the supermendur core it
was less than .3 gauss. A crude estimate using the 20,000 gauss
saturation (i.e. not saturated) and mu of 60,000 for the tape core
at the measured flux density of 6,000 gauss would give a fringe field
of about .1 gauss at the surface. I could easily see the effect of a
10 amp. ring (actually a wire in this implementation) current causing
rotation of the ferrite torus but no effect was observable with the
supermendur torus even though the total flux was comparable.

>In his last experiment, Kooistra held the permanent magnet rotor fixed and
>left the annular ring stator free to rotate, which it did. Although he does
>not explicitly state it, Kooistra's words make it seem that the ring
>rotation was very weak under these circumstances. If true, this would be
>consistent with a force consisting of just the radial current in the ring,
>crossed with the fringe magnetic field as before, driving the ring to
>rotate.

This seems a bit speculative, I don't think the ring rotation is so easily
explained. With the crude slip rings and the low torque available
in a single conductor ring it is amazing that it rotates at all.
It seems that if your ring feed current idea is correct that the
torque on the torus would be dependent on the direction of the
lead in wires. I have not noticed this effect but I will set up an
experiment to test for it.

>I propose two tests that can check my logic.  (1) Brush the current
>to the _inner_ circumference of the annular ring. This would reverse the
>direction of the radial current in the ring and should reverse its
>direction of rotation. (2) Test for ring rotation using the _cylindrical_
>ring. In this geometry there should be negligible radial current, and
>conventional electromagnetism  would predict an equally negligible torque.

These seem like good tests. I have been in email contact with Jeff Kooistra
and with your permission will forward your comments to him.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  2 15:09:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24458;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:50:38 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <34fc4530.74751172 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <v0300780bb120cb531ea0 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <v0300780bb120cb531ea0 [198.133.146.230]>
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: <"1iafn.0._z5.YWp-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16232
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:10:49 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
[snip]
>rotate. I propose two tests that can check my logic.  (1) Brush the current
>to the _inner_ circumference of the annular ring. This would reverse the
>direction of the radial current in the ring and should reverse its
>direction of rotation. (2) Test for ring rotation using the _cylindrical_
>ring. In this geometry there should be negligible radial current, and
>conventional electromagnetism  would predict an equally negligible torque.
[snip]
Another suggestion, let the lead wires be vertical rather than
horizontal, and see if this makes a difference. 

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar  2 15:11:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24094;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:50:59 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:44:05 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <34fb43d8.74407357 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD662 xch-cpc-02>
In-Reply-To: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD662 xch-cpc-02>
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: <"VYiao.0.Ju5.DVp-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16231
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:20:43 -0800, Scudder, Henry J wrote:

>Larry
>	Haven't you noticed? Since the discovery of the new laws, your
>computer monitor and TV sets are out of adjustment, at least if they
>have magnetic deflection.
>Hank
[snip]
Well.... when I got my new monitor, it was totally out of adjustment!
;>.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar  2 18:01:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26307;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803030153.UAA16750 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 98 20:55:34 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wgqOs1.0.zQ6.wCs-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16233
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robin wrote:

>Another suggestion, let the lead wires be vertical rather than
>horizontal, and see if this makes a difference. 

This has been tried by Kooistra recenlty -- it makes NO DIFFERENCE!

The motor is very robust. This is not a weak effect. I will get more 
feedback from Kooistra, Ligon, and Phipps in response to Mike Schaeffer's 
comments.

I think this anomaly is going to survive the critics. It is non-trivial 
to debunk it.

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  Mon Mar  2 18:16:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA26234;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:12:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:12:09 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007811b12116f1e2e9 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:12:34 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"oZA0B.0.iP6.tRs-q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16234
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robin wrote:

>Another suggestion, let the lead wires be vertical rather than
>horizontal, and see if this makes a difference.

Vertical leads should still yield torque, because near the toop and bottom
of the permanent magnet rotor the fringe magnetic field is _radial_, which
crosses the vertical wire curent and yields torque by conventional EM
theory. Still, I look forward to any experimental tests.

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 Mar  2 18:33:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA02653;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:17:53 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: New EM Blow by grinding blow
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980302211454.2467A-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"z2FyK3.0.Mf.gfs-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16235
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	Can anyone give a simple "hardball nuts and bolts, belt and 
suspenders" engineering, "blow by grinding blow" description of the the 
motor ... which I gather has something to do with a torus?  The part 
which claims the force is not small but "very robust"?


			Thanks,

					JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  2 19:59:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA18638;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b1212df1103b [12.64.66.7]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980302211454.2467A-100000 college>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:48:55 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: New EM Blow by grinding blow
Resent-Message-ID: <"t_SHq3.0.8Z4._tt-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16236
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>	Dear Vo.,
>
>	Can anyone give a simple "hardball nuts and bolts, belt and
>suspenders" engineering, "blow by grinding blow" description of the the
>motor ... which I gather has something to do with a torus?  The part
>which claims the force is not small but "very robust"?
>
>
>			Thanks,
>
>					JHS


You mean ... you're *not* subscribed to "Infinite Energy"???!

:(


- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  2 20:45:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA30108;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:36:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:36:44 -0800
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:30:44 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New EM Blow by grinding blow
In-Reply-To: <l03102801b1212df1103b [12.64.66.7]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980302232959.7707L-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"TCLha1.0.KM7.QZu-q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16237
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Uh.... no.  Are you?

					J

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote:

> >	Dear Vo.,
> >
> >	Can anyone give a simple "hardball nuts and bolts, belt and
> >suspenders" engineering, "blow by grinding blow" description of the the
> >motor ... which I gather has something to do with a torus?  The part
> >which claims the force is not small but "very robust"?
> >
> >
> >			Thanks,
> >
> >					JHS
> 
> 
> You mean ... you're *not* subscribed to "Infinite Energy"???!
> 
> :(
> 
> 
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  2 20:49:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00200;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:46:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:46:24 -0800
Message-ID: <001801bd465f$f54ca400$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: New EM Blow by grinding blow
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:50:58 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"IewRR2.0.w2.Tiu-q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16238
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hell yes,  Gene gives me an inside to where I went wrong in transmutation!


>
>
> Uh.... no.  Are you?
>

>> You mean ... you're *not* subscribed to "Infinite Energy"???!
>> 




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  2 20:56:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27336;
	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:44:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199803030444.UAA32585 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: Cosmology Article, Ross Tessien
Resent-Message-ID: <"SGLhz3.0.2h6.Kku-q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16239
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Ross,
>
>Is your theory developed to the point where it can make quantitative
>guestimations, like for longitudinal forces in vacuum arc discharges?
>

Good question.  No.

I do expect a longitudinal force, but don't know how to quantize the
magnitude.  

The primary place that my theory differs from QM and GR is anywhere that you
have mass to energy conversions.  This is not a factor in normal EM
phenomena such as coils, rail guns etc.  With my theory, you end up with a
gravitational like thrust away from any region of exothermy, and toward any
region of endothermy because of the emission (or condensation), of aether,
and that essentially leads to the emission, or condensation, of spacetime nodes.

In other words, fusion reactions in my theory are essentially a continuation
of the boiling of aether condensate which is what happened in the
inflationary period of the big bang.  So essentially, fusion is a
continuation of the big bang but now the excess aether density is confined
in aether resonances, aka solitons, aka particles plus their force fields.
Fusion reactions "push" the balance of the universe away from the source of
the fusion reactions via emission of more aether out into the ocean of
aether we call empty space.

I have identified all sorts of inertial phenomena that we have observed,
which my theory anticipates, and which are mysterious when one tries to
apply "magnetic fields" to accelerate **neutral particles** to form jets
outside of newborn stars etc.

As far as EM is concerned, I find no difference.  In fact, Thomson derived
Maxwell's equations from an aether model virtually identical to the one I am
using.  It was a simplistic model that didn't take into account nuclear
structures, but aside from that, it was very similar.  He even had the basis
for neutral particles, but they didn't know about neutrinos back then.

As far as longitudinal forces are concerned, I think they exist, but ought
to be transient and cancel out for a complete cycle, ie something completes
a full circuit.  But for things like the rail gun etc., I think they will be
important.  I have the basis for the derivations, but cannot accomplish
them.  The basis exists in Thomson's work.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 02:55:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA03241;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 02:54:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 02:54:28 -0800
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <34FB8B0B.66E519EF mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:46:03 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Run 13 - Pt filament
References: <3.0.1.32.19980218122825.00aee2c8 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kpkyD.0.Zo.Z5--q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16240
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

 OK, sports fans, read all about Run 13 at: ....

Hi Scott, 

Is Run 14 on the horizon? -- K+ in the vapor space?

Out of curiosity, why did you post "close-up of
new tungsten filament?"

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 03:55:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA13390;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:54:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:54:43 -0800
Message-ID: <006401bd469a$b5ea9700$368cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Power Plant Question
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:50:53 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"1XQEl2.0.8H3.1---q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16241
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

With a 1,000 MWe condensing turbine running at
3"Hg (76 Torr) back-pressure, with a heat rate of 10 pounds of water/kWhr,
how much power can be gained by "seeding" the low pressure vapor
with Potassium "salts" to create Hydrinos-Electrinos and heating
isobarically
to 1832 F (1272 K) with this mass flow )10 million pounds/hr) through a
"scavenging" turbine?  Frank S. McNugget?   :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 06:08:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA32721;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:06:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:06:25 -0800
From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Message-ID: <6eda2f9d.34fc0e35 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:05:39 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: turbine question
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Resent-Message-ID: <"0c6aa1.0.--7.Uv0_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16242
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

With a 1,000 MWe condensing turbine running at
3"Hg (76 Torr) back-pressure, with a heat rate of 10 pounds of water/kWhr,
how much power can be gained by "seeding" the low pressure vapor
with Potassium "salts" to create Hydrinos-Electrinos and heating
isobarically
to 1832 F (1272 K) with this mass flow )10 million pounds/hr) through a
"scavenging" turbine?  Frank S. McNugget?   :-)

Regards,   Frederick
.............................................................

NONE.

The salt will also ruin the turbine and crud up the boiler.


Frank Znidarsic

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 07:06:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA07351;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FC1AFF.F89 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:00:15 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Power Plant Question
References: <006401bd469a$b5ea9700$368cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gUcjO1.0.jo1.9k1_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16244
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
> 
> With a 1,000 MWe condensing turbine running at
> 3"Hg (76 Torr) back-pressure, with a heat rate of 10 pounds of water/kWhr,
> how much power can be gained by "seeding" the low pressure vapor
> with Potassium "salts" to create Hydrinos-Electrinos and heating
> isobarically
> to 1832 F (1272 K) with this mass flow )10 million pounds/hr) through a
> "scavenging" turbine?  Frank S. McNugget?   :-)
> 

Well, Fred, probably not enough to pay for "scale removal" in the boiler
tubes to get the K-salts out.  Maybe that's where they went wrong! -
using deionized water in the loops!  Hmmmmm, then, there's the chance
that adding KNO3 seed (+ flowers of sulfur?) to the after-burner of
a sooted-up fighter jet engine might clean the engine and let the pilot
achieve orbital velocity (in one fell swoop, as it were).

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 07:05:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09289;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:55:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:55:46 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <34FC19E3.6F59FF7C ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:55:31 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New EM Blow by grinding blow
References: <001801bd465f$f54ca400$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"etgAW1.0._G2.md1_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16243
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Joe Champion wrote:
> Hell yes,  Gene gives me an inside to where I went wrong in transmutation!

On that note Joe, how is everything going?  Last I recall, you were enjoying
some success in producing ever larger quantities in an on-going attempt to
perfect a batch process.  Haven't heard anything from you on the topic in a
while.  Either that is good news or bad news.  Hope you've just been too busy
to horse around on-line!


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 08:02:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16106;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980303095743.00b01858 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:57:43 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: BLP Run 14
In-Reply-To: <34FC1AFF.F89 interlaced.net>
References: <006401bd469a$b5ea9700$368cbfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sAyG-1.0.Wx3.wX2_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16245
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:00 3/3/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Hmmmmm, then, there's the chance
>that adding KNO3 seed (+ flowers of sulfur?) to the after-burner of
>a sooted-up fighter jet engine might clean the engine and let the pilot
>achieve orbital velocity (in one fell swoop, as it were).

.....hmmmm, if I could borrow an operational F4 from the now defunct
Bergstrom Air Force base out south of town, modify the afterburner to
inject a mist of liquid metal potassium in pure hydrogen...   Yes!...that
is DEFINITELY on the list of ideas for BLP Run 14.

Scott

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 10:01:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20027;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:52:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:52:13 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:48:40 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] $10 million computer sabotag
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803031251_MC2-3557-B12E compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"HowOS3.0.ou4.BD4_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16246
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The newspapers report an incident at Omega Engineering, Inc. (www.omega.com).
Apparently, a disgruntled senior employee in the data processing department
sabotaged their computer data, causing $10 million in damage due to scrambled
software and lost data. I gather this was software sabotage, with no physical
damage to equipment. I have seen three reports of this, quietly tucked in the
back pages in the business section. The details have not been made public,
perhaps to prevent other people from staging similar attacks, or perhaps
because the company does not want to talk about it. Many in-house computer
disasters are hushed up. This sort of thing is embarrassing. It hurts the
stock value because it shows they are vulnerable, or stupid for not auditing
employee performance and not making sufficient backups. I am surprised that a
high-tech company like Omega would mismanage its computers so badly. On the
other hand, years ago I heard about a high tech computer component company out
in Arizona that went belly up after their minicomputer crashed, because the DP
manager had never made a back up copy of the hard disk. (It could be an
apocryphal tale; the minicomputer engineers told me about it.)

This is the dark side of the computer age. Sabotage, spying, embezzlement and
other computer crimes usually originate inside the corporation. The anonymous
hacker breaking in from outside is comparatively rare. Outside attacks are
easier to prevent, in my opinion.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 11:52:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16114;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:42:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:42:09 -0800
Message-ID: <34FC8746.4532 bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:42:14 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Cosmological Constant
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6Wtso1.0.bx3.Eq5_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16247
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Surely we can blame the ZPF!  From today's NY Times:

	<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Shocked Cosmologists Find Universe Expanding Faster

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

   At their telescopes in the last few years, astronomers have been
searching the heavens for evidence that the expansion of the universe is
slowing down. The mutual gravitational attraction of all matter in
stars, planets, and everything else known or hypothesized should be
putting a gradual brake on the outward rush of space since the explosive
moment of cosmic creation in the theorized Big Bang.

  The preliminary results of the search are now in, and they are
stunning. The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating,
instead of decelerating.

  "Our observations show that the universe is expanding faster today
than yesterday," Dr. Adam Riess, a young astronomer at the University of
California, at Berkeley, said in an interview last week. An analysis by
him and an international team of scientists indicated that the cosmic
expansion rate is about 15 percent greater now than when the universe
was half its current age, about 7 billion years ago.

  The group including Riess and another one, led by Dr. Saul Perlmutter
of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, used similar techniques of
measuring the cosmic expansion rates over time by studying distant
exploding stars, called supernovas. At first, the astronomers were not
sure they could believe what they were seeing. But as they examined more
supernovas and explored sources of possible error or alternative
explanations, they have grown bold in describing the implications of
their research at recent meetings.

  "Try as we might, we have not found any errors," Dr. Alexei V.
Filippenko, a University of California astronomer who has worked on both
teams, told colleagues recently at a meeting in Marina del Rey, Calif.
"We get a nonzero cosmological constant."

  Translated, that means the astronomers are increasingly confident that
they have detected the first strong evidence that the universe is
permeated by a repulsive force, the opposite of gravity. The simplest
explanation, other astrophysicists agree, is that the force is something
called the cosmological constant. As conceived by theorists, this force
is a property of the vacuum of space itself, an energy that acts on a
large scale to stretch space and thus counteract gravity's restraining
power.

  If the observations are correct, this is one more case of astronomers
handing cosmologists a new piece to a jigsaw puzzle, which is always
maddeningly incomplete, and asking them to find a way to fit it into a
satisfying theoretical whole. Knowledge of an accelerating expansion
could lead to a revised recipe of just what the universe is made of. It
could resolve a paradox raised by previous controversial suggestions
that the universe appears to be younger than its oldest stars. It could
also change thinking about cosmic evolution and the ultimate fate of the
universe.

  Reflecting the cautious excitement and fervid conjecture touched off
by the new findings, Dr. Michael S. Turner, an astrophysicist at the
University of Chicago and Fermi National Laboratory, said: "If it's
true, this is a remarkable discovery. It means that most of the universe
is influenced by an abundance of some weird form of energy whose force
is repulsive."

  If he were alive, no one would be more bemused by this turn of events
than Albert Einstein. Soon after he formulated his general theory of
relativity in 1915, Einstein was unsettled to find it demanded that the
universe either expanded or contracted over time. But like nearly all
scientists at the time, he assumed the universe was static, neither
expanding nor contracting. What to do

?  To compensate for what he considered a flaw in his theory, Einstein
introduced the idea of the cosmological constant, symbolized in
equations by the Greek letter lambda. The repulsive energy force would
presumably counteract gravity and make the universe in his theory stand
still. Soon after Edwin P. Hubble discovered the expanding universe in
1929, Einstein renounced the cosmological constant as the greatest
blunder of his career.

  For years, scientists agreed, dismissing lambda as "that fudge
factor." In the last decade, however, they reluctantly dusted it off as
a means of balancing the books on the matter, and other forces that are
required to support the favored interpretation of Big Bang theory.

  In this model, called the inflationary Big Bang, the universe should
contain a critical density of matter, just enough to slow expansion to a
halt, given infinite time. Scientists express this condition of critical
density as omega equals one. Too little mass -- if omega equals less
than one -- and the universe would expand forever, growing ever more
tenuous. If omega equals more than one, then the universe would collapse
of its own weight, contracting in what is called the Big Crunch.

  So far, astronomical observations and other research have established
that the mass density of the universe amounts to no more than 30 percent
of the preferred critical value. That includes the mass from ordinary
matter in galaxies and a large component of mysterious exotic particles,
invisible and still hypothetical. Despite this matter deficit,
cosmologists clung to the inflation theory because it had passed many
tests and provided a satisfying explanation for early conditions in the
universe.

  In 1990, reviewing all the data, Turner proposed a formula for a
"best-fit universe" that accorded with inflation theory. By his
calculations, the universe contained 5 percent ordinary matter and 25
percent mass in the form of cold, dark matter, invisible and exotic. The
cosmological constant, the energy of empty space, would account for the
balance of 70 percent, bringing the universe up to critical density.

  The new findings appear to make a prophet of Turner and others who
were beginning to share his views. In January, both teams studying
supernovas, measuring how fast these stars were rushing outward when
they exploded, reported that the cosmic expansion rate had slowed little
or not at all over billions of years. The universe's mass, in ordinary
and exotic matter, added up to no more than 20 percent to 30 percent of
critical density. The universe, therefore, seemed destined to expand
forever.

  After more analysis of the observations, the teams realized that they
were probably seeing the direct evidence for the mysterious background
energy known as the cosmological constant. Not only was the universe's
expansion not slowing down, it was speeding up.

  Perlmutter's group, the Supernova Cosmology Project, has studied 40
distant supernovas in detail. Describing their results in January,
Perlmutter acknowledged that the evidence strongly suggested a
cosmological constant, but went no further. "We were trying to be very
conservative until we had more observations," he said last week.

  The other group, called the High-Z Supernova Search Team, has examined
only 14 supernovas but was less restrained in its more recent report.
Dr. Brian Schmidt, of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatory,
in Australia, said in an interview reported in the current issue of the
journal Science that his team concluded with a statistical confidence of
between 98.7 and 99.9 percent that cosmic expansion is receiving an
antigravity boost, presumably from energy of the cosmological constant.

  "My own reaction is somewhere between amazement and horror," said
Schmidt, the team leader. "Amazement, because I just did not expect this
result, and horror in knowing that it will likely be disbelieved by a
majority of astronomers -- who, like myself, are extremely skeptical of
the unexpected."

  Riess, whose research led to the conclusion of an accelerating
expansion, said: "We are trying not to rush to judgment on the
cosmological constant. There could be some other sneaky little effect we
have overlooked, something that makes the supernovas dimmer and appear
to be farther away than they really are or some variations in the
behavior of more distant supernovas that are deceiving us."

  But nothing has emerged to make the astronomers doubt their findings,
he said. The accelerating expansion indicates that the repulsive force
could account for at least 65 percent of the critical density, thus
closing the gap between known mass and the much-admired model in which
the universe is characterized as omega equaling one. And if the universe
was once expanding more slowly than it is now, this would make it older
-- about 14 billion years old, or a billion years or more than new
estimates for the age of the earliest known stars.

  Perlmutter saw a need to observe more nearby supernovas for comparison
with ones being observed at distances of 7 billion light-years. This
should produce a more refined measure of differences in the expansion
rate over time and perhaps reveal any distorting variations in
supernovas then and now.

  Still, many astrophysicists and cosmologists are beginning to think
that Einstein was on to something, though for the wrong reason. The
cosmological constant as a repulsive energy force may exist, after all.
Physicists can think of no known principle to forbid it. Indeed,
theories of quantum mechanics suggest that the energy of the
cosmological constant could come from "virtual particles," which may be
winking in and out of existence in empty space.

  "Actually, the cosmological constant is the least interesting
explanation, and that's pretty interesting in itself," Turner said.

  Astrophysicists conceive of other possible sources of repulsive energy
in forms that go by such names as X-matter and quintessence. These are
speculative concepts in which mysterious textures in the early universe
created conditions for a cosmic background energy; and they might even
help explain the formation of galaxies. Scientists are likely to venture
other ideas if evidence for an accelerating universe continues to mount.

  "It gives us confidence that two groups that are very competitive and
very good are getting the same results," Turner said.



 Tuesday, March 3, 1998 
Copyright 1998 The New York Times

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 12:47:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA03250;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:31:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] $10 million computer sabotag
In-Reply-To: <199803031251_MC2-3557-B12E compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980303144951.28684B-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"9eL4G.0.eo.pf6_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16248
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Note:  IT = Information Technology

	Dear Vo.,

	I am and have been personally involved with and have patents in 
the IT field, specifically regarding Anti Virus, or AV and IS, or 
Information Security.  The company I am part of is a member of the NCSA, 
National Computer Security Assn, recently re-named International Comp. Sec. 
Assn.  I subscribed to InfoSec, or Information Security magazine until it 
was merged into Secure Computing, now called SC and InfoSec... and still do.

	Basically the whole field of IT and protection from sabotage and 
viruses is all over the map as regards to awareness, methods to prevent 
or hinder damage, quality of personnel and so on.  User education is worse 
than poor.
Much of what I know I would never even mention in this forum or even in 
AVPD, or the Anti Virus Product Developers forum.

	Most systems and computers a wide open from the standpoint of 
potential to be damaged.  An analogy would be a highly secure building 
with alarms, armor, guards, dogs .... but with a storm water drain pipe a 
person could crawl through to the inside of the building or no control of  
another simple entry way.  
	A real world example is a facility which I 
will not name which has electrically bolted doors, cypher and card and 
keypad access.  It also has a "panic bar" so personnel can exit rapidly 
in the event of a fire.  You can literally put a bent coat hanger between 
the doors and pull down the panic bar.  Because the bar has been accessed 
"from the inside" ... this is not a breach.
	Computer systems are even more porous.

	I rarely contribute to the topic, but live with it on a daily 
basis.  If you write me a letter with an MS Word attachment and I ask you 
to send it to me in ASCII there is a reason for this.  ASCII will not 
carry a Macro Virus.  Scanning software works fine.... IF:

	a] an incident of infection of the specific type you wish to be 
protected from has been reported AT LEAST two times to a useful agency
	b] a sample known to be genuine is conveyed to an agency
	c] an agency has extracted a unique signature from the mal ware
	d] the signature has been disseminated to your AV vendor
	e] your AV vendor has incorporated it into its signature data base
	f] this update is conveyed to you or your IT personnel
	g] the update is installed and verified to work
	h] the AV product is enabled to do its job

	From the time the malware is launched until ALL of items
	[a] through [h] ACTUALLY are implemented ... your doors are open..
this might be a week ... or six months.  Then you are fine, until some 
clever or stupid author writes another.


	We have a d--n near bullet proof fix for this, but it is not yet 
a product.  In the mean time it is best you educate yourselves.  I cannot 
think of a single complete educational path... you have to look in 
several places, starting with academic and trade journals.

	It is as though there are at the same time, war, idiocy, 
ignorace, Murphy's Law, incompetance ... and roll into this a whole bunch 
of people trying to make a buck ... and some other who are felonius or 
are vandals ....

	a] Make sure you are clean to start, not an easy thing....then 
back up twice ... and check the back ups
	b] do not download executables... this includes anything with a 
Macro in it.  A Macro is an executable
	c] do not load unknown diskettes or other removeable media
	d] do not steal or share executable, games and so on
	e] control access

	The above will not 100% protect you, but coupled with education, 
it is a good start.  The general user has no clue as to how many and how 
varied the ways to get nailed are.  Stay as simple as you can is probably 
the best advice... along with the above.  Most people feel everthing is 
fine ... and their AV and catastrophe recovery ... if any ... is fine, 
until they get hammered.

	The most explicit example is a regular examination of the top ten 
virus list... on it you will find at least one virus that can only be 
propagated by means of infected diskettes .... user education would 
probably make the virus type extinct, but there is not much of this 
valuable quality.

					JHS  

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> To: Vortex
> 
> The newspapers report an incident at Omega Engineering, Inc. (www.omega.com).
> Apparently, a disgruntled senior employee in the data processing department
> sabotaged their computer data, causing $10 million in damage due to scrambled
> software and lost data. I gather this was software sabotage, with no physical
> damage to equipment. I have seen three reports of this, quietly tucked in the
> back pages in the business section. The details have not been made public,
> perhaps to prevent other people from staging similar attacks, or perhaps
> because the company does not want to talk about it. Many in-house computer
> disasters are hushed up. This sort of thing is embarrassing. It hurts the
> stock value because it shows they are vulnerable, or stupid for not auditing
> employee performance and not making sufficient backups. I am surprised that a
> high-tech company like Omega would mismanage its computers so badly. On the
> other hand, years ago I heard about a high tech computer component company out
> in Arizona that went belly up after their minicomputer crashed, because the DP
> manager had never made a back up copy of the hard disk. (It could be an
> apocryphal tale; the minicomputer engineers told me about it.)
> 
> This is the dark side of the computer age. Sabotage, spying, embezzlement and
> other computer crimes usually originate inside the corporation. The anonymous
> hacker breaking in from outside is comparatively rare. Outside attacks are
> easier to prevent, in my opinion.
> 
> - Jed
> 
	Jed,

	Much of the problem is lack of education...


> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 13:18:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09011;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803032109.QAA20896 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Response from Jeff Kooistra
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 98 16:11:28 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"41MzA1.0.cC2.M87_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16249
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

We all clogged up Jeff's computer with messages and stuff, so he's in a 
bit of a huff. Still, he gave me permission to post his relevant comment 
on the Marinov motor. He's also a father with a newly born infant to help 
take care of -- so cut the guy some slack and do not try to communicate 
directly with him...

Best, 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 Jeff Kooistra:

 What comments herein apply you may post to Vortex, specifically re:
the Schaffer comments.  I welcome constructive criticism and suggestions
for experiments.

        Many critics seem to want to focus on the turning of the torus, 
and
I think I'm up to four different conventional explanations for why that
happens the way it does--apparently, there isn't even an agreed upon
"conventional" E&M that everyone knows <G>.  Frankly, I don't care about
how the torus turns--that's not where the rubber hits the road, so to
speak, for the purposes of the demo showing a problem in E&M.

        Even assuming that the ring rotates due to leakage, we need to
account for the parallel components of the force--parallel to the current,
that is.  

        Now, consider the fixed ring, turning torus--the torus turns and
via Newton's third, it exerts back on the ring a suitable force to account
for its (the torus's) motion (we're actually dealing with torques and not
ordinary forces, but the principle is the same).  Regardless of how the
ring current interacts with the torus, the only way I know of for the
torus, via leakage and conventional E&M, to interact with the ring is via
the Lorentz force law.  Thus, if Schaffer is right, then diminishing the
perpendicular component of the current across the ring radius should also
diminish the force on the torus--sort of like going from pushing a stalled
car on pavement to pushing it on wet ice--your hands push as hard on the
car, but the feet can't push as hard on the ground.

        Anyway, examining the perpendicular component idea was the first
thing I thought of--so I substituted for my ring a very thin aluminum foil
shell of about average ring radius.  Result?  No difference.  If anything,
you might have expected a little dimunition in the shell case from added
resistance if no other cause, but my little power supply (four 6-volt
batteries in a series, parallel 12 volt configuration) running through 
what
is basically a dead short, supplies more current limiting internal
resistance than either the ring or shell do.

        As for the weakness of the force--Schaffer reads too much into 
what
I said.  When you get good contact between the brushes and the copper 
ring,
the force is abundantly evident and surprisingly vigorus.  My best
optimistic estimate of what Lorentz force might exist is around 1
millinewton.  That won't overcome brush friction.  My little demo existed
only to show that the ring will rotate continuously.  What problems I had
with the brushes was that aluminum foil brushes on copper tend to
spot-weld, and when they don't, they foul very quickly.  Once you get good
contact and some good rotation, the ring of course eventually rotates to a
spot where the contact goes to hell or the brush starts to carbon up.  So
there ain't no such thing in my toy as a continuous, unvarying current.

        For what it's worth though, it was easier to get this thing to
perform than some of the conventional toy motors I used to build as a kid.

        Now, if you look at the picture on the cover of IE, you'll see 
that
I was't just rotating a ring, but also the support structure, and I was
routinely turning the ring against counter-torque from the fishline.  Upon
brush removal, the fishline would unwind quickly--that is, I was building
up some force there. The brushes would always foul before I ever noticed
any slowing down due to winding up of the fishline.

        Given all this, I, personally, don't see a convenient Lorentz 
force
law explanation.  I realize a ton of decent, quantitative work needs to be
done.  I really am not equipped to do this and the whole point of
publication was to get others to fiddle with the thing.  Basically, I was
just messin' around in the basement, working from Wesley's simple diagram.

        Now, if it turns out that the Marinov motor cannot be accounted 
for
fully by the Lorentz force law, this does spell doom for the foundations 
of
E&M theory.  Clearly, ordinary motors will still work, and many of the
engineering rules and laws will still hold.  But the whole way we do field
theory will be in trouble since it specifically forbids forces parallel to
the currents.  For more on that, I recommend the Graneau book NEWTONIAN
ELECTRODYNAMICS.

Jeffery D. Kooistra

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 13:35:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12798;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FC7675.3560 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:30:29 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BLP Run 14
References: <006401bd469a$b5ea9700$368cbfa8 default> <3.0.1.32.19980303095743.00b01858@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Dyvv3.0.u73._Q7_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16250
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 

> .....hmmmm, if I could borrow an operational F4 from the now defunct
> Bergstrom Air Force base out south of town, modify the afterburner to
> inject a mist of liquid metal potassium in pure hydrogen...   Yes!...that
> is DEFINITELY on the list of ideas for BLP Run 14.
> 
Heck, Scott, that may be overkill(If Earthtech neighbors are involved!).
I suggest you start BLP Run 14 on March 14 at 1400 o'clock.  Invite 14
strangers to see the run, and have Hal chant the 14th Psalm in the
background.  We're beyond science on this thing - we could use a bit of
magic!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 13:51:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17234;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:45:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:45:58 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:45:12 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd46ed$a51ff390$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"buwQw3.0.5D4.Ie7_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16251
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Today I tried the ferrite torus with both wire ring connections running
vertically either up or down. I was unable to detect any difference in
the resulting torus torque. Yes, there exist fringing fields at the top
and bottom of the torus in the radial direction but they are weak
at the ring radius. I don't think they can account for the torque,
but more experiments are clearly needed as the weaker ring/lead
field probably determines torque magnitude.

For JHS: The torque observed is sufficient to cause the 
2.3" by 2.3" by .6" torus ( weight=184 grams) to reach 1/4 turn
from a standing start in about 2 seconds. The ring was driven
by about 15 amps dc.  I will try to post a diagram of the configuration,
but subscribe to I.E. anyway!!!

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 13:52:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18294;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:48:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:48:58 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1221e32e6e6 [12.64.66.7]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980302232959.7707L-100000 college>
References: <l03102801b1212df1103b [12.64.66.7]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:48:46 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: New EM Blow by grinding blow
Resent-Message-ID: <"_UE3x3.0.jT4.8h7_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16253
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:

  > Uh.... no.  Are you? [subscribed to "Infinite Energy" magazine]

Of course!

Resistance is futile. Subscribe and be assimilated into the Vort collective.

Infinite Energy Magazine
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

Tel:  603-228-4516
Fax:  603-224-5975
E-mail: 76570,2270
$29.95/yr. US rate

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 13:53:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17299;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:46:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:46:06 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b122293b7ecc [12.64.66.7]>
In-Reply-To: <34FC8746.4532 bellsouth.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:45:48 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Cosmological Constant
Resent-Message-ID: <"WC4HR2.0.2E4.Re7_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16252
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Terry -

One fellow says:

   >  "If it's true, this is a remarkable
   >  discovery. It means that most of the
   >  universe is influenced by an abundance of
   >  some weird form of energy whose force is
   >  repulsive."

Push-gravity/aether flows anyone?

I always wondered how push-gravity is accounted for 'at the edges'. Would
it work out to about what is being observed now? Calling Ross T. ...

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 14:01:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA21154;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:54:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:54:30 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b12220e08834 [12.64.66.7]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980303095743.00b01858 mail.eden.com>
References: <34FC1AFF.F89 interlaced.net>
 <006401bd469a$b5ea9700$368cbfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:54:13 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: BLP Run 14
Resent-Message-ID: <"YiQ4E1.0.k95.Fm7_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16254
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott -

   >  ...modify the afterburner to inject a mist of
   >  liquid metal potassium in pure hydrogen...

Hey, that reminds me... I've just been looking around at
flame-spray/arc-spray/plasma-spray processes in the context of a possible
metal sculpture application. The arc spray seems like a neat way to put
metal mist in contact with a gas at high temperature, as the units are made
to pass a pressurized flow of neutral gas over the melting metal wire in
the arc zone to blow the mist towards the workpiece without oxidizing or
otherwise contaminating the mist metal. There's another method that uses
fuel and oxygen ignited several times a second in a long combustion chamber
sort of like like a pulsed rocket engine. The shock waves drive the fine
metal mist out the business end at hyper-velocity to form the densest,
smoothest layers on the work of any of these metal spray processes. Sounds
just like your afterburner idea.

Besides heat source, various metal spray units are designed around the
supply of metal to the heating area being either a wire or a powder. I get
the impression that some of the powder units are fairly cheap, just being
sort of a cross between a gas welding torch handpiece and a spray paint
handpiece. There's a powder hopper on top and extra gas flow conduits for
the compressed air or third gas. I heard a complete small electric arc unit
would cost about $6500  - lots cheaper than an F4? I bet you could rig one
to self-run via CF, no problem.  :)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 15:37:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00928;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FCA79A.1FA3 keelynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:00:10 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PlantSeed aol.com
CC: j.hasslberger agora.stm.it, freenrg-L@eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Renewable Energy Rally
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_JdZG1.0.LE.zs8_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16255
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi!

A friend, Josef Hasselberger sent me a note about the proposed million 
person rally to draw worldwide attention to renewable energy sources.  I 
particularly like the idea of participation from around the world, kind 
of a United Nations approach.

There were no details about it and I'm sure you need to work it out.  Put 
KeelyNet and myself down as participants.

You mention renewables.  I have no problems with that and I think it is a 
wonderful idea.

IMHO, the focus should be how best to bring attention to big government 
wasting our research dollars on hot fusion and other sources that have 
wasted billions of dollars with NO NET RESULTS.....

Another target should be the Atomic Energy Commission and ABOVE ALL, the 
DOE (department of energy)....they have totally abrogated their 
responsibilties to the American people (and the world at large) by 
ignoring many novel potential energy sources for YEARS.

My point is, to make a DIFFERENCE, this rally would have to have specific 
goals and targets that would bring major attention to bear on the 
people or agencies who have not made positive changes and need to 
be fired, replaced or have their methods reconsidered.

It would also be great to have some pop and flash (for publicity 
purposes), maybe convincing Bill Wysock to bring his HUGE Tesla coil and 
lighting it up at night in front of the reflecting pool to throw off 20 
and 30 foot lightning bolts!!!!!!

People pay attention to noise and flash....as we were told by the Texas 
State Fair directors, people buy (the potential for) sex or death, 
preferably combined...

So, please put me on the list and I'll setup a page or URL to YOUR page 
with the details of who, what, when, how and WHY this event will take 
place...

Excellent idea!!
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 16:42:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13050;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FCAA35.78CB keelynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:11:17 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freenrg-L eskimo.com
CC: vortex-L eskimo.com, pgb@padrak.com
Subject: Renewable Energy Rally
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qOe4N.0.mB3.O2A_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16256
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Folks!

This is the initial post for the rally;

PlantSeedK aol.com wrote:

I am starting to organize a multi-million person rally on the mall in 
Washington, D.C.  The focus will be an anti-war rally which wants to make 
renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydrogen power the main 
source of power in our country.

We can not expect immediate results, but if we can make a strong enough
statement to the general public a rapid change will develop.

Anybody interested in this idea please contact him directly at the above
e-mail address.

(Be sure to note the K on the end of PlantSeed in the address when you 
respond...)

Regards - Josef Hasslberger


-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 16:54:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17178;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:48:44 -0800 (PST)
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199803040046.SAA23029 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: New EM Blow by grinding blow
In-Reply-To: <l03102800b1221e32e6e6 [12.64.66.7]> from Rick Monteverde at "Mar 3, 98 11:48:46 am"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:46:51 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5iIZi3.0.FC4.aJA_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16257
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> Resistance is futile.

Somebody had a sign up at work that said:

Resistance is futile -- if less than one ohm.

-- 
 - 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 Mar  3 17:12:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02762;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:05:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:05:58 -0800
Message-ID: <000f01bd4709$4174e6e0$498cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Alcohol-Lye Flame
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:02:15 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"RKZlh3.0._g.pZA_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16258
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The alkali hydroxides are very soluble in ethanol (C2H5OH) or methanol
(CH3OH)thus opening the possibility of using the mix in
the old-style blow-torch or a Coleman stove or
Lantern with the Thorium ash mantle.

Otherwise an oxyacetylene or oxypropane cutting
torch would have to be used to get the mix into the flame.

In an open dish the soda-lye ethanol mix makes an orange-yellow flame.

No calorimetry was attempted. 6:00 PM MST.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 17:33:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA23776;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FCAD90.274185FF ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 14:25:37 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Response from Jeff Kooistra
References: <199803032109.QAA20896 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qCKg13.0.Pp5.ItA_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16259
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Is the motor you are describing a variant of the ball bearing motor?


John Berry


E.F. Mallove wrote:

> Vortexians:
>
> We all clogged up Jeff's computer with messages and stuff, so he's in a
> bit of a huff. Still, he gave me permission to post his relevant comment
> on the Marinov motor. He's also a father with a newly born infant to help
> take care of -- so cut the guy some slack and do not try to communicate
> directly with him...
>
> Best, 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 Jeff Kooistra:
>
>  What comments herein apply you may post to Vortex, specifically re:
> the Schaffer comments.  I welcome constructive criticism and suggestions
> for experiments.
>
>         Many critics seem to want to focus on the turning of the torus,
> and
> I think I'm up to four different conventional explanations for why that
> happens the way it does--apparently, there isn't even an agreed upon
> "conventional" E&M that everyone knows <G>.  Frankly, I don't care about
> how the torus turns--that's not where the rubber hits the road, so to
> speak, for the purposes of the demo showing a problem in E&M.
>
>         Even assuming that the ring rotates due to leakage, we need to
> account for the parallel components of the force--parallel to the current,
> that is.
>
>         Now, consider the fixed ring, turning torus--the torus turns and
> via Newton's third, it exerts back on the ring a suitable force to account
> for its (the torus's) motion (we're actually dealing with torques and not
> ordinary forces, but the principle is the same).  Regardless of how the
> ring current interacts with the torus, the only way I know of for the
> torus, via leakage and conventional E&M, to interact with the ring is via
> the Lorentz force law.  Thus, if Schaffer is right, then diminishing the
> perpendicular component of the current across the ring radius should also
> diminish the force on the torus--sort of like going from pushing a stalled
> car on pavement to pushing it on wet ice--your hands push as hard on the
> car, but the feet can't push as hard on the ground.
>
>         Anyway, examining the perpendicular component idea was the first
> thing I thought of--so I substituted for my ring a very thin aluminum foil
> shell of about average ring radius.  Result?  No difference.  If anything,
> you might have expected a little dimunition in the shell case from added
> resistance if no other cause, but my little power supply (four 6-volt
> batteries in a series, parallel 12 volt configuration) running through
> what
> is basically a dead short, supplies more current limiting internal
> resistance than either the ring or shell do.
>
>         As for the weakness of the force--Schaffer reads too much into
> what
> I said.  When you get good contact between the brushes and the copper
> ring,
> the force is abundantly evident and surprisingly vigorus.  My best
> optimistic estimate of what Lorentz force might exist is around 1
> millinewton.  That won't overcome brush friction.  My little demo existed
> only to show that the ring will rotate continuously.  What problems I had
> with the brushes was that aluminum foil brushes on copper tend to
> spot-weld, and when they don't, they foul very quickly.  Once you get good
> contact and some good rotation, the ring of course eventually rotates to a
> spot where the contact goes to hell or the brush starts to carbon up.  So
> there ain't no such thing in my toy as a continuous, unvarying current.
>
>         For what it's worth though, it was easier to get this thing to
> perform than some of the conventional toy motors I used to build as a kid.
>
>         Now, if you look at the picture on the cover of IE, you'll see
> that
> I was't just rotating a ring, but also the support structure, and I was
> routinely turning the ring against counter-torque from the fishline.  Upon
> brush removal, the fishline would unwind quickly--that is, I was building
> up some force there. The brushes would always foul before I ever noticed
> any slowing down due to winding up of the fishline.
>
>         Given all this, I, personally, don't see a convenient Lorentz
> force
> law explanation.  I realize a ton of decent, quantitative work needs to be
> done.  I really am not equipped to do this and the whole point of
> publication was to get others to fiddle with the thing.  Basically, I was
> just messin' around in the basement, working from Wesley's simple diagram.
>
>         Now, if it turns out that the Marinov motor cannot be accounted
> for
> fully by the Lorentz force law, this does spell doom for the foundations
> of
> E&M theory.  Clearly, ordinary motors will still work, and many of the
> engineering rules and laws will still hold.  But the whole way we do field
> theory will be in trouble since it specifically forbids forces parallel to
> the currents.  For more on that, I recommend the Graneau book NEWTONIAN
> ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
> Jeffery D. Kooistra



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 17:36:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA06823;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:25:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:25:43 -0800
Message-ID: <34FCADA6.DDFE6745 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 14:25:58 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Response from Jeff Kooistra
References: <199803032109.QAA20896 mercury.mv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xxZrC3.0.Wg1.MsA_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16260
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Is the motor a variant of the ball bearing motor?


John Berry


E.F. Mallove wrote:

> Vortexians:
>
> We all clogged up Jeff's computer with messages and stuff, so he's in a
> bit of a huff. Still, he gave me permission to post his relevant comment
> on the Marinov motor. He's also a father with a newly born infant to help
> take care of -- so cut the guy some slack and do not try to communicate
> directly with him...
>
> Best, 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 Jeff Kooistra:
>
>  What comments herein apply you may post to Vortex, specifically re:
> the Schaffer comments.  I welcome constructive criticism and suggestions
> for experiments.
>
>         Many critics seem to want to focus on the turning of the torus,
> and
> I think I'm up to four different conventional explanations for why that
> happens the way it does--apparently, there isn't even an agreed upon
> "conventional" E&M that everyone knows <G>.  Frankly, I don't care about
> how the torus turns--that's not where the rubber hits the road, so to
> speak, for the purposes of the demo showing a problem in E&M.
>
>         Even assuming that the ring rotates due to leakage, we need to
> account for the parallel components of the force--parallel to the current,
> that is.
>
>         Now, consider the fixed ring, turning torus--the torus turns and
> via Newton's third, it exerts back on the ring a suitable force to account
> for its (the torus's) motion (we're actually dealing with torques and not
> ordinary forces, but the principle is the same).  Regardless of how the
> ring current interacts with the torus, the only way I know of for the
> torus, via leakage and conventional E&M, to interact with the ring is via
> the Lorentz force law.  Thus, if Schaffer is right, then diminishing the
> perpendicular component of the current across the ring radius should also
> diminish the force on the torus--sort of like going from pushing a stalled
> car on pavement to pushing it on wet ice--your hands push as hard on the
> car, but the feet can't push as hard on the ground.
>
>         Anyway, examining the perpendicular component idea was the first
> thing I thought of--so I substituted for my ring a very thin aluminum foil
> shell of about average ring radius.  Result?  No difference.  If anything,
> you might have expected a little dimunition in the shell case from added
> resistance if no other cause, but my little power supply (four 6-volt
> batteries in a series, parallel 12 volt configuration) running through
> what
> is basically a dead short, supplies more current limiting internal
> resistance than either the ring or shell do.
>
>         As for the weakness of the force--Schaffer reads too much into
> what
> I said.  When you get good contact between the brushes and the copper
> ring,
> the force is abundantly evident and surprisingly vigorus.  My best
> optimistic estimate of what Lorentz force might exist is around 1
> millinewton.  That won't overcome brush friction.  My little demo existed
> only to show that the ring will rotate continuously.  What problems I had
> with the brushes was that aluminum foil brushes on copper tend to
> spot-weld, and when they don't, they foul very quickly.  Once you get good
> contact and some good rotation, the ring of course eventually rotates to a
> spot where the contact goes to hell or the brush starts to carbon up.  So
> there ain't no such thing in my toy as a continuous, unvarying current.
>
>         For what it's worth though, it was easier to get this thing to
> perform than some of the conventional toy motors I used to build as a kid.
>
>         Now, if you look at the picture on the cover of IE, you'll see
> that
> I was't just rotating a ring, but also the support structure, and I was
> routinely turning the ring against counter-torque from the fishline.  Upon
> brush removal, the fishline would unwind quickly--that is, I was building
> up some force there. The brushes would always foul before I ever noticed
> any slowing down due to winding up of the fishline.
>
>         Given all this, I, personally, don't see a convenient Lorentz
> force
> law explanation.  I realize a ton of decent, quantitative work needs to be
> done.  I really am not equipped to do this and the whole point of
> publication was to get others to fiddle with the thing.  Basically, I was
> just messin' around in the basement, working from Wesley's simple diagram.
>
>         Now, if it turns out that the Marinov motor cannot be accounted
> for
> fully by the Lorentz force law, this does spell doom for the foundations
> of
> E&M theory.  Clearly, ordinary motors will still work, and many of the
> engineering rules and laws will still hold.  But the whole way we do field
> theory will be in trouble since it specifically forbids forces parallel to
> the currents.  For more on that, I recommend the Graneau book NEWTONIAN
> ELECTRODYNAMICS.
>
> Jeffery D. Kooistra



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 19:52:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02200;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:43:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:43:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980304103956.00714bcc world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 10:39:56 +0000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Taxpayer Group Slams Patent Building Boondoggle
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mREuN.0.FY.JtC_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16261
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



Taxpayer Group Slams Patent Building Boondoggle 

U.S. Newswire
3-2-98 Pete Sepp 

Taxpayer Group Slams Patent Building Boondoggle U.S. Newswire 27 Feb 12:01 

Nation's Largest Taxpayer Group Slams Patent Building Boondoggle
 To: National Desk Contact: Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union,
703-683-5700 

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Feb. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The 300,000-member 
National Taxpayers Union (NTU) today sharply denounced a recently proposed
$1.3 billion
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) headquarters complex as 
"shamefully expensive," and urged Congress to revisit approval for the
project. 

"Lawmakers ought to take a hard look at the PTO palace
 before their constituents do," said NTU Vice President for Government 
Relations Al Cors Jr. "Unless
Congress acts to stop it, the new PTO campus will become
 an even bigger White Elephant than the hideously expensive Ronald Reagan
building." 

NTU was the first taxpayer organization to notify Congress 
of the impending boondoggle in a recent letter to all lawmakers.
The group plans to lead a coalition in
opposition to the PTO project. 

In addition to an overall price tag of $1.3 billion, the 
proposed PTO building complex located in suburban Virginia 
is estimated to have a per-square-foot interior buildout
cost of more than double the government average. NTU research found 
numerous reasons for this discrepancy, including: lavish granite,
 hardwood and marble surfacing
materials; exercise facilities and trails; expensive decor such as 
fountains and sculptures; and, open-air amphitheaters. 

"Ironically, few outside of Congress seem to support the PTO
 palace," Cors said. "Small inventors oppose it because it could lead
 to massive increases in patent fees.
Many PTO employees, including their union, oppose the move as well." 

"When both the occupants and the customers who will supposedly benefit 
from the PTO speak out against it, shouldn't Congress listen more
carefully?" Cors asked. 

The NTU letter also pointed out that the cost of moving into the new PTO
complex 
could exceed $120 million. "That kind of money ought to buy a whole new
building,
not just pay for a relocation," Cors observed. 

"Unlike past boondoggles, Congress has enough advance warning 
to pull the plug on the PTO palace before any serious fiscal damage is done,"
 Cors concluded.
"Congress ought to have the political will to do so, before 
taxpayers are forced to foot the bill." ------ 

National Taxpayers Union, a nonprofit, non-partisan citizen organization, 
works for lower taxes, less wasteful spending and accountable government
 at all levels.
Additional information including a copy of NTU's letter to Congress on the 
PTO building, is available by fax or on-line at http://www.ntu.org.

U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 21:26:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA30480;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:20:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:20:12 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:17:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199803040517.VAA16665 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: Cosmological Constant
Resent-Message-ID: <"xZk0N1.0.6S7.AIE_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16262
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Terry -
>
>One fellow says:
>
>   >  "If it's true, this is a remarkable
>   >  discovery. It means that most of the
>   >  universe is influenced by an abundance of
>   >  some weird form of energy whose force is
>   >  repulsive."
>
>Push-gravity/aether flows anyone?
>
>I always wondered how push-gravity is accounted for 'at the edges'. Would
>it work out to about what is being observed now? Calling Ross T. ...
>
>- Rick Monteverde

Here to help!

Look, to think that the protons on the far side of the sun are in some
manner pulling on the protons in my pinky finger is simply silly.  To say
that the protons on the far side of the sun are curving the spacetime right
here by the protons in my pinky finger sounds better, but it is nearly as
silly if you don't specify how the interaction manifests.

We all know that the universe is filled with energy.  Just look at the
Casimir experiment where if you put two plates really close together, THEY
ARE PUSHED TOWARD ONE ANOTHER BECAUSE THE ENERGY IN BETWEEN THE PLATES IS
EXCLUDED AT CERTAIN WAVELENGTHS, AND IS *****NOT***** PUSHING THE PLATES APART.

So, we know that there is energy all over the place, simple.  If you take
quantum mechanics to heart, then you know that the energy density of the
quantum vacuum, whatever that dumb term means, is intense no matter however
else you state it.

You also know that things tend to filter out EM energy.  So if there are
waves in the quantum vacuum, it is reasonable that matter filters those out
too.  But somehow you need to have an assymetry to any filtering behavior if
you want to derive **action** from that filtering interaction with the rest
of the universe.  
Now, you can pose a question about the way(s) in which any fundamental
particle could interact with the rest of the universe.  If matter is
wavelike, then we ought to simply accept that matter is somehow composed of
waves.

If matter is particle like, then we need to simply accept that material
particles have something about their structure that leads us to conclude
that they occupy a location.

If I ask, "Is a **tornado**,  a particle, or a wave?"  what would you
answer?  It has properties of both.  You can define it's location and
momentum just like a particle.  but it is composed of wave motions.  And you
could not define it's location AND momentum to better than some limiting
precision because frankly, the thing is not a simple conceptual, "point".
It is a vortex, or a soliton is a better word.

Now, if an electron or other particles are some sort of soliton, then every
thing we know still fits just fine.  It is wavelike, it is particle like, it
is going to be uncertain in it's location and momentum, etc etc.  It all
works out so simply it is pathetic to me that everyone does not get this and
that our leading physicists have accepted QM lunacy to the degree they have.

QM makes no more sense than to say the earth is flat, and the planets have
an innate nature to move in retrograde paths.  Think about it.  Using the
Ptolemaic system, we could easily and mathematically accurately predict
motions.  Did that make the principles the correct ones to adopt?  No.  And
the same holds for QM.  We have been flim flammed by some fancy salesmen
with fancy equations and have grown to accept that math is the only
legitimate road to higher understanding.

If you work with solitons in place of particles, you become forced to adopt
a structure of standing waves in aether as your "spacetime".  And when you
do that, it is so simple what gravity is it is amazing that no one gets it.
I have to laugh all the time in amazement that even you guys on vortex
listen and do not understand what I say.

Any way, if matter here are solitons resonating in an ocean of aether, then
particles everywhere throughout the universe are solitons resonating in the
same ocean of aether.  But, particles in the distant universe are doppler
shifted relative to our location.  If you have a clockwork spacetime 4D
quadrature topology (something I know you need and understand, and something
you won't understand or appreciate, but go with it anyway), then locally,
there is a fundamental frequency that spacetime oscillates at.  This is the
Planck scale time period which expressed as a frequency is E45 Hz.  That is
the frequency of spacetime oscillations which ultimately drive the particle
resonances.

But, wave energy arriving from distant universe locations are frequency
shifted relative to our location.  Thus, either our local matter is
"perfect" and does not interact with that noisy wave energy, or, our local
matter filters out a portion of it.

Le Sage, in Newton's day, proved that a push gravitation is the same as a
pull gravitation mathematically.  So all you wind up with is that matter,
filters out the wave energy incident from deep space to some small degree.

Now, consider that the universe is filled with wave energy on down to the
Planck scale wavelengths, E-35 meters.  Yes, I know what that means in terms
of energy of the waves.  And now you have some waves coming from particles
in far distant galaxies, in all directions.  You realize they are doppler
shifted which means two things.  First, you must reduce their energy by
1/R^2 to the sources of the wave energy.  Second, you must reduce their
energy by the reddening of the wavelength due to the Hubble flow.  

When you do all of that, you will realize that big G, is not a measure of
how hard matter locally pulls on other matter locally.  Instead, it is a
measure of how much frequency shifted, interfering, wave energy is incident
from distant matter.  So, if the universe started out "flat", it would tend
to stay close to flat, but would become "open" cosmologically as time goes
on due to the Doppler reduction in the energy of the incident waves.
Basically, G is a measure of how much mass there is in the universe!

Now, Rick asked also about the accelerating universe observations of late,
and what that means for our universe.

The title of the book I am writing is "Omniverse" 
with sub title, "Is Equivalency the Achilles Heel of QM?"

The reason for the name Omniverse, is because that is a description of ALL
universes, and pulls us out of the myopic notion that our universe is
everything that exists.  But there is a mechanical, and fundamental reason I
have come to this conclusion.  

Originally, when I began my studies, many of you recall that I adopted the
seemingly silly notion that "There exist in nature, no intrinsically
attractive forces".  I now replace that statement with "There exist in
nature, no tensile means of transferring action".  Basically the same, but
a bit more clear.  I work with aether at a fundamental scale, and so for me
and my models, the nuclear realm is huge.  I begin far below the Planck
scale so that I can develop a topology of spacetime by the Planck scale at
E-35 meters.  Then, 20 orders of magnitude worth of waves up in scale we
arrive at the nuclear region.

When I study the spherical resonances of the particles we call, electron
muon and tauon, I find that my equations imply that there is too much mass
in both muon and tauon.  But, I find that they both have the same ratio of
excess mass.  Thus, either my equation and models are wrong, OR, aether can
condense.

When I began studying stellar collapses, I realized that if aether can
condense given sufficient pressure, then that would allow a black hole to
form.  Previously I didn't think black holes could exist, but now am
absolutely positive they do from the observational and logical theoretical
evidence of this theory.

What happens, is you set up a convergent flow of aether inward (remember
particles are solitons which are just resonances in and of aether too).
Then, in the center regions the inflow velocity goes supersonic just like in
sonoluminescence where water inflow goes to 5 times c in water.
"supersonic" for aether of course means superluminal, ie faster than c.
Thus, the aether flowing inward into a BH, has enough KE to force ITSELF to
condense!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is all you need as a condition to maintain a super sonic inflow.  KE to
induce constant pressure condensation, and you get a permanent inflow so
long as the inflow momentum doesn't slow down for any reason such as
rarefaction of the surroundings of the black hole.

If you reduce the inflow momentum, then two things happen.  The event
horizon radius begins to shrink, and the core inside of the BH begins to
grow.  When they meet, the core of aether condensate breaches confinement
and violently boils and expands blasting outward obliterating anything in
it's path.  

To cut to the chase, our universe was born when a huge universe sized galaxy
failed to maintain confinement of the core of aether inside of it's event
horizon.  Our aether core blasted outward, obliterating all of the
inhabitants of that galaxy, and all other galaxies nearby.  As the aether
condensate boiled, the liquid became broken into smaller and smaller droplets.

The droplets that managed to become trapped in the acoustic nodes became
what we today call, "particles", and they are now resonating solitons.  The
acoustic structure that formed, permeated the entire interior of the
expanding boiling inflating ball of aether.  And as all of the droplets
phase and frequency locked together, that acoustic structure became
organized into what we today call "spacetime".  

The reason for the apparent expansion of the universe accelerating, is yet
another in a long line of upside down interpretations of what is going on.  

I know that aether is being emitted from fusion reactions based on theory,
and based on observation of how stars behave.  So it is possible that the
nearby universe is accelerating relative to the distant universe.  But I
doubt this is the real reason for what is being observed.

Rather, our universe exploded like an atom bomb out into the previous
expanse of the Omniverse around our universe's nucleation location inside of
what used to be a huge galaxy.  This comes from other constraints on
confining the core inside a black hole which requires that the stars around
it be more massive than the core itself because they are blowing aether
inward to maintain confinement.

Anyway, when our core exploded, it would have formed a shock front in the
aether, just like the shock fronts you have seen in nuclear blast films
showing trees blow outward, and then back inward.  Thus, in essence, the
outer reaches of our universe were slowed down during the earliest times,
whereas our region was not.

This means that the observations ought to show an assymetry that is sort of
like a snow cone.  A smaller sphere inside a larger spherical shell, where
they have different centers and intersect.  If we do not see any assymetry
in their findings, then two things are possible.  1, we exist at the
original center of the BH core that breached confinement, and I don't like
this choice.

Or 2, we cannot see very far in our universe.  ie, inflation was large and
our observable universe is very much smaller than our universe.  In this
case, then the local region of the universe is indeed accelerating.

And in that case, the energy driving it is the cosmological affect of aether
emission from stars which is obviously a factor at all nearby scales.  I
just hope that the tattered faint blue galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field
images are actually some of the galaxies that existed outside of our
universe and which blasted into our interior when the expanding shock front
hit.  In that case, there ought to be a number density assymetry to the HDF
faint blue galaxies.  But as we only pointed and shot in one orientation, we
will not know of any assymetry for quite a time to come.

So, I hope that answered everything.  We exploded into the Omniverse is the
answer to what we are expanding out into.

And btw, the geometry of our entire universe turns out to be identical to
the geometry of a single electron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Later, Ross Tessien










From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 22:03:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03577;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:55:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:55:09 -0800
From: John Logajan <jlogajan skypoint.com>
Message-Id: <199803040554.XAA27099 mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Where is CETI?
To: vortex-l eskimo.com (vortex-l)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:54:56 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8ofwS3.0.pt.xoE_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16263
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Someone pointed out to me a least a month ago that the ceti website is
not responding.  Anyone know if CETI still exists, or if they still
have a website up?

-- 
 - 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 Mar  3 22:24:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA07958;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:21:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:21:38 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:19:00 -0800
Message-Id: <199803040619.WAA23215 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: Help:  Area and volume of Double Bubble?????
Resent-Message-ID: <"6kqBp2.0.8y1.lBF_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16264
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Any one have a reference with the equations for the area and volume of a
double soap bubble of equal sized lobes?  The air pressure is equal inside
and out in these double bubbles, and so there is a well defined geometry
that arises from the hydrostatics of the surface tension of the soap film.
I need the equations to try to derive the mass of pions from muons based on
my solitonic geometries.

Any one have those equations?

Thanks, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 22:46:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11300;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:44:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:44:53 -0800
X-ROUTED: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 01:40:38 -0500
X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula
Message-ID: <34FCF889.834050B4 southconn.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 01:45:32 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803040619.WAA23215 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"b2Gsq.0.Pm2.aXF_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16265
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross...have been reading your theories on vortex, not sure I completely
understand everything
however, do your theories give you any ideas on where someone should go to tap
the
aether/zpf....if you do have some ideas maybe a post on vortex would lead to
some
experiments that would go a long way to prove your theory.....I understand that
you feel
your theory has/is being proved, but a device that works would help those who
do not
understand.....thanks.....steve opelc




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 23:14:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA14714;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:06:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:06:25 -0800
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:05:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Help:  Area and volume of Double Bubble?????
In-Reply-To: <199803040619.WAA23215 Au.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980303234331.17752Q-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"KAG9S3.0.qb3.lrF_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16266
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:

> Any one have a reference with the equations for the area and volume of a
> double soap bubble of equal sized lobes?  The air pressure is equal inside
> and out in these double bubbles, and so there is a well defined geometry
> that arises from the hydrostatics of the surface tension of the soap film.
> I need the equations to try to derive the mass of pions from muons based on
> my solitonic geometries.
> 
> Any one have those equations?
> 
> Thanks, Ross Tessien
> 
I sure don't, (sigh), but with your last post of Omniverse wouldn't that
equation be setting (or equated in a liquid (water etc?), if it exist? I'm
NOT the
mathmatician here, (duh) but would assume you would have to half the
equation even to start on the expansion (using upper film side only), or
lower 'pressed on side', 
mirrored on all sides of the bubble being 'Equal'. 
  I think of "Rising Bubbles" or submerged bubbles as being the picture.
---------------
BTW.. USE your **Tornado** example in your book! .. This really hit home
with me!
---------------
'pushing' <G!+> for your books soon release.

-=se=-

p.s. Just a thought, wouldn't it also be just as simple as the outer skin
of the bubble loosing it's 'texture' aethric thrust, that would cause the
bubble to quit expanding and 'pop' as it were? .. no more expansion push.
Our universe quits expanding, but many/all others will follow...
pop.pop.fizz.fizz... got to love the simplicity of it all.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 23:35:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA16558;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:25:07 -0800
Message-Id: <199803040725.XAA28713 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: Ideas on where to go
Resent-Message-ID: <"QUHzn3.0.e24.yAG_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16267
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Ross...have been reading your theories on vortex, not sure I completely
>understand everything
>however, do your theories give you any ideas on where someone should go to tap
>the
>aether/zpf....if you do have some ideas maybe a post on vortex would lead to
>some
>experiments that would go a long way to prove your theory.....I understand that
>you feel
>your theory has/is being proved, but a device that works would help those who
>do not
>understand.....thanks.....steve opelc


yes, I know what to do.  I have been trying to get funding for three years
now to do it.  

But I don't think you can tap the turbulence of spacetime like most on this
group think you can tap into zpe.  What I do think, is that you can induce
fission, and that the experiments such as E-Quest, electrolysis cells such
as P/F, and the Hg transmutation are indeed viable phenomena.   The problem
as I stated a couple years ago, is that to discuss technology such as this
is not possible because of how the patent laws are written.  I need to
build, and file for patents first.

I want to make certain that these devices generate profits in the US, so
that hopefully it helps my personal economy a little, and mankind a lot.

As far as proof, the proof is all over the place already.  All you need to
do is to read what is going on in astro physics for a wonderful laugh.  You
have dark matter, solar coronal heating of hot objects (ions) from cold
sources of heat (photosphere), etc etc.

Here is what I think I know how to build:

1)  A nuclear reactor that is cheap, small, and able to produce energy from
cold fission.

2)  A device to generate net thrust against the aether ocean we live in.
Not really much more complicated than a modern helicopter, but thrusting
aether and not air molecules.

3)  An FTL communication device.  Though I don't yet know how to build one
that is practical for industry.  ie, you may be able to get a low bit rate
at high velocity, but the total throughput would be slower than present
total throughput.  So it would only be good as a military device, so I am
not that interested in it.

I managed to buy $6k worth of electronics to drive the reactors last summer,
but now am trying to raise the capitol to build the actual reactors.  In
mass production the devices will only cost a couple hundred dollars.  But
the technologies to build them don't presently exist, so I need to custom
build them and that costs a fair amount of money for each attempt.  It will
likely cost around $10k per attempt, so I figure I better arrange for $50k,
to $100k funding before I accept any investors.  

I have people interested in putting up about $20k, but I don't think that is
enough so am just plugging along on my own until we can work things out a
bit better than this.  

As for the anti gravity device, I could work with anyone interested in that.
but that project will once again require about $100k for access to the
technology to produce the required devices.  

I am absolutely positive that I can create a nuclear reactor, because I can
either induce fusion reactions, via classical nuclear theory, or the fission
reactions I anticipate and which you have already read about in vortex under
the guise of nuclear transmutations.  Those reactions are proven.  What is
missing, is no one understands what they did because they think in terms of
particles and not solitons.

So, there you have it.  I am writing all I do simply to let people know
about the fundamentals I am studying.  This way, it will not be long until
the funding dam breaks for my work and for the work of many others of you
who have other valid ideas.  Though I must say that I don't see a very
bright future in the zpe notions.  

The reason is because of one of the most base postulates of the theory I
study.  This is, "Aether is conserved in all interactions".  That means to
you, that if you are going to get energy out of something, you are going to
need to alter the flow of aether, or induce a flow of aether out of
solitonic resonances such as nuclei such that the emission of aether leads
to an acceleration, and thus heating, of the nuclei you are using in the
device.  That is what is going on in cold fusion, but it is cold fission,
and not fusion.

Well, sorry I cannot go into lots of device detail.  

Later, Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 23:54:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA18647;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:41:16 -0800
Message-Id: <199803040741.XAA29563 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: Help:  Area and volume of Double Bubble?????
Resent-Message-ID: <"y4Tw43.0.GZ4.5QG_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16268
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:
>
>> Any one have a reference with the equations for the area and volume of a
>> double soap bubble of equal sized lobes?  The air pressure is equal inside
>> and out in these double bubbles, and so there is a well defined geometry
>> that arises from the hydrostatics of the surface tension of the soap film.
>> I need the equations to try to derive the mass of pions from muons based on
>> my solitonic geometries.
>> 
>> Any one have those equations?
>> 
>> Thanks, Ross Tessien


>  I think of "Rising Bubbles" or submerged bubbles as being the picture.

I am talking about normal soap bubbles like a kid would blow.  It turns out
that the surface tension leads to them forming into a well known ratio, and
thus a well defined surface area.  The Golden Section, or e, or something
was involved in the angle at the surface interface.  I can't recall, but
remember having seen the derivation somewhere.


>---------------
>BTW.. USE your **Tornado** example in your book! .. This really hit home
>with me!

Yes, that one seems to be comprehensible to most people.  It is amazing to
me that the leading physicists don't contemplate real topologies.  They
instead use strings, which are a silly structure to consider for a 4D
universe.  However, when you think about what they really do, they use
multidimensional strings.  So, they really are using solitonic waveforms
when you get down to it.

The problem is, they use only the math, and not the real geometries.  So
they fail to realize that you must conserve aether, and that the amount of
aether associated with a soliton is what mass is a measure of.  Therefore,
in QM and GR, they don't account for the GR affect of the thrust from the
mass released by the QM fusion reactions in stars.  Equivalency, is the
error keeping QM and GR from being unified, and it is the origin of the dark
matter problem and numerous astro physical oddities.

>---------------
>'pushing' <G!+> for your books soon release.

mid summer hopefully I'll be ready for publisher seeking.  Have about 50
images of everything from stellar aether winds to black hole topology, and
many more Hubble and other images showing the real universe counterparts to
the whacko aether models in the paintings.   

>
>-=se=-
>
>p.s. Just a thought, wouldn't it also be just as simple as the outer skin
>of the bubble loosing it's 'texture' aethric thrust, that would cause the
>bubble to quit expanding and 'pop' as it were? .. no more expansion push.
>Our universe quits expanding, but many/all others will follow...
>pop.pop.fizz.fizz... got to love the simplicity of it all.

Just remember, if you think you are noticing something being "attracted" to
something else, you are wrong.  You are noticing the wave energy of spactime
pushing the two objects toward one another because they are NOT, pushing
away as hard.  ie, they are phase and frequency synchronizing with one
another and snuggling in close together to get away from the mean external
noisy aether waves.

That leads to them confining less aether, and thus to aether emission.  The
surface tension of the bubble is really a matter of the wave energy from
space crushing the molecules toward one another, equally in all directions.

OK, here is a fun one.  Do you know that if you put super fluid liquid
helium in a coffee mug, that it will flow right on up and over the top of
the mug and out onto the table the mug is sitting on?  Why you say?  Well it
is simple.  The He hides in the nooks and crannies of the surface of the mug
which shields the fluid from the wave energy arriving from above.  Thus, the
high pressure in the middle of the mug pushes downward, and that pressure is
communicated horizontally, and then vertically up through the column of fluid.

Because the fluid on the side of the mug is hidden from the wave energy
coming from above, the pressure from below wins out.  This will work for any
material with which the He can phase and frequency harmonize.

The same thing happens with water with it's miniscus.  And for mercury and
glass, the wave energy is channeled through the glass via different
wavelengths and so the mercury interferes to a greater degree, and the
surface is deformed in the opposite direction.

I haven't bothered studying the mass ratios of those materials, but wager
you will find that the isotopes have harmonically related masses or other
structures wherever they form a miniscus like water, and are interfering
wherever they form a surface like mercury and glass.

Later, Ross Tessien







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar  3 23:57:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA19888;
	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:52:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:52:41 -0800
Message-ID: <34FD22B0.582B keelynet.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 01:45:20 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: KeelyNet-L lists.kz
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803040725.XAA28713 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bxqPS2.0.gs4.7XG_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16269
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Ross!

I am and have been a fan of your writing and aether discussions for 
several years now and often refer newbies and others to you, Ray Tomes 
and other aether theorists as posted at the excellent Mountain Man 
website at; http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html

You wrote;
>  But I don't think you can tap the turbulence of spacetime like most 
>  on this group think you can tap into zpe.

Blasphemy!!...<g>...we'll see when a working device is shown...

>  2)  A device to generate net thrust against the aether ocean we live 
>      in.  Not really much more complicated than a modern helicopter, 
>      but thrusting aether and not air molecules.

Couldn't you cause that net thrust to drive an impeller and produce 
electricity?  

There is a version of a device claiming this posted I think on Bill 
Beaty's site as a capacitor-based device that claims to entrain aether 
into a column of force.  

I have the papers from years back but never got the drawings cleaned up 
enough to post.  I believe the term is 'electric rocket'...the paper even 
makes reference to experiments done where enough thrust was provided to 
drive a rocket.

A fellow named Zielinski claimed his secret group in Germany had figured 
out how to do this, create a well in the aether that heavy masses would 
fall into.  The device would fall in the direction of the well, whether 
it be up, down or sideways and was claimed to work anywhere, in space or 
on a terrestrial body.  

Much like a wagon pulled by a goat following a carrot held in front of 
its nose....I did get Zielinski to admit it used pulsed high voltage to 
produce the well...but he would say nothing more....that's if he isn't 
lying...<g>....
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 03:03:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA18632;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 03:00:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 03:00:46 -0800
X-ROUTED: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:56:28 -0500
Message-ID: <34FD346D.54CA3751 southconn.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 06:01:02 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803040725.XAA28713 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"71aKy1.0.0Z4.SHJ_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16270
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross - thanks for the reply, thought there might be a  "simple aether toy" <g>...or
something
that anyone could build, based on your theories.....steven opelc

Ross Tessien wrote:

> >Ross...have been reading your theories on vortex, not sure I completely
> >understand everything
> >however, do your theories give you any ideas on where someone should go to tap
> >the
> >aether/zpf....if you do have some ideas maybe a post on vortex would lead to
> >some
> >experiments that would go a long way to prove your theory.....I understand that
> >you feel
> >your theory has/is being proved, but a device that works would help those who
> >do not
> >understand.....thanks.....steve opelc
>
> yes, I know what to do.  I have been trying to get funding for three years
> now to do it.
>
> But I don't think you can tap the turbulence of spacetime like most on this
> group think you can tap into zpe.  What I do think, is that you can induce
> fission, and that the experiments such as E-Quest, electrolysis cells such
> as P/F, and the Hg transmutation are indeed viable phenomena.   The problem
> as I stated a couple years ago, is that to discuss technology such as this
> is not possible because of how the patent laws are written.  I need to
> build, and file for patents first.
>
> I want to make certain that these devices generate profits in the US, so
> that hopefully it helps my personal economy a little, and mankind a lot.
>
> As far as proof, the proof is all over the place already.  All you need to
> do is to read what is going on in astro physics for a wonderful laugh.  You
> have dark matter, solar coronal heating of hot objects (ions) from cold
> sources of heat (photosphere), etc etc.
>
> Here is what I think I know how to build:
>
> 1)  A nuclear reactor that is cheap, small, and able to produce energy from
> cold fission.
>
> 2)  A device to generate net thrust against the aether ocean we live in.
> Not really much more complicated than a modern helicopter, but thrusting
> aether and not air molecules.
>
> 3)  An FTL communication device.  Though I don't yet know how to build one
> that is practical for industry.  ie, you may be able to get a low bit rate
> at high velocity, but the total throughput would be slower than present
> total throughput.  So it would only be good as a military device, so I am
> not that interested in it.
>
> I managed to buy $6k worth of electronics to drive the reactors last summer,
> but now am trying to raise the capitol to build the actual reactors.  In
> mass production the devices will only cost a couple hundred dollars.  But
> the technologies to build them don't presently exist, so I need to custom
> build them and that costs a fair amount of money for each attempt.  It will
> likely cost around $10k per attempt, so I figure I better arrange for $50k,
> to $100k funding before I accept any investors.
>
> I have people interested in putting up about $20k, but I don't think that is
> enough so am just plugging along on my own until we can work things out a
> bit better than this.
>
> As for the anti gravity device, I could work with anyone interested in that.
> but that project will once again require about $100k for access to the
> technology to produce the required devices.
>
> I am absolutely positive that I can create a nuclear reactor, because I can
> either induce fusion reactions, via classical nuclear theory, or the fission
> reactions I anticipate and which you have already read about in vortex under
> the guise of nuclear transmutations.  Those reactions are proven.  What is
> missing, is no one understands what they did because they think in terms of
> particles and not solitons.
>
> So, there you have it.  I am writing all I do simply to let people know
> about the fundamentals I am studying.  This way, it will not be long until
> the funding dam breaks for my work and for the work of many others of you
> who have other valid ideas.  Though I must say that I don't see a very
> bright future in the zpe notions.
>
> The reason is because of one of the most base postulates of the theory I
> study.  This is, "Aether is conserved in all interactions".  That means to
> you, that if you are going to get energy out of something, you are going to
> need to alter the flow of aether, or induce a flow of aether out of
> solitonic resonances such as nuclei such that the emission of aether leads
> to an acceleration, and thus heating, of the nuclei you are using in the
> device.  That is what is going on in cold fusion, but it is cold fission,
> and not fusion.
>
> Well, sorry I cannot go into lots of device detail.
>
> Later, Ross Tessien





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 03:22:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA16930;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 03:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 03:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FD375F.3F71 skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:13:35 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <v03020900b12073da9ab4 [128.183.200.195]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jj_pp2.0.R84.kaJ_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16271
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry Wharton wrote:

> Take for example the Phipps force. He has an additional force given by:
> 
>  F(added) = - q (grad (v dot A))
> 
> Now this term is on the order of about 1/2 of the magnetic force on a free
> particle.  This result, which is also the case with all the other alleged
> new forces, is unacceptable.

Yes, correct. But why unacceptable? The longitudinal force is at most 
one-half of the magnitude of the perpendicular (Lorentz) force, and may 
range from zero to one-half of the Lorentz force, depending on geometry.
The value of one-half is the factor known as k in the Ampere force equation.

One must not try to equate the longitudinal force with the Lorentz 
force. They are two different forces which both exist, and are ALWAYS 
orthogonal. The Phipps equation gives a force which is always in the 
same direction as the velocity. The Lorentz force is always perpendicular 
to the velocity. One does not deny the other.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 05:34:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10111;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:32:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:32:02 -0800
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:28:07 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Where is CETI?
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803040831_MC2-3575-BA26 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"qMeBz2.0.lT2.HVL_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16272
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

John Logajan asks if CETI still exists and what happened to their web site.
They exist and they apparently have a great deal of new money, new people, and
expanded activities. I think they have consolidated their offices in Sarasota,
Florida. I checked the web site today, www.ceti.com. It is still not working.
Communicating with the outside world must not be a high priority with them. It
never has been.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 05:54:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12817;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:50:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:50:21 -0800
Message-ID: <000601bd4774$24deedd0$6f42ddcf craig>
From: "Craig" <ccHaynie ix.netcom.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Where is CETI?
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 07:47:57 -0600
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Sc9M72.0.A83.RmL_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16273
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Actually, CETI's website should be www.ceti.net.

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com <Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 7:34 AM
Subject: Where is CETI?


>To: Vortex
>
>John Logajan asks if CETI still exists and what happened to their web site.
>They exist and they apparently have a great deal of new money, new people,
and
>expanded activities. I think they have consolidated their offices in
Sarasota,
>Florida. I checked the web site today, www.ceti.com. It is still not
working.
>Communicating with the outside world must not be a high priority with them.
It
>never has been.
>
>- Jed
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 06:11:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16325;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:07:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:07:41 -0800
Message-Id: <199803041406.JAA27510 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Where is CETI?
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 98 09:08:41 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"U6vEE2.0.u-3.g0M_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16274
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Someone pointed out to me a least a month ago that the ceti website is
>not responding.  Anyone know if CETI still exists, or if they still
>have a website up?

CETI certainly does exsit! Big commercial developments are happening with 
them too, which you will hear about in due course. But I do wish they 
would keep their WWW site coordinates fixed!

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 Mar  4 06:30:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11416;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03020900b1230c9ad1cf [128.183.200.195]>
In-Reply-To: <34FD375F.3F71 skylink.net>
References: <v03020900b12073da9ab4 [128.183.200.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:26:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"sf1Hc3.0.Io2.-JM_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16275
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
>
>> Take for example the Phipps force. He has an additional force given by:
>>
>>  F(added) = - q (grad (v dot A))
>>
>> Now this term is on the order of about 1/2 of the magnetic force on a free
>> particle.  This result, which is also the case with all the other alleged
>> new forces, is unacceptable.
>
>Yes, correct. But why unacceptable? The longitudinal force is at most
>one-half of the magnitude of the perpendicular (Lorentz) force, and may
>range from zero to one-half of the Lorentz force, depending on geometry.
>The value of one-half is the factor known as k in the Ampere force equation.
>
>One must not try to equate the longitudinal force with the Lorentz
>force. They are two different forces which both exist, and are ALWAYS
>orthogonal. The Phipps equation gives a force which is always in the
>same direction as the velocity. The Lorentz force is always perpendicular
>to the velocity. One does not deny the other.

This added force is not always perpendicular to the Lorentz force.  In the
example I gave, this force was parallel to the Lorentz force and it had the
effect of reducing the magnetic force by a factor of 2.  This is
unacceptable because we know this does not happen.  There is massive
evidence of free charged particles in an electromagnetic field moving
exactly as they are expected to under the Lorentz force except for much
smaller QM effects such as the Aharonov-Bohm Effect.  Any significant
modification of the Lorentz force in any direction, perpendicular or
parallel, is unacceptable because it would contradict a large body of
experimental evidence.  In my example of a constant magnetic field, the
Phipps force would cause the radius of curvature of free charged particles
in a magnetic field to be twice as large as it should be.  That does not
happen and therefore this added force is unacceptable.
  The only acceptable force modification is one which gives the same result
as the Lorentz force for a free particle.  I have been informed by e-mail
from Patrick Cornille that this is the case for the Ampere force as
demonstrated by Vaneshar Bush in 1926, J. Math Phys. Vol. 5,p.129 and by
Assis in Physics Letters A, vol. 136, N6, p.277, 1989.  I will check this
out and if this proves to be correct then the Ampere force would appear to
be a viable candidate for a new E&M force.  The Phipps new force, on the
other hand, has no chance of being valid.

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 Mar  4 08:23:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28375;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:17:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:17:15 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <34FD7E18.A3C988ED ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 10:15:20 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803040725.XAA28713 Au.oro.net> <34FD22B0.582B@keelynet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"tj11x1.0.Fx6.7wN_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16276
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jerry W. Decker wrote:

> I am and have been a fan of your writing and aether discussions for
> several years now and often refer newbies and others to you, Ray Tomes
> and other aether theorists as posted at the excellent Mountain Man
> website at; http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html

I just began to compose an email with this address and decided to check the
rest of my email before sending it along.  As usual, Jerry is on top of things
and one step ahead!

Ross wrote;
> >  But I don't think you can tap the turbulence of spacetime like most
> >  on this group think you can tap into zpe.

I also do not agree.  There is a pattern in many existing devices and
experiments that I am just beginning to recognize.  They all have their own
special twist, but in effect all do the same thing:  create localized aether
vortexes or sinks.  IMO these sinks are responsible for the various perceived
anomalies in efficiency and entropy.

> There is a version of a device claiming this posted I think on Bill
> Beaty's site as a capacitor-based device that claims to entrain aether
> into a column of force.

One of several good examples of what I suggest.  In short, think of the energy
density we exist in as a super fluid (in step with Ross's resonance model). 
Inducing vortexes in this energy density create localized gradients or biased
flow patterns.  The interaction of these localized gradients or biased flow
patterns with the rest of the energy density induce localized event horizons
(different resonance filtering, etc.).  The expression of these event horizons
take the form of perceived gravity modification, energy excesses, and etc. 
These events appear to us as o/u, but in effect are fully conserved
translations or conversions of the density field and typically last only as
long as containment of the gradient or flow is maintained (unless matter
resonance is created or fundamentally changed).  I see this as the common
thread of most every odd device or odd natural phenomenon discussed on this
list so far.

Huh?  Yep, bold statement but I will be the first to put my foot in my mouth on
this.  Creating these aether sinks seems to be pretty easy.  They happen
naturally around us given the right conditions; tornadoes, ball lightning,
plasmoids, etc.  I believe we induce them in many common devices right now too,
but are unaware we are doing so.  Only recently have we begun to look for the
signatures.  Unfortunately many clouding theories are being built based on
individual observations, not the root cause.  Look for rotational interaction
patterns and you will find efficiency and/or entropy anomalies; extreme
temperature devices, resonance structures, electric currents, magnetic field
dragging, plasmas, etc.  Apply the theory and find the technique that maintains
the strongest gradient for the longest time.  It really shouldn't matter what
medium you chose to work in as the basic element is not material or process
specific, but kinetic specific.

Ok, enough day dreaming.  Don't judge it or start throwing math at it just
yet.  Think about it.  Evaluate this theory against the experiments you've done
so far or devices you've personally worked on.  Please share any revelations or
insights you may have.  8^) 

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 09:27:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08063;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:21:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:21:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980304121825.009288b0 post.queensu.ca>
X-Sender: simonb post.queensu.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:18:25 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bart Simon <simonb post.queensu.ca>
Subject: Loading Ratios
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"yiNs21.0.uz1.2sO_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16277
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Greetings,


This is a request for advice.  I am writing away on the history of CF research (still) and I am currently trying to re-work a section on the importance of  the "loading ratio" in CF experiments.  While there are exceptions I am noting that the issue of th
e ratio was never really a prominent part of the controversy in 1989.  Indeed, there is an associated argument that many early replication attempts might have failed due to insufficient loading (certainly this was one of McKubre's contentions at one point
 anyway).


Since then it has become almost standard to try and measure D/Pd under the assumption that the higher the ratio the more likely the chance of producing anomalous effects (and if you could control the ratio you might even be able to exercise some control o
ver the effects).  I remember that at ICCF-4 there was some discussion of finding a kind of magic number: if D/Pd is near 1 then you have good reason to expect anomalous effects.


I am wondering about the status of the loading issue today.  I know that some experiments with high loading have produced no results, and other experiments with relatively low ratios have produced anomalous results -- does anybody think loading is still c
onsidered to be a critical parameter (at least as far as D2O electrolysis is concerned)?


I'm trying to get a sense of this from the recent literature (i'm still try to catch up) so I'd appreciate it if anyone had some pointers for me off the top of your heads.   McKubre's talk in Asti has made me want to be more wary about what I say about th
is.  


Might it be reasonable to assume that high loading is a sufficient but not a necessary condition of CF (in electrolytic systems)?  In the scramble to try an get a handle on the various experimental parameters I had thought the concern with loading was imp
ortant - in part because this concern seemed to be shared by a large number of CF researchers.


Please note that there is reason to this madness of mine on two counts


1.  Even though there is no generally accepted theory of CF, I am thinking that there may be a generally accepted theory of CF experimentation (philosophers call this a mid-range theory) - i.e. a clear and coherent sense of what you should do and what you
 shouldn't do if you want to try and produce CF effects.    I need to find ways of illustrating this beyond just refering to say Storm's article on protocol.  Storms' paper is excellent, but what evidence is there that anyone is listening to Storms or eve
n agrees with him?


2. I have been trying to convey the sense in which research on CF has progressed in terms of tangible changes in collective practice (like the appearance of an explicit concern for loading) rather than just an accumulation of individual anomalous instance
s (a CETI result here, an SRI result there, etc...).  The purpose of this is to refute arguments that CF research proceeds in an ad hoc fashion.  I realize I may be wrong as well, Jed has often lamented (I think) what might be called the ad hoc fashion in
 which CF researchers approach the topic, but it is important to note that the accusation of ad hocery is used by others as a basis for viewing CF research as illegitimate science (which I don't think is true so I want to address the issue).


Any and all thoughts on this matter are appreciated.


cheers,

Bart






=====================================================

Bart Simon<bold>			</bold>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  Wed Mar  4 10:29:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17640;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:18:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980305011429.00712930 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:14:29 +0000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Loading Ratios
Cc: Bart Simon <simonb post.queensu.ca>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980304121825.009288b0 post.queensu.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WQ19-3.0.KJ4.HhP_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16278
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



 Bart Simon:



At 12:18 PM 3/4/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>Greetings,


This is a request for advice.  I am writing away on the history of CF
research (still) and I am currently trying to re-work a section on the
importance of  the "loading ratio" in CF experiments.  While there are
exceptions I am noting that the issue of the ratio was never really a
prominent part of the controversy in 1989.  Indeed, there is an
associated argument that many early replication attempts might have
failed due to insufficient loading (certainly this was one of McKubre's
contentions at one point anyway).


</excerpt><<<<<<<<



   One part of the reason, IMO.  Also, there mentions of the importance
of

loading in 1989.     Also very important are the loading rate ratio, and 

in some systems redistribution factors.


Swartz, M., 1992, "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical
Loading

 of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300.

Swartz, M., 1994, "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At

An Electrode". Fusion Technology, 96, 4T, 74-77

Swartz. M., 1997, "Codeposition Of Palladium And Deuterium", Fusion
Technology, 

32. 126-130 (1997)

Swartz, M., "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", Fusion Technology,
31, 

228-236 (1997).


 A few other things, too, are critical of which two are below:



Material breakdown


Swartz. M., 1994 "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion"

Vol. 4. "Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion" 

sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research

Swartz, M., 1997, "Hydrogen Redistribution By Catastrophic Desorption In 

Select Transition Metals". M. Swartz, Journal of New Energy, 1, 4, 
26-33




  and failure to achieve optimal operating point (pi-notch) operation


Swartz. M.. 1997 "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy 

in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model 

of Isotope Loading into a Material" Fusion Technology. 31, 63-74.

Swartz. M., "Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using 

Nickel Cathodes". IECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009

Swartz, M, "Noise Measurement In Cold Fusion Systems, Journal of New
Energy (1997)



  

>>>>

<excerpt>Since then it has become almost standard to try and measure D/Pd
under the assumption that the higher the ratio the more likely the chance
of producing anomalous effects (and if you could control the ratio you
might even be able to exercise some control over the effects).  I
remember that at ICCF-4 there was some discussion of finding a kind of
magic number: if D/Pd is near 1 then you have good reason to expect
anomalous effects.


</excerpt><<<<<<<<


   One "magic (*)" number might be in the optimal operating point
(pi-notch).

   [(*) ordinary technology to one familiar with the literature]



>>>>

<excerpt>

I am wondering about the status of the loading issue today.  I know that
some experiments with high loading have produced no results, and other
experiments with relatively low ratios have produced anomalous results --
does anybody think loading is still considered to be a critical parameter
(at least as far as D2O electrolysis is concerned)?


</excerpt><<<<<<<<



   Loading is positively important, except in codepositional systems

(see the paper above) where the 'loading' actually removes isotopic 
fuel

from the growing surface and dendrites.  

   Also see Loading rate ratio. 



   Hope that helps, Bart.


       Mitchell Swartz <<mica world.std.com>




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 10:34:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18802;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000e01bd479a$21399740$368cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: BLP, Blow-Torch Flame Plasma
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:19:05 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"05piW1.0.hb4.fnP_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16279
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I posted something relating to this yesterday,but it must've got
side-tracked.

The older blowtorch held about a quart of gasoline C7H7+n to C12H12+n)and
was pressurized
with an integral air pump (of all things).They also had a reputation for a
lot of explosions and fire damage.

The burner had a small boat that you put some gas in and lit to heat up the
"carburetor", and after that you opened the inlet valve and the hot flame
roared like an F-16.

NaOH (Drano)and KOH are very soluble in Ethanol(C2H5OH) or Methanol
(CH3OH)and the Na or K would probably ionize in this flame without
fouling the jet orifices too much.

The only other choices would be a Coleman gas lantern with the thoria ash
mantles or a campstove. Pan of water for a calorimeter?    :-)

You can get 190 proof (95% ethanol) at a liquor store for about $10.00/pint.
Makes for a great way to spike the punch. :-)

The carbon should give the flame the luminosity
and the H atoms should be abundant.

About everything there that the BLP experiments require, except
sub-atmospheric pressure. You can get that in a vacuum chamber with O2 and
ethylene (C2H4). Putting a platinum or nickel
gauze in the flame might be of interest.

With SAFETY DISCLAIMER!

Regards,    Frederick









From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 10:50:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06627;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:44:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:44:49 -0800
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:42:12 -0800
Message-Id: <199803041842.KAA25335 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: Gene Mallove & Vor. , re Art Bell:
Resent-Message-ID: <"qrYfO.0.Rd1.V4Q_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16280
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gene:

 Do you have a direct email to Art Bell rather than the address given to the
public?  If so, I would like to send him an email and potentially appear on
his show to discuss the models I have developed.  Several friends of mine
have recommended I get on the show, and perhaps that would help me with
obtaining funding to build the devices I have designed.

To Vor:  

Please take a quick minute as send an email to Art Bell to see if he will
have me on the show.  It would be fun, and I think that is about the extent
of it frankly.  But, there may be some interested investors out there and
that might allow me to get my devices built.  At the very least, it will get
some interest in the book so that a publisher will take the ideas and the
book, seriously.  that way, I can put out as good a book as possible.

Here is Art's email address:

artbell aol.com

If you use a subject like, "Vortex-L thinks Ross Tessien ought to be on
show", and he gets a bunch of requests like that from a bunch of people,
maybe he would write back and at least talk to me.

Thanks, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 10:54:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21700;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:46:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:46:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:42:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199803041842.KAA25302 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: Ideas on where to go
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dcv2E2.0.pI5.r5Q_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16281
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Greetings All:

Morning again and the shop is running ok, so here is another posting.
Thanks for the interest in my articles and postings.  I would highly
recommend going to dejanews.com rather than Mountain Man's web site because
with the possible exception of an article I recall sending him a few months
back, most of the articles I wrote there are two years old, and written
after I had only been studying these theories for a year.  So as you can
imagine, I have learned a tremendous volume in the past two years studying
this model.

In particular, you can cut through the 1,000 plus articles if you enter a
title of article filter beginning with "Aether Tectonics:", and use Ross
Tessien as author filter.  With that you will get a series of articles that
tell you about everything from solar coronal mass ejections to t-tauri new
born stars to the Earth's incessant free oscillations which match the 5
minute period for the peak power of the solar acoustic oscillations
indicating that the solar oscillations drives the earth's oscillations and
indeed, the rotational 24 hour period of the earth's day.

As for zpe, let me say this as a word of encouragement.  There is a class of
restricted kinds of devices that I cannot for certain rule out as possible
sources of energy from the vacuum.  But zpe, even the name sort of rubs me
the wrong way.  It implies energy coming from magic, or no where, when you
say zero, and you mean energy coming from a vacuum.  we understand the
meaning, but the whole thing is like the "Uncertainty" principle or the
"Exclusion" principle.  These are silly ideas based on voodoo magic, and not
on action reaction.

So, as for how to get energy, I highly doubt you will ever do it with any
static device.  But most of you are trying dynamic devices, so I continue to
read these articles.  

Second, you are not going to do it with just any old dynamic motion.  You
need to gain a clear undersanding of the wave structure of what you think of
as empty space.  It is NOT, disorganized, such as portrayed by QM, or QVF.
Rather, spacetime is highly organized all the way to below the Planck scale
at E-35 meters.  Check into "oscillons" on the net to see some images of the
kinds of patterns the vibrating beds of beads take on.  Those patterns are
"like" spacetime.  And the oscillons themselves are "like" what we call,
"particles".  The geometries are of course different, in that oscillons are
meerly a 1 dimensional plus time, resonance.

Rather than a mountain bobbing up and down like the oscillon, an electron is
a spherical resonance oscillating in and out radially.  

So when you say that you are going to "entrain" aether into something, you
are thinking in the old way where we thought we had particles as material,
and aether as some other whispy gaseous substance.  When you work with
solitons, the very wood of your desk, glass of your monitor, ARE, composed
of aether entrained in spherically resonant vortices.  I will avoid the
nucleon donut vortex geometry here, but even that at a more fundamental
scale is just made up of 9 muon spherical resonances trapped into a helix
around a donut torus.

So, how do you get energy from zpe?

Well, use your oceans as an example.  How do you get energy from our oceans?
It is simple.  You use some sort of floating device which oscillates with
the bobbing of the ocean, and then inside you use a secondary device that
resists oscillation because it is suspended by a spring and has mass.  Then,
you attach a crank to the mass and to a fly wheel, and as the mass tries to
remain stationary, and as the floating boat bobs up and down, the mass goes
up and down relative to the boat's interior and it applies rotational motion
to the crank shaft.

This is a real, buildable device if you wanted to tap into a tiny amount of
power from the ocean.  But what does it mean for you trying to make zpe?

First of all, you have waves on your zpe ocean.  They come in all
frequencies, BUT, some more than others.  You have to figure out which ones
have more energy, and then you have to build some device to tap into that
extra energy.  To learn about the harmonics of the vacuum, read Ray Tome's
web site thouroughly.  but don't get confused by Ray's trying to apply
harmonics to everything from grain harvest to Aztec musical notes.  Focus on
his fundamental parameters and the underlying theory to his work. 

As a foot note, Ray and I hosted the conference on aether theories out here
last year precisely because our theories overlap.  Ray began from large
structures and studied how waves divide down to smaller and smaller scales.
I began from beneath the Planck scale, and studied how resonances cohere to
larger and larger scales.  Basically, both of our theories overlap perfectly
with one exception.

Ray believes in a rigid, mechanical, tensile and compressive aether like
steel.  I believe in a fluid, dynamic, compressive aether like a saturated
vapor.  but then I have a huge volume of observational evidence regarding
new born stars that shoot out jets for no known reason, and I have reasons
for jets to shoot out of black holes, etc.  Ray has some other stuff, like
Tifft's work on quantization of galaxies and clusters, but that work of his
is compatable with mine.

Any way, Ray has a lot of excellent insight, and it is hard to shoot down
the rigid model even though you might think it would be easy.  It demands
distortions around objects that I don't think we see.  And frankly, I just
dont get how you could cause a bunch of stars to congregate into merging
galaxies etc. if the aether itself doesn't flow.  Remember, in both of our
theories, the aether density is greater in regions of greater mass.

Anyway, back to zpe.  

There are many fundamental resonant frequencies available.  And many of them
are stronger than others.  One you know of in this group, is the ionospheric
resonant frequency.  I checked way back when, (think it was that frequency)
and found that the time for an EM signal to travel through the volume of the
earth, due to the slowing of EM from increase in dielectric constant, led to
the electric field of the earth being a standing wave!  ie, as a wave from
the ionosphere hits the earth, it will be time delayed as it travels through
the earth, and will exit the other side IN PHASE MATCH.  

What that means, is that if you took a coax cable with a low dielectric
constant, ergo high velocity, such as a Gortex coax with eps about 1.2 if I
recall, then you will be able to communicate electric information from the
surface to the bottom of a deep mine or well, faster than the potential of
the dirt is changing.  thus, you could use that to generate electricity.
the greater the array of wires, and the greater the depth of the cable, the
greater the phase differential you will manifest, and thus the greater the
voltage potential, and the greater the power.  

Now, another way might be to simply use a long cable, many miles, so that
you induce a phase delay right here on the surface.  Then, all you need do
is to tap into the surface of the earth at one phase angle, and then tap in
again at a later time and different phase angle.  And voila, you have a
voltage difference.  

Of course any savy veteran knows your resistive losses are going to bite you
unless you use superconductors.  And if you use superconductors your cooling
costs had better be less than the energy you generate.  Ergo, will it work?
I don't know.  I am a pragmatic mechanical engineer, trained to notice
knooks and crannies energy leaks into and out of.  ie, remember the old
refrigerator in a perfectly insulated room, door left open and running?
does the room get colder, stay the same temp, or warm up????

If you cannot answer that little quiz from rote, you ought not to be
involved in suggesting new energy devices yet, and instead ought to read
more about thermodynamics.   the answer of course is that the room heats up.
You cannot forget that the electricity to run the motor is crossing the
insulated wall to power the refrigerator's motor, and nothing is without
some losses.

that statement flies in the face of what you presently think about
superconductivity.  But that too is not without losses.  It is just that the
losses are being replaced by stars, which are fusing resonances, emitting
aether puffs in phase and frequency match with spacetime's oscillations
locally, and thus replenishing the lost energy and driving spacetime in our
region of the universe.  Spacetime, is literally seated in stars, and aether
is flowing out of stars curving the spacetime away.  But the mass of our sun
for example is two solar masses.  Thus, everything is in balance, and we
must conserve energy, momentum AND mass in all interactions, and then follow
the flow of mass and the inertial and magnetic action that flow imparts.

As for other types of zpe devices.  I don't know if you can accomplish
anything important.  But here is a huge clue that may help, and I will not
be surprised if you do succeed.  but it will not be because you randomly
tapped into some nebulous zpe.  It will be because you figured out which
frequencies of spacetime wave energy have enough strength to bother working
with.

Remember the earth time delay on the EM field transiting it, and then
emerging in phase and of course, frequency match.  So, you manage to get the
energy to go in at one frequency, and then to come back out at the same
frequency, but you can alter the phase of the thing.'

Well, the earth is additionally rotating!

That sets up an interesting vortex to the EM field geometry. 

Now, think about the SMOT and numerous others of your magnetic rotating
devices.  you are putting energy into some rotor or such on one side of it.
then, you are rotating the thing.  Maybe you tap into the electricity again
from the shaft, or from the same location but rotated.  Maybe the thing is
magnetized too, and maybe it is not.

The gist is, if you could find out what frequency spacetime has a natural em
resonance, and then you could build a device that taps into that resonance
such that the phase time delay of transit through your device leads to the
EM energy of spacetime arriving in phase with the EM energy crossing your
dynamic device, then you could ride up on a sort of EM wave crest like a
surfer rides a wave on the ocean.

In that case, you would be trapped in an EM node, and the rotor would
continue to rotate at that rate so long as you don't pull too much energy
out.  In analogy of the surfer, you can pull backward on him and derive work
from the wave, so long as you don't pull so hard you pull him backward
relative to the wave up and over the top to the back side.

Another important point, (and if you get it you will understand what gravity
is! :-), is that you cannot get two things to cohere if they are operating
at different frequencies.  In that case, all you can get is a filtering and
interference push.  Now maybe you could make some sort of paddle wheel
differential filtering device using a superconductor on the fringe of
superconductivity such that you turn off the superconductivity as the wheel
rotates pas a field that will push it due to resistance, and then turn it
back on again as it rotates back upstream of that input.  but I doubt it
from a practical sense.

ie, it may well be that you can derive some tiny amount of energy from
something, but if you cannot derive enough to generate power, you are making
a toy.  Now toys are neat, so go right on ahead, but they are not the sort
of thing I am interested in.  The devices I want to build and have designed
are not toys, they are flying cars, FTL spacecraft, FTL communications,
nuclear reactors that stabilize and remediate our nuclear waste, etc etc.

But if you are going to build something important, then I am certain it will
be because you managed to find an important resonance.  

There are a lot of important frequencies around.  There are a lot of
important size scales that are turning up in various industries.  a
micrometer I think is one of them.  but you can get a lot more information
about this from Ray, than from me, so check out the frequencies he considers
important cosmologically.

We know that the electron wavelength is an important one for example.  And
so the harmonics of that are also going to be important.  You are going to
need to tap into as high a frequency as you can manage because the "surfers
wave crest is higher" (shorter EM wavelength so don't get the analogy and
the reality confused), and will support a greater energy output.

To sum it up, if you plan to tap into zpe, you are going to have to identify
a specific frequency to tap into.  the ionospheric resonance is one weak
source, but there are others permeating spacetime.  Look at the solar
acoustic oscillation modes where the sun is portrayed as red and blue
regions of contraction and expansion.  That is a bit what spacetime you live
in is like, so you can try to figure out which frequency happens to have
more than the average amount of zpe.  

That said, I don't think that important devices are going to derive power
from zpe any time in the future.  I think you could derive some trivial
amount of power, but not the powerful generators we need for today's society.

IMO, the best techniques are right at hand, and they do not involve zpe.
The energy confined in the mass of the tip of my pinky figure is equivalent
to a huge atomic weapon.  When you come to grips with the fact that what we
think of as stable particles are instead resonances, then you realize that
my pinky figure is exploding out into all of the matter around me all of the
time, and that matter is exploding right back and converging wave energy
back into my pinky finger resonances.  

We are like frozen crystals, and not the fast moving creatures we think we
are.  Our motions, compared to the back and forth wave exchanges moving at
c, are about as fast to light, as glass is like a river flowing down hill to
us.  We think of glass as being a solid because it flows so slowly.  Light
waves, think of us as solids because everytime they bounce back and forth
they find us right where we were the last time the wave bounced through our
region of the local universe.

All I need to do is to open up a tiny fraction of that bottled energy and we
will never again burn oil.  I know how to do that, it is simple.  All we
need is to get the funding arranged, but no one believes or understands that
it is prudent to throw a little money in the direction of radical ideas,
because every now and then they turn up something important.

Something you might do is to send in my name to Art Bell, requesting that he
invite me as a guest on the show.  That way, rather than just written words,
you could hear a vast amount of information I am compiling into the book due
out this summer.

Any way, got to run.

Ross Tessien







  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 11:11:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24179;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980305011757.00709abc world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:17:57 +0000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Help:  Area and volume of Double Bubble?????
Cc: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
In-Reply-To: <199803040619.WAA23215 Au.oro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WYGQt3.0.fv5.JLQ_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16282
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Ross:

   Tension T   Pressure P

 Perhaps Frank, or yourself, will check the equation, but
by inspection:


     pi * r^2 * P   =   2 * Pi * r * T


    should get you started.  Not sure how it 
relates to the rest but good luck.

          Mitchell



At 10:19 PM 3/3/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Any one have a reference with the equations for the area and volume of a
>double soap bubble of equal sized lobes?  The air pressure is equal inside
>and out in these double bubbles, and so there is a well defined geometry
>that arises from the hydrostatics of the surface tension of the soap film.
>I need the equations to try to derive the mass of pions from muons based on
>my solitonic geometries.
>
>Any one have those equations?
>
>Thanks, Ross Tessien
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 12:19:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05551;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:15:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:14:20 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd47aa$1ddb36c0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"J8NvK2.0.bM1.OPR_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16283
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

More experimental observations with the ferrite torus:

The measured radial fringing fields are actually of comparable
strength to the leakage field along the torus but are nearly zero
at the midpoint where the ring is usually located. This makes
experiments with vertical lead wires difficult to interpret. The
standard geometry is however, not that difficult to interpret.

Michael  Schaffer wrote:
>I say that this is not true, because Kooistra's application of
>electromagnetism was incomplete. In his main experiment, the small force he
>observed can be explained conventionally as the interaction between the
>fringe magnetic field (in the vertical direction in his drawings) of the
>permanent magnet rotor crossed with the radial current in the wires leading
>to the ring-shaped "field winding" or stator.

>From a standard magnetics point of view and confirmed by my
measurements, the vertical field inside the ring is opposed by the standard
ring connection field. When the ring is positioned at the
connection point, the two fields are trying to rotate the torus in
opposite directions. The torus actually rotates in the direction determined
by the ring field. The rotation of the torus implies the existence of the
counter force Kooistra has shown with rotating rings and appears to
call for the addition of a longitudinal force along conductors to current
theory.

Comments ??

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 12:41:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08584;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003f01bd47ac$36c26b20$368cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: Potassium-Phenol Compounds?
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:29:07 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"IPoS5.0.-52.qgR_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16284
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----

>
>If you visit the Blacklight Power WEb Page:
>
>www.blacklightpower.com you will see where a
>Hydrogenous "plasma" containing K+ cations supposedly creates a new
>energy-releasing
>particle called a "HYDRINO" which is a bound state of an electron and
proton
>that forms dark matter and releases EUV (or as much as 255 kev)rather than
>13.6 ev while forming.
>
>The recipe, from what I have seen, is ionization of the Potassium and
>dissociation of H2 or hydrogenous compounds, both of which should comply
>with the SAHA EQUATION:
>
>Log10 (ni/no)= -5040*(Vi/T)+Log10 T + 15.385
>
>Where ni/no is the ion-to-neutral ratio and
>Vi is the ionization potential. I think since
>the molecular dissociation energy H2 <--> 2 H is around the same level
(4.34
>ev for K, and 5.52 ev for the H-H bond)one could use the Saha equation for
>this also. Both have a pressure factor to plug in too.
>
>The Vi for sodium (about 0.8 ev more) makes a significant change in the
Saha
>ni/no ratio, which makes potassium the most practical choice.
>
>So, if what Blacklight Power (BLP) says has any basis, a Phenol with K
>attached would make a good energy booster in the combustion "plasma" of
>diesel engines (lots of trucks out there). :-)
>Could you use the "pyroligneous acids" from biomass or cresols from
sweeping
>chimneys for this Power Booster, by merely treating them with KOH obtained
>from biomass ashes?   :-)
>
>Regards,   Frederick
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 13:11:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13228;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FDBF59.7EE7 skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:53:45 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <v03020900b12073da9ab4 [128.183.200.195]> <v03020900b1230c9ad1cf@[128.183.200.195]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TV2Ln2.0.ZE3.e4S_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16285
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Larry Wharton wrote:

> This added force is not always perpendicular to the Lorentz force.  In the
> example I gave, this force was parallel to the Lorentz force and it had the
> effect of reducing the magnetic force by a factor of 2.

No sir. Not correct. In the case you analyzed (a constant B field 
with circular A field), some of the factors in each of the force 
equations, (the factor of the rate of change of A in the direction 
of v), are indeed parallel. But, the resulting forces are 
perpendicular. For the longitudinal force, the factor is multiplied 
v dot A, and is necessarily parallel to the velocity, and for the 
Lorentz force the factor is part of v cross A and is necessarily 
perpendicular to the velocity. In the case of a circular A field,
the Longitudinal force, and half of the total Lorentz force, is
given by the same (parallel) factor, but the directions of the 
resulting forces are perpendicular. 

Note that in the case of a circular A field, the other factor of 
curl A (rate of change of A in the direction perpendicular to the 
velocity), gives the other half of the total magnitude of the Lorentz 
force. Hence in the case of a circular A field, the Lorentz force 
has twice the magnitude of the Longitudinal force. 

The Longitudinal force has a maximum relative value of one-half
when the A field is circular. In all other cases, the relative 
value is less than half. For example, in the case of the completely 
non-circular A field resulting from an infinite length line current, 
the Longitudinal force on a charged particle moving perpendicular 
to the B field is everywhere equal to zero. 

>This is unacceptable because we know this does not happen.  

Very funny.   

> Any significant modification of the Lorentz force in any direction,
> perpendicular or parallel, is unacceptable because it would contradict
> a large body of experimental evidence. 

It is not a modification of the Lorentz force. The Lorentz force 
is by definition always perpendicular to the velocity. The 
Longitudinal force acts in addition to the Lorentz force. I don't 
believe there is any case where the Longitudinal force can be shown 
to contradict any existing experimental evidence.  

Furthermore, there is a substantial body of experiments,which 
demonstrate that the Lorentz force alone is insufficient to
describe some cases. For example: Ampere's original force law 
experiments, and more recently the experiments of the Graneaus, 
Saumont, and others.

A good discussion of some of these experiments can be found in the
text:

  Advanced Electromagnetism, Edited by Barrett and Grimes, page 
  620, "Ampere Force: Experimental Tests" by Remi Saumont.   

> In my example of a constant magnetic field, the
> Phipps force would cause the radius of curvature of free charged
> particles in a magnetic field to be twice as large as it should be.  
> That does not happen and therefore this added force is unacceptable.

OK, great example. Let's look at the case of a constant B field, 
with circular A field, where the velocity of the particle is 
perpendicular to the B field. Our charged particle with velocity v, 
is moving in a circular path -- presumably soley under the influence 
of the Lorentz force. 

The momentum of a charged particle of mass m, within a magnetic
vector potential is given by:

 p = mv - qa.  And the force on the particle is given by dp/dt.  
  
Noodle this around. You will find that you can not account for the 
circular motion and momentum changes of a charged body in a constant 
B field, soley by using the Lorentz force.

Firstly, how did the particle arrive at its condition of circular
motion? Presumably it must have entered the B field at some earilier
time, and is now caught up in it. When it entered the field, it had
an average linear motion and momentum into the field. Where has this
average linear momentum gone? The only way to account for it is a
longitudinal force -- and a subsequent transfer of linear momentum
to the apparatus which generates the B field. It is a separate 
question, whether this momentum transfer occurs in the fashion of 
instantaneous-action-at-a-distance as argued by Phipps and others,
or if there is some temporaneous absorption of momentum by the
field or aether. In any case, the momentum must eventually have 
been transferred to the apparatus, and this transfer can only 
occur under the action of a longitudinal force. 

Secondly, once the particle is caught up in circular motion there
is at all times an instantaneous change in momentum. You
can account for part of this instantaneous change (the change in
direction), by the Lorentz force and absorption in the A field. 
But half of the momentum change is missing, (the instantaneous 
change in magnitude in the direction of motion). This momentum
change can only be accounted for by a transfer to the apparatus. 
And again, only through the existence of a Longitudinal force.  

A mechanical analog may aid in understanding. Twirl a particle of 
mass on a string around yourself. In order to keep it the going
around yourself, you must exert a radial force (analog of Lorentz 
force), and you must also exert a longitudinal force, by always 
pulling the rope slightly ahead of the particle's motion. You 
must absorb an equal and opposite linear force and momentum through 
the string onto yourself. 
   
> I have been informed by e-mail
> from Patrick Cornille that this is the case for the Ampere force as
> demonstrated by Vaneshar Bush in 1926, J. Math Phys. Vol. 5,p.129 
> and by Assis in Physics Letters A, vol. 136, N6, p.277, 1989. 

I am not not familiar with the Bush article. The article by Assis 
demonstrates that the Ampere force and the Grassman (Lorentz) 
forces are essentially equivalent when integrated around the 
path of a solid wire which which carries current in a closed loop. 
We are looking at a different case -- the case of a convection 
current -- i.e. motion of a charged particle, or mechanical motion 
of a charged body.  
 
> The Phipps new force, on the other hand, has no chance of being valid.

Ampere might be surprised, perhaps dismayed, that some scientists
still insist on calling this a "new" force. Maybe new to some human
beings, certainly not new to nature. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 13:31:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16411;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:18:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007813b12371c48476 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd47aa$1ddb36c0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:17:50 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dm1Om1.0.J04.qKS_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16286
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:
>More experimental observations with the ferrite torus:
>
>The measured radial fringing fields are actually of comparable
>strength to the leakage field along the torus

	Precisely my point.

>but are nearly zero at the midpoint where the ring is usually located.

	Radial magnetic field Br is zero at midpoint, but it is large above
and below. Vertical current feed wires have to cross Br. Radial current
feeds have to cross vertical magnetic field Bv. No matter how you feed
current in, it has to CROSS magnetic field, which makes a torque. In fact,
if the magnetic field does not vary with angle [which is true in Kooistra's
experiment when the feed wires lie in the plane of the rotor torus (I don't
know George's geometry)] then it can be proved from Maxwell's equations
that the torque is _independent_ of how the feed wires are run in and out.

>This makes
>experiments with vertical lead wires difficult to interpret. The
>standard geometry is however, not that difficult to interpret.

	Not in the light of my comment above.

>From a standard magnetics point of view and confirmed by my
>measurements, the vertical field inside the ring is opposed by the standard
>ring connection field. When the ring is positioned at the
>connection point, the two fields are trying to rotate the torus in
>opposite directions.

	I lost you, especially, "When the ring is positioned at the
connection point".

>The torus actually rotates in the direction determined
>by the ring field. The rotation of the torus implies the existence of the
>counter force Kooistra has shown with rotating rings and appears to
>call for the addition of a longitudinal force along conductors to current
>theory.

	I lost you. However, in my earlier post I explained how all
Kooistra's observations, at least as presented in IE, are qualitatively
consistent with conventional electromagnetism. There is no contradiction.

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 Mar  4 13:33:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17477;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:19:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:19:08 -0800
From: JNaudin509 <JNaudin509 aol.com>
Message-ID: <d28a8163.34fdc51d aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:18:19 EST
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, jdecker@keelynet.com, egel@main.murray.net.au
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, ddameron@earthlink.net, mrandall@earthlink.net,
        HLafonte aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: About the Johnson's motor
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 116
Resent-Message-ID: <"XfHHO3.0._G4.BLS_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16287
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi All,

You will find an interesting document about the Johnson's motor at :

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/johnmot.htm

In this document, I have tried to understand better the principle claimed in
this permanent magnetic motor. You will find a complete simulation with
QuickField about this motor.

All constructive comments are welcome.....

I hope that this will interest you,

Jean-Louis Naudin
03-04-98

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 14:56:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09216;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:42:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:42:53 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b12388d01994 [12.64.66.12]>
In-Reply-To: <v03007813b12371c48476 [198.133.146.230]>
References: <01bd47aa$1ddb36c0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:42:42 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"UUehm.0.oF2.hZT_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16288
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael Schaffer wrote:

   >  However, in my earlier post I explained
   >  how all Kooistra's observations, at least as
   >  presented in IE, are qualitatively
   >  consistent with conventional
   >  electromagnetism. There is no
   >  contradiction.

Isn't this Marinov device the thing he committed suicide over because it
was shown to him convincingly that it operated on conventional principles
and his theories of a new EM force were wrong? The US Snail still hasn't
delivered my IE #17 yet.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 15:10:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09854;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:45:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:45:22 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980304164643.00bf94dc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 16:46:43 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
In-Reply-To: <01bd47aa$1ddb36c0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"HEtXY.0.lP2._bT_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16289
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I have considered the Marinov motor and can see a simple explanation for
the torque on the ring based upon leakage fields from the flux torus that
pass "vertically" thru the ring.  George Holz' observation that the torque
is much lower with a torus that does not leak very much is consistent with
my model.

I have prepared a drawing and a couple of paragraphs of explanation which
can be viewed at:

http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.html

George, am I on the right track?



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 Mar  4 15:18:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12995;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:54:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:54:37 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:54:25 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Marinov motor 'fluxgate effect'?
In-Reply-To: <34FDBF59.7EE7 skylink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980304142445.5228C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"M-roa2.0.uA3.gkT_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16290
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


This just occured to me:  could the torque effect come from something akin
to "fluxgate compass" saturation phenomena?

If the magnetized torus is near saturation, if it is near the nonlinear
knee of the hysterisis curve, then perhaps a torque could arise between
ring and torus even with zero fringing fields surrounding the torus. 
Here's how. 

If one side of a vertically suspended magnetized torus is near a straight
current-carrying conductor, and if the field from the conductor is in a
direction that pushes the magnetization of that part of the torus farther
into saturation, the conductor should repel that side of the torus.  And
if the field from the conductor is in the other direction, so that it
takes that part of the torus out of saturation, the torus and the
conductor should attract. 

If this was happening, then the torque should only be large if the field
within the magnetized torus was near the nonlinear part of the B-H curve. 
If the torus was magnetized in a way so it was far below saturation, the
"flux gate compass" process would not work.  If half-saturated magnetic
torii still have the same torque, then 'fluxgate' effect must be
discarded.

Also, if saturation effects were the explanation, then most of the torque
in the Marinov Motor would arise when the two sides of the torus were near
the spot on the ring where incoming leads connected to the conducting
ring.  It is here where the current splits, and where the fields would
apply tangential force to the torus.  For torus rotations that put the
torus "legs" far from the current-split point, the attraction/repulsion
would be the same regardless of torus angle, and there would be little
torque. 

If a large, thin magnetic torus was placed in the hole of a large,
thin conductor ring, then the torque would only arise when the "legs" of
the torus were near the current-split point.  If torque versus angle were
to be measured and plotted, the torque would be small at all angles except
when the torus was nearly aligned with the ring's connector leads. 

A graph of torque vs angle for a large, thin, circular magnetized torus,
if it gave a sine wave shape, would disprove my 'fluxgate' speculation,
and probably say negative things about whether the lead-in wires were
responsible for torque.

Would Phipps theory give a sine-shaped torque curve?  I have nowhere near
the math skills needed to answer.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 15:43:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15142;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:02:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:02:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:02:34 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: homopolar generator run as motor
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980304145521.5228D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"pbYAj.0.Ti3.KsT_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16291
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Regarding mechanical forces directed in the same direction as current...

When an HPG is run as a motor, the current in the disk rotor is forced to
spiral, and so the disk rotor rotates too.

Isn't this yet another situation where moving charges drag metal along in
the SAME direction as the electron current?  What does conventional EM say
about the rotary component of the HPG current causing a torque to be
applied to the metal?  What if the material of the HPG's disk conducted by
'hole' flow, or by equal + and - carriers, would the torque be different
than for a copper disk? 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 16:16:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03282;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:57:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:57:10 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <34FDEA2D.806577B1 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 17:56:29 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex Discusion Group <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: On the subject of planitary
	 rotation
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------939C313B32E02E897E222DAD"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WTj253.0.eo.FfU_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16292
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.
--------------939C313B32E02E897E222DAD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Found this.  Figure RT might be interested.  BTW, still patiently waiting to
hear how planetary rotation direction is predisposed in RT's hypothesis (third
ask).  8^)

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville
--------------939C313B32E02E897E222DAD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="msg00202.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg00202.html"
Content-Base: "http://www-plasma.umd.edu/sci.physics.
	plasma_archive-html/msg00202.html"

<!--X-Subject: Re: Can Gravity be Induced? -->
<!--X-From: fcrary benji.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)  -->
<!--X-Date:  -->
<!--X-Head-End-->
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Can Gravity be Induced?</TITLE>
<LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:fcrary benji.Colorado.EDU">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
<!--X-TopPNI-->
<A HREF="msg00201.html">[Prev]</A><A HREF="msg00203.html">[Next]</A><A HREF="Welcome.html#00202">[Index]</A></LI>
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-->
<H1>Re: Can Gravity be Induced?</H1>
<HR>
<UL>
<LI>
<em>Subject</em>: Re: Can Gravity be Induced? 
</LI>
<LI>
<em>From</em>: <A HREF="mailto:fcrary benji.Colorado.EDU">fcrary@benji.Colorado.EDU</A> (Frank Crary) 
</LI>
<LI>
<em>Newsgroups</em>: <A HREF="news:sci.physics.plasma">sci.physics.plasma</A>
</LI>
<LI>
<em>Organization</em>: University of Colorado, Boulder 
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<PRE>
In article &lt;3astqo$9ja mojo.eng.umd.edu&gt;,
Stephen Goodfellow &lt;llrowla cms.cc.wayne.edu&gt; wrote:
&gt;...On the subject of planitary
&gt;rotation, I recall reading an article in a Scientifc American from the
&gt;late 50's, early 60's (Sorry, I'd have to go to the library to give you
&gt;the exact article reference,) on the rotation rate of our planet; that
&gt;for a few days during very high solar activity, the Earth's rotation
&gt;accelerated a noticable amount. Do you know anything about this? 

I can't see any way the solar wind could affect the Earth's
rotation on such short time scales. The observed solar
wind simply lacks the energy and momentum for this.
I think this may have been a problem with the old studies.
It is fairly common to measure a planet's internal rate
of rotation by looking at the periodic variations in
magnetic field. The period of Jupiter's internal rotation,
for example (i.e. the "System III" period) was accurately
measured in the early 1960s by this sort of process: The
rotation causes the magnetic fields to wobble once per
"day", and this can be seen in the radio emissions produced
by Jupiter's magnetosphere. I suspect the late 50's 
work you are remembering tried to monitor the Earth's
rotation in some similar way. The problem is that 
the internal rotation of the Earth is not the only
thing that can perturb the planet's magnetic fields.
A slight contribution comes from the "ring current"
flowing through the Earth's magnetosphere. High solar 
activity does affect the ring current very significantly.
So the magnetic fields around the Earth are slightly
changed by solar activity. If the observations of
the Earth's rotation were based on magnetic field data,
this might create the illusion that the Earth was
being slowed down or sped up during periods of high
solar activity. Of course, the people who did that
research wouldn't have known this: In the late 1950s
and early 60s, we barely knew that the Earth had
a magnetosphere at all; the ring current wasn't
discovered until about a decade later and the
affect of the solar wind on the ring current is
even more recent. 

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

</PRE>
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<HR>
<UL>
<LI>Prev: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00201.html">Re: complex group velocity</A></STRONG></LI>
<LI>Next: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00203.html">Comprehensive Introductory Text.</A></STRONG></LI>
<LI>Index: <STRONG><A HREF="Welcome.html#00202">Sci.Physics.Plasma Archive prior 2/13/95</A></STRONG></LI>
</UL>
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
</BODY>
</HTML>

--------------939C313B32E02E897E222DAD--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 16:40:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18196;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <34FDEF2E.8D70D94 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 18:17:50 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex Discusion Group <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Leading Edge 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rk5sW2.0.BS4.qAV_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16293
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Haven't explored this site too deeply but looks to have promise.  Several links
to keelynet pages but not all.

<http://www.trufax.org/main5.html>

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 17:30:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24072;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:04:37 -0800
Message-Id: <199803050104.RAA00174 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: On the subject of planitary rotation
Resent-Message-ID: <"YMtq_1.0.-t5.OiV_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16294
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Greetings:

>Found this.  Figure RT might be interested.  BTW, still patiently waiting to
>hear how planetary rotation direction is predisposed in RT's hypothesis (third
>ask).  8^)

didn't see it come through.  I delete a lot of email without opening it, so
if I don't see my name, or something that jumps out as being about astronomy
or aether, I can inadvertently dump it.  This is great though and I have
written articles on it which can be found at dejanews.com

I'll respond below.

>In article &lt;3astqo$9ja mojo.eng.umd.edu&gt;,
>Stephen Goodfellow &lt;llrowla cms.cc.wayne.edu&gt; wrote:
>&gt;...On the subject of planitary
>&gt;rotation, I recall reading an article in a Scientifc American from the
>&gt;late 50's, early 60's (Sorry, I'd have to go to the library to give you
>&gt;the exact article reference,) on the rotation rate of our planet; that
>&gt;for a few days during very high solar activity, the Earth's rotation
>&gt;accelerated a noticable amount. Do you know anything about this? 

Does anyone know about this article, or incident, or any related to it.
Further, does anyone know what time of year this incident occured?  ie, was
it between winter and summer solstice, in springtime side of
year???????????????  see below why.

>
>I can't see any way the solar wind could affect the Earth's
>rotation on such short time scales. 

The solar wind wouldn't, but the aether emission of the sun would.

Frank Crary has posted other good articles, but I missed this one.

Any way, there are a few things to realize about our sun.  first of all,
mass must be conserved when two solitons fuse.  Thus, aether, aka mass, is
emitted and flowing out of the sun.  Increased activity comes with an
increase in emission.  There are a few affects I can imagine could cause
that observation.  first, it could be as dumb as our clocks slowing down due
to the increase in density of the aether during increased emission.  but
probably not.

Second, the earth is subject to solar acoustic oscillations due to the
aether emission flow not being regular, and instead being vibratory or you
can say, pulsed, but at many frequencies which are harmonically related.  We
know, for example, that the earth has incessant free oscillations as
measured by our seismometers around the globe.  We can follow the decay of
the modes of ringing over about a two week period after a major earthquake,
so we know what the natural modes of oscillations are.  Even in times that
are quite, the earth still has a component of ringing frequencies.  

It turns out that these frequencies match the solar frequencies in that
their power is located at about the 5 minute solar oscillation period.  

So you can imagine that the earth is like a jelly fish in an ocean, as the
waves come past.  It becomes deformed because the jelly fish is just about
100 percent water anyway, so it changes shape with the passing wave.  The
earth, composed of aether solitons, in an ocean of aether, is like that
jelly fish and becomes compressed and extended as these aether compression
waves pass by.  I can't wait for LIGO to come on line in a year or two!!!!!!!!

Any way, to address your earth rotation period question takes a little
background, the above being the beginning of it.  We have waves headed out
of the sun.

Now, the earth is not perfectly mass symetrical.  We have mountains.  to
imagine what is happening, and then you can judge for yourself, consider a
bicycle wheel with a weight attached to the rim.  Now, place the wheel in a
horizontal plane so that you don't have to consider gravity (or consider it
up in the space shuttle).  Next, spin the wheel at say one revolution per
second.  That means that at each second, the wheel and the excess mass
complete a rotation.  note that we are headed to the earth's rotation, so I
will say that the bearings are frictionless.

Now, we are going to add an oscillation to the wheel.  We are going to push
the wheel horizontally back and forth.  we are going to do this and complete
a cycle every second and we are going to push when the mass passes the far
side of the rim, and begin to pull when the mass passes the near side of the
rim.  ie, we are going to push and pull in phase opposition to the masses
orbit around the rim, and at the same frequency.

Doing this, we now have a completed system and the mass is being driven by
our input of energy.  We happen to be perfectly in frequency and phase
synchrony with the mass rotation.  But what happens if we change the phase
angle of our input of energy?  Well, the mass will be slowed on one part of
the circle, and sped up on another part of the circle, and the input of
energy will cause the mass to phase shift back into synchrony with our input
energy.  

What happens if you frequency shift our input energy?  In this case, we are
coupled to the mass rotation and we slowly begin to shift the frequency of
the push pull motions driving the mass around the wheel.  The speed of
rotation will either speed up or slow down in order to remain coupled to our
driving energy.

Now, from that, consider the earth's orbit around the sun, and consider the
sun as providing the push and pull.  What do you expect to happen in the
spring, and what do you expect to happen in the fall to the earth's
rotation, assuming that the sun is pushing and pulling, and that the
mountain ranges serve as the assymetric masses??????????????????????????

Well, you can answer it yourself, and then you can go do some searching
about the length of day of the earths 24 hour period of rotation.  You can
also go search out about the solar acoustic oscillations at longer periods
and find that the 4 hour, the 160 minute, and several other periods of
acoustic oscillation divide evenly into our 24 hour day.  And now that I
have bs'd enough for you to have solved the problem on your own if you
wanted to, the answer is that the earth is closest to the sun in the
Northern winter, and furthest in the Northern summer.  Thus, from solstice
to solstice the earth should receive Doppler shifted wave energy from the
sun such that the LOD (length of day), is red shifted in spring, and blue
shifted in fall.  You must be a bit careful and consider how libration works
before you go working things all out to the dime.  But, the fact of the
matter is, every year, the LOD slows in the spring and speeds up in the
fall!  so, you know how they explain it?  They say that leaves falling on
the ground in the Northern hemisphere in fall speed it up, and leaf growth
in the spring slows it down.

any way, if you increase the intensity of the oscillations at some
frequency, two things are going on.  first, you are changing the frequency
of the solar oscillations themselves.  I haven't checked into that because I
didn't know about this report.  But I will see if the solar oscillations
speed up or slow down during increased activity.  

The second manner to cause the earth to speed up is if the intensity of the
waves increases during a period of the earth's orbit (ie fall) when it was
tending to speed up anyway.  thus, the increase in driving pulsations just
increases the rate at which the earth's phase angle librates relative to the
solar acoustic oscillations.

Note too that the solar neutrino counts are now known to vary on a 27 day
period along with the solar rotation, and, the moon's orbit!!  In other
words, take the same phenomena and apply it directly to the moons orbit and
you get the moon being driven by the sun.

Venus, has it's atmosphere race around the planet every 4 days, leading to
yet another acoustic interaction.  You see, Venus virtually doesn't rotate,
so there is no reason for an atmospheric circulation to manifest, let alone
a rotation where the entire atmosphere sloshes around with the identical
pattern all of the time, a great big Y shape where the Y is aligned to the
equator forming a sort of V shaped cloud split.

Take a large pot of water, and slosh the water around in a circle due to the
same motion I mentioned above with the bicycle wheel and look at the wave
you form.  Now, imagine you are sloshing Venus, and imagine the shape that
wave would be if instead of water in a pot, it was air around a spherical
ball.  You get the Y shape!

Anyway, these things are all over the place.  Amazing no one sees them.
They are just catalogued as mysteries over and over again.  It all boils
down to Equivalency, the error of the 20th century.

Later, Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 17:31:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29214;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:17:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:17:30 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:15:45 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0077_01BD47AA.503365C0"
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: <"NdUi-1.0.E87.aqV_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16295
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.

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01BD47AA.503365C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael J. Schaffer wrote:


>George Holz wrote:
>>More experimental observations with the ferrite torus:
>>
>>The measured radial fringing fields are actually of comparable
>>strength to the leakage field along the torus
>
> Precisely my point.
>
>>but are nearly zero at the midpoint where the ring is usually located.
>
> Radial magnetic field Br is zero at midpoint, but it is large above
>and below. Vertical current feed wires have to cross Br. Radial current
>feeds have to cross vertical magnetic field Bv. No matter how you feed
>current in, it has to CROSS magnetic field, which makes a torque. In fact,
>if the magnetic field does not vary with angle [which is true in Kooistra's
>experiment when the feed wires lie in the plane of the rotor torus (I don't
>know George's geometry)] then it can be proved from Maxwell's equations
>that the torque is _independent_ of how the feed wires are run in and out.


This seems to agree with experiment, that the feed wire vertical
configuration
does not change torque. I think this is correct.
>
>>This makes
>>experiments with vertical lead wires difficult to interpret. The
>>standard geometry is however, not that difficult to interpret.
>
> Not in the light of my comment above.

I actually think it is not so complex, I confused my comment by typing ring
instead of torus. It should have read:
>From a standard magnetics point of view and confirmed by my
measurements, the vertical field inside the ring is opposed by the standard
ring connection field. When the torus (not ring, sorry) is positioned at the
connection point, the two fields are trying to rotate the torus in
opposite directions.

Looked at from above the longer axis of the torus is positioned
between the connection points. The torque remains in the same
direction for +- 90 degrees from this orientation.

The torus actually rotates in the direction determined
by the ring field. The rotation of the torus implies the existence of the
counter force Kooistra has shown with rotating rings and appears to
call for the addition of a longitudinal force along conductors to current
theory.
>
> I lost you. However, in my earlier post I explained how all
>Kooistra's observations, at least as presented in IE, are qualitatively
>consistent with conventional electromagnetism. There is no contradiction.
>
Sorry about that Michael, please consider the corrected text.

Hi Scott,
I went crazy adding vectors when I first looked at the Marinov motor.
You have the basic force components right for your case, my
motor uses magnets at the top and bottom and ferrite sides
as shown in the attached gif, so the fringe field at the sides is in the
opposite direction. This is naturally not important in evaluating your
proposal. If you add all the components accurately, I think you will
find no net torque. Apply your observation to which way the torus
will rotate if you pair the top two vectors and bottom two vectors.
Another way of looking at this is that you have pairs of matching
180 deg. opposed vectors, not a good bet for causing rotation.

Hi Bill B,
The ferrite in my implementation is indeed nearly saturated.
I think, however that the torus saturation will not be significantly
changed by the relatively small fields ( under 5 gauss ) generated
by the ring. Also note that the ring encloses both legs of the
torus, not the configuration desired to change torus flux.
Still, this may be worth further consideration.

Robert Stirniman,
Thanks for the great examples and the "Ampere Force" reference,
I'll try to remember this experiment does not show a new force,
only one needing wider acknowledgement.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


------=_NextPart_000_0077_01BD47AA.503365C0
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="marinov.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="marinov.gif"
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------=_NextPart_000_0077_01BD47AA.503365C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 17:43:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02084;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:34:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:34:51 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007815b123ae18b104 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980304145521.5228D-100000 eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:35:24 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: homopolar generator run as motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"BPUtc2.0.TW.w4W_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16296
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill Beaty asked about the homopolar machine:

>Regarding mechanical forces directed in the same direction as current...
>
>When an HPG is run as a motor, the current in the disk rotor is forced to
>spiral, and so the disk rotor rotates too.
>
>Isn't this yet another situation where moving charges drag metal along in
>the SAME direction as the electron current?  What does conventional EM say
>about the rotary component of the HPG current causing a torque to be
>applied to the metal?  What if the material of the HPG's disk conducted by
>'hole' flow, or by equal + and - carriers, would the torque be different
>than for a copper disk?

The main electron flow is radial in the rotor disk. It crosses an axial
magnetic field. The electrons experience a Lorentz force in the azimuthal
direction.  In metals the collision frequency is a very large number of
orders of magnitude larger than the cyclotron frequency, and the electrons
follow a zig-zag trajectory dominated by collisions, with a small average
velocity in the direction of the sum of the forces acting. In a metal
electrons collide very frequently (mean free path about 1 nm) with the ions
of the rigid metallic crystal, thereby imparting their momentum to the
crystal as a whole. The macroscopic average is a measureable force equal to
IxB, taking into account the (usually very small) change in direction of
the direction of I with respect to the applied electric field when in a
magnetic field. Quantitatively, the cross-field slip velocity between the
electrons and the lattice is very small.

In vacuum the electrons would follow trajectories determined by the Lorentz
force alone. Lorentz force is very accurate, both classically and
relativistically. Among other things, it makes possible electron
microscopes with sub-nm focusing.

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 Mar  4 19:32:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA31274;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:15:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:15:24 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980304211121.008b2ca0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 21:11:21 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
In-Reply-To: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y8i_t1.0.Re7.7ZX_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16297
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:15 PM 3/4/98 -0500, George Holz wrote:

>Another way of looking at this is that you have pairs of matching
>180 deg. opposed vectors, not a good bet for causing rotation.

Thanks, it seems that you are right, George.   I'm going to quietly remove
my little "comment" from the web, now and do some more thinking about this.

Scott

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 20:07:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA22802;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34FE3B97.2305 keelynet.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 21:43:51 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KeelyNet-L lists.kz
CC: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Nuclear Beer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Did2V1.0.8a5.L6Y_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16298
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts!

Well, the radioactivity situation has now been solved. It doesn't matter 
whether the earth is saturated with radioactive contaminants now because 
of the following solution from the 02/25/98 'News of the Weird';

  In July, the Lomsko Pivo Beer brewery in Lom, Bulgaria, announced
  that brewmeister Yordan Platikanov has developed a beer that could
  neutralize any lingering amounts of uranium 134 and strontium in the
  body after exposure to nuclear radiation.  Platikanov said the new
  beer should be urged on nuclear power plant workers relaxing at the
  end of a shift.
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 20:27:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21764;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:23:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:23:49 -0800
Message-ID: <34FE4331.463 keelynet.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 22:16:17 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803040725.XAA28713 Au.oro.net> <34FD22B0.582B@keelynet.com> <34FD7E18.A3C988ED@ecg.csg.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"z7kwo.0.mJ5.IZY_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16299
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts John, Ross, et al!

John wrote;
>  There is a pattern in many existing devices and experiments that I am 
>  just beginning to recognize.  They all have their own special twist, 
>  but in effect all do the same thing:  create localized aether 
>  vortexes or sinks.  IMO these sinks are responsible for the various 
>  perceived anomalies in efficiency and entropy.

You said it and I loved the rest of your comments about it, observe, 
correlate, hypothesize, experiment...that's how its going to happen.
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 20:42:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00740;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803050433.UAA08089 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: freenrg-l eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall earthlink.net>
Subject: Minato Update 3/98
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"6toRF.0.OB.djY_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16300
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is an 3/4/98 update on Kohei Minato's over-unity permanent magnet
inventions from his USA sales representative's  Bob Vermillion and John
Kenworthy [polenetic aol.com].

Mr. Minato demonstrated at the Japanese "Energy Expo '98" his large unit,
(4) connected 10 foot long units that can power 30 homes, and several
smaller table top units, .  CNN, NHK and other TV networks took video's of
his devices, and of the whole Expo, but he did not know when it was
re-broadcasted.  Minato's staff had their own video on for the four day
event and Bob is making copies of a typical single day video coverage.
There were not any instruments connected to the large unit to measure energy
input to output but his table top unit was connected and it showed 48 Watts
input to 550 Watts output.   Minato's demonstration attracted a lot of
public attention by the large daily crowds and also from a number of
interested Japanese corporations.

Bob said he received all of your e-mail's and took them back with him to
Japan and gave a copy to Mr. Minato and his staff to show the interest here
in the USA and the world.  He has not replied to all of your e-mail's due to
there is nothing to report about just yet and he will answer all of your
e-mail's when he has at least a demonstration unit to show.   They are still
waiting for a table top power demonstration unit for their Los Angeles
office but the Japanese engineer's want to perfect it first.   

Bob is looking forward to receiving a magnetic "bicycle wheel" unit in April
and interested parties can then schedule an appointment to see the wheel
spinning by itself without any energy input!   :-)

Regards,   Michael Randall


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 20:51:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27837;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:41:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:41:45 -0800
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803050345.TAA06995 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: freenrg-l eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall earthlink.net>
Subject: Minato Update 3/98
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"ehAOZ2.0.Zo6.6qY_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16301
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is an 3/4/98 update on Kohei Minato's over-unity permanent magnet
inventions from his USA sales representative's  Bob Vermillion and John
Kenworthy [polenetic aol.com].

Mr. Minato demonstrated at the Japanese "Energy Expo '98" his large unit,
(4) connected 10 foot long units that can power 30 homes, and several
smaller table top units, .  CNN, NHK and other TV networks took video's of
his devices, and of the whole Expo, but he did not know when it was
re-broadcasted.  Minato's staff had their own video on for the four day
event and Bob is making copies of a typical single day video coverage.
There were not any instruments connected to the large unit to measure energy
input to output but his table top unit was connected and it showed 48 Watts
input to 550 Watts output.   Minato's demonstration attracted a lot of
public attention by the large daily crowds and also from a number of
interested Japanese corporations.

Bob said he received all of your e-mail's and took them back with him to
Japan and gave a copy to Mr. Minato and his staff to show the interest here
in the USA and the world.  He has not replied to all of your e-mail's due to
there is nothing to report about just yet and he will answer all of your
e-mail's when he has at least a demonstration unit to show.   They are still
waiting for a table top power demonstration unit for their Los Angeles
office but the Japanese engineer's want to perfect it first.   

Bob is looking forward to receiving a magnetic "bicycle wheel" unit in April
and interested parties can then schedule an appointment to see the wheel
spinning by itself without any energy input!   :-)

Regards,   Michael Randall


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar  4 21:39:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA06411;
	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:33:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:33:22 -0800
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:35:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: homopolar generator run as motor
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <v03007815b123ae18b104 [198.133.146.230]>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980304145521.5228D-100000 eskimo.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <390EDC4B4F hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"eevPs1.0.yZ1.VaZ_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16302
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>. The macroscopic average is a measureable force equal to
> IxB, taking into account the (usually very small) change in direction of
> the direction of I with respect to the applied electric field when in a
> magnetic field. Quantitatively, the cross-field slip velocity between the
> electrons and the lattice is very small.

> Michael J. Schaffer

In any case, one can minimize this effect by cutting radial lines in 
the disk, causing all the current to be localized between the cuts 
and setting an upper bound on the distance electrons can move around 
the disk.

JAY OLSON

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 01:24:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA02824;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:23:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1241ebf5350 [12.64.4.158]>
In-Reply-To: <34FE3B97.2305 keelynet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:21:33 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Nuclear Beer
Resent-Message-ID: <"ArMxx2.0.2i.sxc_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16303
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jerry -

   >  In July, the Lomsko Pivo Beer brewery in
   >  Lom, Bulgaria, announced that
   >  brewmeister Yordan Platikanov has
   >  developed a beer that could neutralize any
   >  lingering amounts of uranium 134 and
   >  strontium in the body after exposure to
   >  nuclear radiation. Platikanov said the new
   >  beer should be urged on nuclear power
   >  plant workers relaxing at the end of a
   >  shift.

************* BEER IS GOOD!!! **************

  - Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 04:57:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA04260;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 04:55:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 04:55:54 -0800
Message-ID: <000d01bd4835$9bb5ee60$6e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: In Situ  Pair Production From Virtual Photons?
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 05:52:09 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"EBA3O1.0.P21.O3g_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16304
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since QED allows pair production from particle collision interaction: dE =
hbar/dt or dx = c*dt, and no pairs with less mass than the positron-electron
have been seen, is it possible that "in situ" (Light Lepton LL)pair
production occurs and simultaneously creates Hydrinos-Electrinos? Thus:

1, H2 + Heat <---->   2 H

2, K + Heat <----> K+ + e-

3, H + K+ (internal LL pair production)---> Hydrino + Electrino + K+ +
Energy

4, H + H+ (internal LL pair pair production) ---> Hydrino +
Electrino + H+ + Energy

Again the "progenitor" virtual photon should be of energy;
W = n*1.02E6*Alpha^n' where Alpha = 0.00729729 and
n' = 0,1,2,3...

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 08:35:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09964;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:32:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:32:05 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:26:03 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Help: Area and volume of Double Bubble?????
In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980303234331.17752Q-100000 november>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305112512.13503B-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"w46m11.0.aR2.3Ej_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16307
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	C. V. Boys  "Soap Bubbles and the Forces which Mould Them" is one 
of the very best books on the subject.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 08:36:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09904;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:31:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:31:28 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <34FED323.83912E0E ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 10:30:27 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: On the subject of planitary rotation
References: <199803050104.RAA00174 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"38rDA1.0.fQ2.UDj_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16306
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:

> didn't see it come through.  I delete a lot of email without opening it, so
> if I don't see my name, or something that jumps out as being about astronomy
> or aether, I can inadvertently dump it.  This is great though and I have
> written articles on it which can be found at dejanews.com

Not a problem, although the first time was a reply to *your* post!  ha ha ha 
8^)  Sorry if I am being a pain.  Wandered over to dejanews, but did not really
find what I was looking for. 

> It turns out that these frequencies match the solar frequencies in that
> their power is located at about the 5 minute solar oscillation period.
 
> Now, the earth is not perfectly mass symetrical.  We have mountains.  to
> imagine what is happening, and then you can judge for yourself, consider a
> bicycle wheel with a weight attached to the rim.  Now, place the wheel in a
> horizontal plane so that you don't have to consider gravity (or consider it
> up in the space shuttle).  Next, spin the wheel at say one revolution per
> second.  That means that at each second, the wheel and the excess mass
> complete a rotation.  note that we are headed to the earth's rotation, so I
> will say that the bearings are frictionless.

Ok, these are basically the exact statements from the original thread that
cause me to reply to your post the first go around.

Q1:  You find a correlation between the oscillation frequency of the sun and
the rotation cycle of earth.  Cause and effect, or just frequency locked (like
two pendulum clocks on the same wall)?  Does this same correlation hold true
for the rotation of all the other planets?  

Q2:  If the rotation of earth is due to an inertial mechanism as in your
example, isn't it just as likely that we could rotate in the opposite
direction?  or not at all?  Why would rotation direction be the same for all
the satellites in our solar system?  

Q3:  Your example relies on symmetry flaws in the topology of our planet for
the inertial mechanism driving the rotation.  Plausible, but what would drive a
uniform gas giant?  Wouldn't the resulting shape of a non-static object in your
model be a non-rotating tear drop shape (tail pointing in)?

Just trying to understand your statements.  If you would rather not go into it
now due to time constraints or because it is covered in your book, you need not
waste any time on my ramblings.  I really do appreciate your willingness to
discuss the finer points of your theory with us given the time involved to do
so.  


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 08:40:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18128;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:24:18 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Question... Cosmological Constant
In-Reply-To: <199803040517.VAA16665 Au.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305105501.13503A-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"fA_AR1.0.9R4.gDj_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16305
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Please see question, flagged, below.  Quite a lot is cut out.

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:

> >Terry -
> >One fellow says:
> >   >  "If it's true, this is a remarkable
> >   >  discovery. It means that most of the
> >   >  universe is influenced by an abundance of
> >   >  some weird form of energy whose force is
> >   >  repulsive."
> >Push-gravity/aether flows anyone?
> >I always wondered how push-gravity is accounted for 'at the edges'. Would
> >it work out to about what is being observed now? Calling Ross T. ...
> >- Rick Monteverde
> 
> Here to help!
> 

	1]

 Now, if an electron or other particles are some sort of soliton, then
everything we know still fits just fine. 

	2]

 It is wavelike, it is particle like, it is going to be uncertain in it's
location and momentum, etc etc.  It all works out so simply it is pathetic 
to me that everyone does not get this... 

	3]

 If you work with solitons in place of particles, you become forced to
adopt a structure of standing waves in aether as your "spacetime". 
	4]

 And when you do that, it is so simple what gravity is it is amazing that
 no one gets it. 
 I have to laugh all the time in amazement that even you guys on vortex
 listen and do not understand what I say.................

	5]

  I work with aether at a fundamental scale, and so for me
and my models, the nuclear realm is huge.  I begin far below the Planck
 scale so that I can develop a topology of spacetime by the Planck scale at
 E-35 meters.  Then, 20 orders of magnitude worth of waves up in scale we
 arrive at the nuclear region.

	6]

........... And as all of the droplets phase and frequency locked
together, that acoustic structure became organized into what we today
call "spacetime".  So, I hope that answered everything. 

^^^^^^

	Comment:   You write of solitons [1] and how they explain or could 
explain or model spacetime [3].  In sections [2] and [4] you write how 
this methodology of thinking can explaing gravity... and how you 
understand it and how in [5] you work on a "fundamental scale".  In 
section [6] you write of acoustic attributes.  I fully respect your 
writing and that you have spent a long time on the work.  I further 
respect you improving on and developing the work.

	I am an experimental physicist.  More importantly I am a 
"hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" make-it-work individual.

	Q:  Can you give us one or more experimental protocols which show 
us how to fundamentally affect or modify gravity?  Failing that can you 
provide one or more protocols which demonstrate physical effects of the 
"soliton-aether" or how to detect same?

	To know and not do may be equivalent to not knowing ... 
for me anyway.  Help us out, answer the "hardball" questions, please.

				Sooner,


					John 				
 



> 
> Later, Ross Tessien
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 08:53:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20508;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803051646.LAA26428 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Gene Mallove & Vor. , re Art Bell:
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 98 11:48:38 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"TNcJp2.0.E05.tTj_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16308
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross wrote:

>Gene:
>
> Do you have a direct email to Art Bell rather than the address given to the
>public?  If so, I would like to send him an email and potentially appear on
>his show to discuss the models I have developed.  Several friends of mine
>have recommended I get on the show, and perhaps that would help me with
>obtaining funding to build the devices I have designed.

I do not have any e-mail number for him, just his fax number:

702-727-8499

Good luck...


Best, Gene

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 08:55:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15674;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:52:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 08:52:43 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:48:58 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] 256 GB RAM?
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803051151_MC2-35A6-96AF compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"S5_Xl1.0.qq3.PXj_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16309
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Technology sometime leaps ahead unexpectedly. Here is a good reminder, from
John C. Dvorak, "Inside Track," PC Magazine, March 10, 1998:

     While Intel and the rest of the gang slowly increase performance and
     attempt to introduce new features like extended MMX or MMX/2, a curious
     development seems to have taken place in Japan that may forever
     obliterate Moore's Law. This would be great, since Moore's Law (which
     says that performance nee transistor count nee who-knows-what will
     double every 18 months or so) and references to Moore's Law are getting
     on my nerves.

     Fujitsu Labs, in conjunction with Kyoto University, presented a paper
     about a new manufacturing process called cluster implantation, in which
     ion beams are used to create a 0.05-micron chip technology. Apparently
     cluster implantation has been in the experimental stage for some time,
     but new tricks make volume production viable. Japan's Ministry of
     International Trade and Industry will fund the development of this
     process, with volume production projected for around 2002. That's
     significant, because according to Moore's Law the industry isn't
     expected to achieve this level of development until 2012. Cluster
     implantation will be used to produce 256-gigabit DRAMs. The result will
     be either a fantastic breakthrough or a complete fiasco . . .

So . . . we may not have reached the end of history yet after all. If these
folks find a way to make giant RAM chips power protected or non-volatile, this
might close down the fixed hard disk industry. We'll have big RAM and
removable optical disk storage for back-up. (Please not tapes. I don't like
tapes.)

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 10:04:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21616;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:28:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:28:28 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:25:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199803051725.JAA24004 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: Answer: Re: Help: Area and volume of Double Bubble?????
Resent-Message-ID: <"nymys.0.XH5.x2k_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16310
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Great:  Open it up and type me the equation!  ;-)

Just got the answer:


To: tessien oro.net
Subject: double bubble
X-UIDL: d0f291d7eb04c4661f43b1516e482697


> I need, Area of outer lobes, area of partition, volume of double bubble.  

Outer lobe area is 6*pi*R^2

Partition area is (3/4)*pi*R^2

Total volume is (9/8)*pi*R^3

Ken Brakke



>
>
>	C. V. Boys  "Soap Bubbles and the Forces which Mould Them" is one 
>of the very best books on the subject.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 10:23:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA31600;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:19:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:19:09 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:18:57 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305092919.4697D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"nIoF92.0.cj7.Rok_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16311
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


See "torsion fields" stuff below.  Torsion fields are supposed to be some
sort of spin polarization of the vacuum.  I've invited V. Petrov to join
vtx, but he has not as yet.

There is a "torsion fields" paper in Alex Frolov's NEW IDEAS IN NATURAL
SCIENCES conference proceedings english language version.

Also, a www search of "stress field" shows one airborn petroleum survey
device used to map underground chemistry.  Sounds like "weird science" to
me!  (unless it's something mundane, like vertical e-fields.)

The spontaneous decay phenomena mentioned below sounds not too hard to
check out.  Look for correlations in outputs of widely separated geiger
counters, with radioactive samples strapped to the tubes.  Or, look for
dinural correlations in the output of a single counter.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L



Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Torsion field example
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998

V. Petrov <sobolev1 online.ru> wrote:

>In 1995 I visited the Biophysics Laboratory of the Russian Acadamy of
>Sciences in Pushchino.  Over a long period they have made very careful
>automated instrumental measurements of the rate of decay of Plutonium.
>These measurements show fluctuations (as would be expected) and certain
>patterns develop in the fluctuations (as would not be expected) and
>these patterns tend to repeat after certain time intervals.  Also, the
>patterns are strongly correlated for two detectors at a distance of
>1000 km apart.

>These experiments grew out of earlier experiments that showed similar
>correlated changes occurred in the growth rate of cells at different
>locations.  Actually it is well known (but not by physicists) that the
>rate at which blood separates in a centrifuge varies by 100%+ over time
>scales of days and is correlated in different countries.  There are
>similar examples in chemistry.

>Not only do westerners not know about these things, they seem to not
>want to know.  If I mention the Plutonium results in posts to
>sci.physics.research my posts are rejected for being too speculative.
>Since when were experimental results speculative?!!%!?#!?  I am
>referring to material that has been published in peer reiewed journals
>and was performed by very respected researchers.

>The fact is that these experiments knock the bottom bricks out of the
>wall that western scientists understand is based entirely on
>uncertainty and randomness.  There is no such thing as randomness and
>Einstein was right about QM.

from billb:

There is a "torsion fields" paper in A. Frolov's english edition of NEW
IDEAS IN NATURAL SCIENCES conference proceedings.  The authors claim to
have built torsion field generators which can alter the crystalization of
metal as it freezes from liquid state.  They also have torsion field
detectors which receive signals from their generators over many KM.  No
detailed info about the hardware though, no way to replicate the
phenomena.







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 12:29:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA30371;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:22:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:22:10 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b124b83a2af2 [12.64.66.166]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305092919.4697D-100000 eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:21:57 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Nwne3.0.JQ7.lbm_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16312
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Bill -

   >  They also have torsion field detectors
   >  which receive signals from their
   >  generators over many KM.  No detailed info
   >  about the hardware though, no way to
   >  replicate the phenomena.

Some time ago Rob Dowse sent me photocopies of some patents by Henry
Wallace which are 'mysteriously' missing from the IBM patent server. The
machines in the patents are claimed to create a 'spin' field that
apparently isn't magnetic or electrical. They aren't very complicated, and
they appear to be complete descriptions with no essential components
obscured or left out.

I've scanned these photocopies and was going to put them on a personal
website, but I haven't had the time to finish building the site and upload
them, so I was wondering if you'd be interested. I think they are about 2
megs or so in total size as GIF images. Would you be interested in posting
them to your site?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 15:00:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA31116;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:52:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:52:40 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:47:37 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd4888$b1cb3a40$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"-PEq-2.0.vb7.soo_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16313
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


 Scott Little wrote:


>Hi George,
>
>I have reconfigured my comments to correct my earlier mistake (thanks) and
>reflect what I now think is going on.  Please take a look at them and see
>if my model aligns with your experimental observations.


Yes, it looks correct and gives the experimentally observed direction of
torus
rotation. My statement that the ring feed current would
cause a reverse rotation was based on a technique I use which looks
at changes in the total magnetic field energy. In this case the Lorentz
force
is dominant and I made a serious error by not realizing this.
I am still certain that there is an additional force on the ring caused by
the changes in total field energy as the ring rotates, but since it
is in the same direction as the Lorentz force the demonstration will
be more difficult. In Jeff Kooistra's reply to Michael  Schaffer he implied
that he had done thin ring with brush connection experiments. This would
certainly separate out the connection effects. Perhaps Jeff can clarify
this.

Thanks for the help Scott!

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 16:26:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17052;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:15:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:15:02 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:14:50 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
In-Reply-To: <l03102800b124b83a2af2 [12.64.66.166]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305161112.4697J-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Esfm-3.0.DA4.40q_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16314
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote:

> Some time ago Rob Dowse sent me photocopies of some patents by Henry
> Wallace which are 'mysteriously' missing from the IBM patent server. The
> machines in the patents are claimed to create a 'spin' field that
> apparently isn't magnetic or electrical. They aren't very complicated, and
> they appear to be complete descriptions with no essential components
> obscured or left out.

Maybe Gene M.  could pass the patent numbers on to Tom Valone at USPTO,
who could check out the status of the missing files? 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 16:38:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20071;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:28:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:28:48 -0800
Message-ID: <009801bd4897$7783a660$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: Ag into Au
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:33:21 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"o5XdD1.0.Xv4._Cq_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16315
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just received the following from a person that has followed my work and
publications since 1993.  He gave me permission to post this on vortex-l and
welcomes any response.  He will be joining our group in a couple of days.

Joe Champion
http://www.transmutation.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Trippett <leet continet.com>
To: Request transmutation.com <Request@transmutation.com>
Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 12:19 PM
Subject: Ag into Au


>A Transmutation Topic
>
> Silver will transmute into gold.  I know of two reliable sources
>watching this happen over a period of a few weeks.
>
> Therefore, on a fluke, I pounded a small piece of 1964 dime and placed
>it between two larger pieces of pure gold and two rare earth magnets.
>This combination was left alone for several months.  When the piece of
>silver alloy was dissolved in nitric acid there was a residue of black
>precipitants which, when annealed at 1000 degrees F, showed gold
>colored pieces.  With this evidence I was encouraged to introduce pure
>silver to a number of environmental issues.
>
> Over the past two months a combination of heat, magnetic field,
>pressure, pounding, iron, gold, and carbon have been applied to both
>old silver coins and pure silver.  Sometimes the black precipitants
>left over from the nitric acid will show gold colored pieces after
>annealing and sometimes not.  Greater effort is now being applied in
>setting a consistent pattern for all the variables involved.
>
> The last episode caused the pure silver to be firmly fused to the two
>pieces of pure gold and therefore I had no means to determine any
>possible transmutation.  The silver was .005 inches thick and one
>quarter inch square.  The two pieces of gold were 5 times thicker.
>This combination was placed between two pieces of iron which were
>bolted together in order to put pressure on the sandwich of silver and
>gold.  Two half inch round, half inch thick samarium cobalt magnets
>were placed around the combination.  All of this was left in the oven
>for seven days at a temperature of 450 F degrees.
>
> Question  . . . . . . . . .
> What could cause the silver and gold to be firmly fused at such a low
>temperature?
>
>Sincerely
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 17:17:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14164;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:59:05 +1000
Message-Id: <199803060059.KAA02022 nornet.nor.com.au>
X-Sender: mindtech pophost.nor.com.au
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: Peter Nielsen <mindtech nor.com.au>
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Resent-Message-ID: <"daSRs3.0.DT3.wgq_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16316
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>See "torsion fields" stuff below.  Torsion fields are supposed to be some
>sort of spin polarization of the vacuum. 
>

And would possibly explain the supposedly "random" disposition of particles
in the classic two slit experiment. Readers might also like to do a search
for Berry's Phase, which describes how seemingly identical electrons are
altered in their observed behaviour by a "memory" of where they have been.
Modified spin. Presumeably, this applies to other particles. 

>There is a "torsion fields" paper in A. Frolov's english edition of NEW
>IDEAS IN NATURAL SCIENCES conference proceedings.  The authors claim to
>have built torsion field generators which can alter the crystalization of
>metal as it freezes from liquid state.  They also have torsion field
>detectors which receive signals from their generators over many KM.  No
>detailed info about the hardware though, no way to replicate the
>phenomena.
>

Pat Flannagan was on to this, which he called "tensor" fields. The simplest
embodiment was a metal plate sprung under stress. He even wrote a small book
on it, which I read years ago, claiming such a communication breakthrough
when two plates were similarly "tuned". One being the transmitter and the
other the receiver.

It is my personal belief that these type of fields, when geometrically
configured like standing waves, form "lenses" facilitating interface with
vacuum energy. IOW Platonic solids. In this view, a scalar wave would be a
special case of tensor in which the angles of intersection are opposed 180
degrees, thereby effecting a full dimensional translation.

Peter Nielsen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 17:25:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA30534;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:10:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:10:27 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <34FF4CF0.59961728 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 19:10:08 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex Discusion Group <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: A criterion for an energy vortex in a sound field 
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------EF03B8B833323F68116925CE"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ag3oc1.0.xS7.1qq_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16317
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.
--------------EF03B8B833323F68116925CE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ran across this abstract and though it might be of interest.  Kind of runs
parallel to my half-baked theory of energy vortex concentrations and aether
sinks.

<http://sound.media.mit.edu/~dpwe/AUDITORY/jasa/v81/n5/v81n5p1323.html>


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville
--------------EF03B8B833323F68116925CE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="v81n5p1323.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="v81n5p1323.html"
Content-Base: "http://sound.media.mit.edu/~dpwe/AUDIT
	ORY/jasa/v81/n5/v81n5p1323.html"

<p>
<H3>
<title>v81n5p1323 - A criterion for an energy vortex in a sound field</title>
<h3>J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 81, No. 5, May 1987 Pages 1323 - 1326</h3>
<p>
</H3>
<H2>A criterion for an energy vortex in a sound field
<p>
</H2>
<b>R. V. Waterhouse
<p>
</b>
<i>David Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center, Bethesda, Maryland 20084 and Physics
Department, American University, Washington, DC 20016
<p>
</i>
<b>D. G. Crighton
<p>
</b>
<i>Department of Applied Mathematics, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB3 9EW,
England
<p>
</i>
<b>J. E. Ffowcs-Williams
<p>
</b>
<i>Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, England
<p>
</i>
<i>
(Received 1 December 1986; accepted for publication 26 January 1987)
<p>
</i>
<p>
<p>
Measurements with intensity meters have shown that energy vortices exist in
certain sound fields. In these vortices, sound energy flows around closed paths,
in the steady state. Vortices occur in some sound fields (e.g., that of a point
source near a reflecting edge), but not in others (e.g., that of a plane rigid
piston in a plane rigid baffle). It is shown that in a two-dimensional or
axisymmetric sound field, a necessary and sufficient condition for a vortex to
exist is the presence of an isolated maximum or minimum in the stream function.
Two examples are given for a vortex in (a) a duct of square cross section, and
(b) the field of two monopole sources, one of which just extinguishes the other.
Some relations for the interaction between two monopole sources are also given.
<p>

--------------EF03B8B833323F68116925CE--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 17:30:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04370;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:27:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:27:19 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980305211155.00579738 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 21:12:00 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"acGKC.0.341.q3r_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16318
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:14 PM 3/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Maybe Gene M.  could pass the patent numbers on to Tom Valone at USPTO,
>who could check out the status of the missing files? 
>
>
>William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website

Files aren't missing from the patent office, just the IBM server.
Actually, many patents are not present. The listings get spotty
the farther back you go. Anyway, your local patent repository
will have them. They are, in my opinion, quite remarkable. Check the
server for patents #'s. 

These were brought to my attention by Robert Stirniman some two
years ago. Thank you Robert.

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:01:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA04059;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980305223936.0057b2d8 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:39:39 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Magnetic Vector Potential and photon mass limit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"01Ey11.0.G_.INs_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16319
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hello Vorts:

I know you probably all get this, but just in case...

AIP News.

A NEW LIMIT ON PHOTON MASS has been established using a
tabletop apparatus.  The mass of photons, the corpuscular
manifestation of light, is usually assumed to be zero. A non-zero
photon mass would have several implications, such as a frequency-
dependent speed for light and the existence of longitudinal
electromagnetic waves (in the conventional waves we know, the
electric and magnetic fields oscillate perpendicularly to the line of
travel).  The best previous limit on photon mass (using a reasonably
connected line of inference) comes from observations of Jupiter's
magnetic field.  The value, 6 x 10^-16 eV, was determined in 1975.
Now, Roderic Lakes of the University of Wisconsin (608-265-8697)
has tightened the limit further---to below 7 x 10^-17 eV---by 
carefully watching for anomalous torques in the motion of a
Cavendish balance, basically a steel toroid wrapped in current-
carrying coils.  Essentially, Lakes' novel approach is to seek a
cosmic vector potential.  In electromagnetism, the change in the
vector potential (denoted by the letter A) is related to the strength
of the magnetic field in that part of space, just as an electric field
can be calculated from a changing electric potential (voltage).
Normally, A cannot be measured point for point in space, but it
could be if the photon's mass were nonzero.  Lakes did not find a
nonzero A, but his method might be useful (beyond setting a new
limit on photon mass) for searching out new features of short-range
forces, such as the nuclear strong force.  (Phys. Rev. Lett., 2
March.)

--------------

Yet another attempt at classical measurement of the A field. Any
comments?

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:17:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29852;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:06:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:06:59 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:00:48 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>,
        John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Leviton
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305215523.22360A-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"zT1xo3.0.4I7.DXs_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16320
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



	Dear Vo.,

	I had heard the inventor of Leviton, the levitating spinning top 
toy was not the person who was getting the royalties for the work.

	I do not know if this is true or not.  I am considering buying 
one as a gift.    In the interests of contributing to the history and 
ethics of science, making a statement and maybe starting a trend, I wish 
to know:

	a] Is it true the inventor is not getting his due?
	b] How do we know this?
	c] Who is the inventor and how do I get in touch.

	If the inventor is NOT getting his due I wish to pay, out of 
pocket, a percentage of the purchase price.  If others do the same maybe 
this will encourage faith.  For all inventors.


			Thanks,


					JHS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:24:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA01344;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:20:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:20:31 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:20:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199803060320.TAA11929 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: Leviton
Resent-Message-ID: <"9_0Ss.0.qK.yjs_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16324
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>	a] Is it true the inventor is not getting his due?
>	b] How do we know this?
>	c] Who is the inventor and how do I get in touch.

I hadn't heard about royalties, but I do own one.  It is a Levitron, though.

Go to artbell.com and he used to have a place to order the thing.  Or search
for keyword levitron and you ought to find a home page for them.  

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:26:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA32285;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:14:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:14:50 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:14:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199803060314.TAA11334 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: On the subject of planitary rotation
Resent-Message-ID: <"KmxRB.0.tt7.Zes_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16322
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Ok, these are basically the exact statements from the original thread that
>cause me to reply to your post the first go around.
>
>Q1:  You find a correlation between the oscillation frequency of the sun and
>the rotation cycle of earth.  Cause and effect, or just frequency locked (like
>two pendulum clocks on the same wall)?  Does this same correlation hold true
>for the rotation of all the other planets?  

First of all, consider two pendulums.  They both respond to the same forces
of nature, swing swing etc.  But if their periods are close, and if they
exchange a little momentum via air currents, vibrations in the wall
supporting them, etc., then they can frequency lock due to that weak
coupling.  Nothing demands them to couple, but they can.  This is the
situation for the planets.

It is possible for the planets to lock, and then if the sun changed
frequency perhaps they could brake the lock and would rotate phase angles
for a while and perhaps lock again.  I have considered the possibility that
drift of the earth might actually cause the earth to turn upside down and
account for the poles reversing every million years or so as the crust of
the earth gets forced over the top by the solar motions, whereas the core
keeps on spinning.

So, there is a lot of data out there for cause and effect, but I only have
dug up a tiny portion of what the researchers know about.  What I have
found, is that there are periods of the suns pulsations that divide into the
earths rotational period and seem to be frequency locked.  Also, the length
of earth day (not the simple thing you may think of at first due to our
seasons, but the actual rotational period of the earth itself), changes
every year in accordance with what you would expect due to the Doppler
shifting of the earths eccentric orbit.

Also, we measure incessant vibrations with the same period of the solar
vibrations.
'
Venus has a planetary atmospheric circulation I think is coupled.   The moon
has a period matching the solar neutrino fluctuations.  

In essence, yes there is a lot of evidence and tons more out there I have
not yet dug up.



>
>Q2:  If the rotation of earth is due to an inertial mechanism as in your
>example, isn't it just as likely that we could rotate in the opposite
>direction?  or not at all?  Why would rotation direction be the same for all
>the satellites in our solar system?  

Venus doesn't rotate (OK, one rotation per year, but in retrograde
direction).  But it's atmosphere DOES.  I think it is Neptune rotates
backwards.  So it is not the same.  

To lock onto cyclic driving energy, you need to be close to that natural
freqeuncy.  so there is no hard fast rule.  But Bodes law is another
interesting one.  I think you can show that the planets were even formed by
these pulsations.  The problem that shot down Bode's law as being adopted as
important, is because when you plot out the locations of all the nodes, and
then work backward to the origin of the impetus, you have to go right on
through the sun by 0.4 AU.  But that is assuming that the velocity of motion
of the impetus is the same in vacuo as it is through the volume of the sun.
If it takes longer for the waves to transit the radius of the sun, than it
does to transit empty space (a reasonable expectation for aether flowing out
of the sun), then you can work Bode's law out to the center of the sun, ie
the source of aether waves.

So you are dealing with tendencies, and not with some rigid piston,
connecting rod, crankshaft system where there is no way for things to reverse.  

>
>Q3:  Your example relies on symmetry flaws in the topology of our planet for
>the inertial mechanism driving the rotation.  Plausible, but what would drive a
>uniform gas giant?  Wouldn't the resulting shape of a non-static object in your
>model be a non-rotating tear drop shape (tail pointing in)?

Not really.  Acretian tends to be accompanied by angular momentum.  The real
problem is how do you get rid of the angular momentum once you collapse.
ie, an ice skater loses angular momentum to friction with the ice.  but how
did the sun lose angular momentum?  That is one of the major mysteries about
the sun.  The answer is, the aether emission is carrying it away.  And our
satelites show this beautifully in the helical pattern of the solar magnetic
field streaming away from the sun.  

but as for a gas giant, once you start things sloshing around, it is
possible to keep then sloshing.  Just take a pot of water, half full, and
set it in motion around in a circle.  Now, rather than moving the pot in a
circle, just push it straight back and forth, in cadence with the water.  It
will continue indefinitely.  

If you imagine two pots, one upside down on the other, (gravity permiting),
and you set those two waves in motion (ie the atmosphere of a planet rather
than the water in two pots), you will form a Y shape, or a V shape depending
on what you want to call it.  Now, go check out snapshots of Venus!

>
>Just trying to understand your statements.  If you would rather not go into it
>now due to time constraints or because it is covered in your book, you need not
>waste any time on my ramblings.  I really do appreciate your willingness to
>discuss the finer points of your theory with us given the time involved to do
>so.  

Well, hammering it out helps torture the analogies used in the book, so
bring on the questions.  If you can poke a hole in anything, I need to work
on that area further!

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:29:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA07641;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:05:13 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Patent nos. "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980305211155.00579738 cnct.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305220152.22360B-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"rwFU4.0.Gt1.jcs_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16321
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	I may have missed this ... what are the numbers?

	AND:  A lot of times IBM "seems" to have lost a patent.  Things I 
have done to get the patents when the first try does not work:

	a] re load
	b] use a more complex search, often the simple search, such as 
Boolean is ... or appears to be "all clogged up"
	c] search USPTO ... or other source, get the number, then load 
the number.
	d] grab any patent ... and edit the URL line to replace the 'any' 
patent with the one you want.

					J

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:40:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08450;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:16:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:16:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:14:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199803060314.TAA11338 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: Question... Cosmological Constant
Resent-Message-ID: <"c4TSx1.0.r32.Fgs_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16323
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>	I am an experimental physicist.  More importantly I am a 
>"hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders" make-it-work individual.
>
>	Q:  Can you give us one or more experimental protocols which show 
>us how to fundamentally affect or modify gravity?  Failing that can you 
>provide one or more protocols which demonstrate physical effects of the 
>"soliton-aether" or how to detect same?

Every effect you have ever observed, is due to aether motions.  What you
think of as matter, is composed of aether resonances.  What you think of as
an electric field, is a structure of resonances such that the pulsations of
spacetime at a phase angle of 0 degrees are greater than the pulsations at a
phase angle of 180 degrees (positive charge).  

To induce an electric, or a magnetic field, all you are doing is shifting
the relative intensities of the spacetime pulsations between 0 and 180 degrees.

But to induce an inertial affect, you need to literally pump the aether.
This is a different thing.  The sun does it and we observe that there are
ions in the solar corona that are heated to the same velocity dispersions,
independent of charge to mass ratio, ie inertially.  That is because aether
is flowing out of the sun, and it expands as it exits the surface.  That
leads to an acceleration, and thus to a distortion to the locations where
the acoustic energy manifests as nodes (ie spacetime distortion just like
for a gravitational field, but this time due to flow.).  This effect is not
accounted for in GR.

For the Tampere type devices, what you are trying to do is in essence, build
a helicopter blade to pump aether in a vortex, just like a helicopter does.
But you need to grasp the difficulty of this by realizing that what you
think of as atoms, or material, are nothing but whispy solitons in an ocean
of aether.  And so you are causing the solitons to precess around some
circle because they are included in a disk.

Another thing you have to ponder and take to heart is the following.  I
think that our belief in "attractive forces", is exactly as incorrect as was
our once upon a time belief in a "flat earth".  Most everyone on the planet
today, accepts that there exist attractive forces.  I am perhaps the only
one who thinks that notion is lunacy.  How does the sun pull on a proton in
my pinky finger?  And those of you who object because GR is a spacetime
curvature, I will state it another way.  How is it that a magnet, ten feet
from a metal surface, exerts any attraction pull across that distance on the
metal plate?  

To think that anything pulls on anything else is to me, silly.

Now, that tells you something dramatically important.  It tells you that the
atoms in the superconductive disc you are trying to rotate and manifest a
gravitational effect are not "pulling" each other together to form the solid
HTSC disc.  It is telling you that when you do a tensile test on a bar of
steel, the atoms are not pulling in a tensile fashion to cause the center of
the rod to neck down into the familiar hourglass shape.  Rather, the tensile
tester is really releasing the compression of wave energy arriving from
space that is crushing the atoms all together because they are all
resonating in phase and frequency coherence, and the ugly wave energy coming
from space is crushing them together and crushing the side of the bar to
form that hourglass shape!

This takes a very long time to get used to.  But once you do, you begin to
realize that you need to do some upside down things if you hope to generate
inertial thrust against the aether itself.  

What is it that limits the rotational velocity of an HTSC disc?  The tensile
strength, right?  Wrong.  As we just learned, the limit is due to the amount
of interference from deep space that is crushing the disk together, and
forcing it to go around in a circle.  Hoop stress, etc., all the same thing.

OK, to the meat and potatoes with that brief introduction.

first, what you need to do is simple.  And I hope I get cut in on the
company that results if you have the wherewithall to put this into production.

Any way, the first thing you need to do is to shear the aether so that you
are pumping it.  To do that, you need to get an atomic layering that is a
helix, so that the disc "corkscrews" up through the aether ocean it is
immersed in.

The reason other disks don't generate an anti gravitational field is because
some of the atoms shear the aether up, and others down, and the net is zero.

The Japanese team that used a rotating wheel, I imagine you recall, found
that it changed mass when it was rotating one way and did not when it was
rotating the other way.  I cannot speak in too much detail because I did not
see their device, but basically it was floating slightly like a frisbee due
to the rotation of the earth.  

The Tampere device had to have had a small net helix to the disk such that
they were pumping aether.  There is a second possible reason for their
device, and that is a reflection of the incident frequency shifted wave
energy arriving from space, thus pushing the mass upward a bit.  I have not
decided which I think it is yet, as again, I haven't had good info on the
actual device and performance, just as none of us have.

So, basically, what you should try to do is to form a helix, but you have to
do it down at the atomic level.  

I considered using a vapor deposition technique on a rotating disk.  You
need to get disimilar kinds of atoms to layer onto one another.  Basically,
you need to get a helical layering of differing indices of refraction.

With that, you know probably about what everyone else might already attempt
on their own without considering the work I have been doing.  Those ideas
are probably already in your mind.  But what needs to happen, is to be able
to rotate the disk really fast.  You need to rotate it so fast that the
atoms begin to fly apart from one another because the wave energy exchanged
from the leading atoms to the trailing atoms begins to become so Doppler
shifted that they begin to repulse one another. 

But, anyone who tries to do this with a normal HTSC is going to see the
thing fly apart in their apparatus into ceramic dust as the "tensile"
strength of the material is exceeded.  And that, simply won't do if you
plane to fly a rocket using the technology.  But from the above, what have
we learned?

Well, we have learned that the disk is flying apart because we failed to
allow enough wave energy from space to smash it so that it remains together!

How do you fix that problem?  The answer is pretty simple.  Think of an
impellor.  What you need to do is this.  Don't create your disk as a disk.
Create it as a cone that is pumping the aether outward AND downward.  That
way, the outward pumping of the aether will allow you to rotate this device
faster than a normal disk prior to flying apart.

The trick is going to be to get the speed.  You have to get the atoms flying
around so fast that they interfere with the atoms ahead of them and begin to
float on that interference wave.  But that is the same thing that causes the
disk to fly apart, so you are up against a really fine balance.

I think that if the layers are atomically smooth, that this may work really
well.

A practical device with a small budget isn't going to accomplish this.
Rather, you are going to deposit the film at about 10 atoms depth per layer.
So what you are going to need to do is to make certain that the layers are
dual.  IOW, you need a layer of the HTSC stuff such that there is a
variation in the index of refraction of the material which is cyclic along
with the HTSC layers.  If the entire thing solidifies all together, it will
randomize too much.

Sandia or one of those places has a new laser scintering technique where
they only solidify the surface atoms in a tight beam.  They spray a powdered
metal or compound out using inert gas, Ar or He, and the laser scinters the
powder to build up material sort of like in stereolithography, but in this
case, they are building up metal structures.  

If you make a cone, say at 45 degrees (ie 90 included angle), and then you
wrap a laser scintered HTSC powder around it in a compound helix, that would
be my choice of first attempt to build a real device.  Use some high
strength base for the cone, Ti, or some ceramic material.  Pay close
attention to the direction you want to pump the aether with the helical
screw because you need to pump it so that you wind up with vertical thrust,
AND, with an increase in radial compression so that your device doesn't fly
apart before the aether begins to flow.  Wrap the leads in a single
direction only.  Begin at the small diameter and fuse the HTSC spiralling up
to the large diameter.  That way, the aether is being pumped radially
outward, and will have a bit of a drift up toward the larger diameter.  So
then you have maximum aether flow over the atoms at the maximum diameter to
hopefully preclude the thing from flying apart at as low an rpm.

The aether thrust is going to occur when you get the thing right up to the
brink of flying apart, IMO.  So the trick is going to be to figure out how
to build a device such that the rpm can be maximized.  Also, the lead angle
is going to be important.

what will need to be done, and which I have not done, is to analyze the
doppler shift between the solitons making up the material. You see, what we
are talking about here is the same phenomena that leads to the onset of
turbulence in a fluid between a shaft and journal in relative rotation.
There are specific frequencies at which the fluid jumps from laminar flow to
turbulent flow.  The reason for the jump is because the atoms are doppler
shifting their communicated frequencies sufficiently that spacetime becomes
curved and the atoms veer off to follow a straight path through spacetime.
Same thing as in GR!

The things is, "spacetime" is nothing but the sum of wave energy incident
from the universe, plus that from the local solitonic oscillations.  It is
the power weighted sum.  I have tried a little bit to work out the doppler
shifts that would be needed in the fluid atomic lattice in order that
turbulence sets in.  but it gets complicated due to the distributed nature
of the waves.

What you need also to realize, is that when we think of a fluid, or of the
disk rotating with "high velocity", what you are really doing, as far as the
wave energy that is all phase and frequency coupled to the atoms is
concerned, is pretty trivial.  Your spinning disk is really more like slow
moving glass under gravity which takes "forever" to shift a little bit.

So when your disk is rotating, it is only marginally moving and the disk,
and the empty spacetime around that disk, and the "rapidly moving air
molecules" around that disk, are all making up what is in essence, a frozen
crystal of aether oscillations that are all phase and freqeuncy coupled.  It
is like a series of JJ's which all lock up together, but taken into a 4D
lattice.

OK, so there it is.  The trick, I think, is going to be to figure out how
best to build something that thrusts the aether prior to flying apart.  And
that little trick of using a cone is perhaps the only chance we morons have
with how little we presently know about pumping aether! ;-)

As an aside, I know that aether flow is accompanied by a magnetic field.
this is observed in the sun.  What I have not decided yet is whether the
aether in a bar magnet is flowing in both directions at once, via opposing
phase angle spacetime nodes, or whether a magnet is simply an aether flow
vortex, sort of like a perpetual smoke ring as a visual example of that kind
of vortex.  I have always been inclined to believe that a magnet has aether
flowing equally in both directions, in meshed helices.  If you work with
that, you can show that magnets will attract and repulse due to interference
of aether flow helices (right lead vs left handed lead).  

So it is additionally interesting to ponder counter rotating helices inside
of helices.  

For solice, take a look at the images on these web pages.  These are black
holes that have breached confinement and are shooting out million light year
long jets of aether, and these aether jets I have found to have cast entire
stars out of huge galaxies.  This is how the galactic angular momentum
problem is addressed.  I have the images of Centaurus A's jets, and the
extended polar halo of stars cast outward in line with the jets.  So, it is
possible to pump aether if you are a black hole.  

What we need to learn is how to pump it using turbines like in a jet engine.
And key to that is going to be learning how to keep the "turbine blades"
from flying apart before we get the thrust we want.

Now it may actually be simple to do this.  In fact, I have laughed when
talking to my partner because it could be that you make this think, and cool
it to operation temperature, and the darn thing starts spinning up
automatically.  So definitely put a bit of a blast shield around the thing
so you don't get hurt in that event.  The reason is because you have wave
energy pouring down from space and being filtered.  But that turbine may
well reflect the incident wave energy and power a turbine.

So, with that, I expect to hear in a few months that someone on vortex has
managed to build this thing.  And when I do, I expect to find some funding
for the other devices I want to build!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You see, for you to fly
your device to the moon, you are going to need my nuclear energy device to
power it!

Later, Ross Tessien







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 20:24:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA15684;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:18:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:18:42 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:18:36 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: The Levitron Ripoff
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305215523.22360A-100000 college>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305194647.4697W-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"wSK771.0.vq3.Wat_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16325
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, John Schnurer wrote:

> 	I had heard the inventor of Leviton, the levitating spinning top 
> toy was not the person who was getting the royalties for the work.

See www.levitron.com/expose.html

Bill Hones (Fascinations Inc, here in Redmond) is the purported inventor,
Roy Harrigan of Vermont the real inventor.  The owners of the "UFO" 
company at www.levitron.com, who sold Levitrons and instructional
videotapes, talked with a physicist who was analyzing Levitron operation
(it's apparantly not trivial, and Levitron only works over a certain range
of RPMs).  This person steered them to the REAL inventor, from who Hones
apparantly took the idea, made a small change, patented it, and started
selling copies.  The original was patented.  It looks like Hones just
patented it again, and this was allowed.  Sounds like typical stuff in the
"inventors"  arena.  Pretty disgusting.  I don't know all the details
though. 

It doesn't look like Roy Harrigan, the original inventor, is yet selling
any product, so if you want a Levitron, you'll have to buy one from Hones.
I myself wouldn't touch the stinking things with someone elses' ten foot
pole.  Build one from scratch, and send some dough to Harrigan.  If you
put a variable electromagnet in the base, it takes no skill at all to
"fly" the spinner, you just give it a spin and turn up the juice.  This
might be easier said than done to build, I haven't made any attempt
myself. 

I think that inventors should respond with maximum hostility to rip-off
artists.  The mills of justice grind slowly, and hopefully the end result
will be some actual justice for the real inventor.  I keep checking on
www.levitron.com (who basically wrecked their own business by refusing to
deal with Hones anymore.)  Hones is suing them for defamation for telling
their story, but he had no luck in getting them to shut up.  I put them on
my "weird site of the week" for awhile to give them a bit of publicity. 
Now that the topic has come up, I think I'll put them on Amateur Science
page to give them a bit more. 

One thing the www.levitron.com folks suggest: buy a levitron, but make it
a face-to-face deal at a store, and take some printouts of the "expose"
article to inform the seller about the origin of the stuff they're
selling, the better to publicize the case.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 20:32:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18139;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:28:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:28:18 -0800
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803060428.UAA19665 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 <mrandall earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z6Ghf1.0.FR4.Wjt_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16326
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:12 PM 3/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 04:14 PM 3/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>>Maybe Gene M.  could pass the patent numbers on to Tom Valone at USPTO,
>>who could check out the status of the missing files? 
>>
>>
>>William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
>
>Files aren't missing from the patent office, just the IBM server.
>Actually, many patents are not present. The listings get spotty
>the farther back you go. Anyway, your local patent repository
>will have them. They are, in my opinion, quite remarkable. Check the
>server for patents #'s. 
>
>These were brought to my attention by Robert Stirniman some two
>years ago. Thank you Robert.
>
>KPN

Henry W. Wallace, 3,626,606 - Method and Apparatus for Generating A Dynamic
Force Field, Dec. 14, 1971.

The IBM patent server only goes back to 1975.

Regards,  Michael

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 20:42:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24091;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:30:21 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Levitron Ripoff
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305194647.4697W-100000 eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305232908.22360C-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"8yXPQ3.0.Ju5.Nst_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16327
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



	Dear Bill,

	How do I get in touch with the right guy?

	I want to 

	a] buy the thing
	b] take the exposee to the store
	c] send the right guy some cash.

			J

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, William Beaty wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, John Schnurer wrote:
> 
> > 	I had heard the inventor of Leviton, the levitating spinning top 
> > toy was not the person who was getting the royalties for the work.
> 
> See www.levitron.com/expose.html
> 
> Bill Hones (Fascinations Inc, here in Redmond) is the purported inventor,
> Roy Harrigan of Vermont the real inventor.  The owners of the "UFO" 
> company at www.levitron.com, who sold Levitrons and instructional
> videotapes, talked with a physicist who was analyzing Levitron operation
> (it's apparantly not trivial, and Levitron only works over a certain range
> of RPMs).  This person steered them to the REAL inventor, from who Hones
> apparantly took the idea, made a small change, patented it, and started
> selling copies.  The original was patented.  It looks like Hones just
> patented it again, and this was allowed.  Sounds like typical stuff in the
> "inventors"  arena.  Pretty disgusting.  I don't know all the details
> though. 
> 
> It doesn't look like Roy Harrigan, the original inventor, is yet selling
> any product, so if you want a Levitron, you'll have to buy one from Hones.
> I myself wouldn't touch the stinking things with someone elses' ten foot
> pole.  Build one from scratch, and send some dough to Harrigan.  If you
> put a variable electromagnet in the base, it takes no skill at all to
> "fly" the spinner, you just give it a spin and turn up the juice.  This
> might be easier said than done to build, I haven't made any attempt
> myself. 
> 
> I think that inventors should respond with maximum hostility to rip-off
> artists.  The mills of justice grind slowly, and hopefully the end result
> will be some actual justice for the real inventor.  I keep checking on
> www.levitron.com (who basically wrecked their own business by refusing to
> deal with Hones anymore.)  Hones is suing them for defamation for telling
> their story, but he had no luck in getting them to shut up.  I put them on
> my "weird site of the week" for awhile to give them a bit of publicity. 
> Now that the topic has come up, I think I'll put them on Amateur Science
> page to give them a bit more. 
> 
> One thing the www.levitron.com folks suggest: buy a levitron, but make it
> a face-to-face deal at a store, and take some printouts of the "expose"
> article to inform the seller about the origin of the stuff they're
> selling, the better to publicize the case.
> 
> ((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
> William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
> Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 23:39:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA21842;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:31:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:31:43 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1255655c4f6 [12.64.37.133]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305161112.4697J-100000 eskimo.com>
References: <l03102800b124b83a2af2 [12.64.66.166]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:31:29 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Resent-Message-ID: <"f3ZaU2.0.7L5.UPw_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16328
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bill -

   >  Maybe Gene M.  could pass the patent
   >  numbers on to Tom Valone at USPTO, who
   >  could check out the status of the missing
   >  files?


Well, they're missing from the IBM Patent Server, which I assume has
nothing to do with the USPTO. But anyway the numbers are patents #3,626,605
and #3,626,606.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 23:42:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA23135;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:37:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:37:33 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:37:26 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: torsion fields paper
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305205945.4697Y-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"rM5F01.0.Pf5.xUw_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16329
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


For those with interest, here's the first page of the Torsion Fields
article in PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: NEW IDEAS IN NATURAL
SCIENCE, available (still, I think, ) from A. V. Frolov,
alex frolov.spb.su

The paper obviously was translated, so try to read past any awkward
phrases.

I find it eerie reading this thing.  Rotating EM fields interacting with
little-studied features of GR, polarizing the vacuum and creating physics
anomalies?

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L



TORSION FIELDS AND THEIR EXPERIMENTAL MANIFESTATIONS
A.E. Akimov, G. I.  Shipov, 1996

The adequacy of perceiving Nature is commensurate with our knowledge of
laws operating in it.  This history of Natural Science evolution in at
least the latter one hundred years testifies to the fact that the
appearance of research products that have failed to be explained in terms
of conventional scientific notions offers upright evidence of the
incompleteness of our knowledge of Nature.

Over the course of latter decades it was constantly stated that all
familiar phenomena of Nature and experimental results were explained by
four known interactions: electromagnetism, gravitation, strong, and weak
interactions.  However in the last fifty years around twenty research
results have piled up without finding any explanation within the framework
of these interactions[1].

Beyond any connection with such a high-strung setup for the given stage of
the Natural Science development, the quest for new long-range actions has
been underway ever since the thirties.  It will suffice to point out the
works of H. Tetrode[2] and A. F. Fokker[3] and later to those of J. 
Wheeler's and R. Feynman's [4,5] as well as other authors.  However these
works failed to receive their rightful boost.  Only torsion fields
concepts constituted an explanation. 

The torsion fields (spin fields) theory is a traditional trend in
theoretical physics dating back to the works of the second half of the
last century.  Nonetheless in its present day mold the theory of torsion
fields has been formulated owing to the ideas of Eli Cartan who was the
first to indicate clearly and definitely that there exist in Nature the
fields generated by the spin angular momentum density.  To date, world
periodicals reference to torsion fields amount to the order of 10,000
articles belonging to about a hundred authors.  Over one half of those
theorists work in Russia alone.

In spite of a sufficiently elaborated theoretical body, torsion fields
have persisted to be a solely theoretical subject until the early seventies
of our century.  It was due to this fact that they failed to become as
universal a factor as electrodynamics or gravitation.  More than that,
there existed a theoretical inference that since the constant of
spin-torsion interactions was proportionate to the product of G x hbar (G
- gravitation constant, hbar - Plank's constant), i.e. it was almost 30
orders of magnitude weaker than gravitation interactions, then even if
torsion effects did exist in Nature, they could not contribute noticably
to the observed phenomena.

However, in the early 70s by virtue of the works by F. Hehl [6-8], T.
Kibble[9], D. Sciama[10], et. al, it was demonstrated that this conclusion
holds true not for torsion fields in general but only for static torsion
fields generated by spinning sources without radiation.

A considerable number of works on the theory of dynamic torsion (a
spinning source with emission) has come out in the ensuing 20 years. 
These works have displayed that the Lagrangian of the spinning source with
emission may contain as much as a ten of terms with constants that are in
no way dependent either on G or hbar, concerning which the theory imposes
no requirements as to their mandatory infinitesimal.  The specialists in
the theory of torsion fields are well aware of this fact.  Nevertheless
the traditional point of view on the infinitesimal of spin-torsion
interactions' constants remained in the consecutive 15 years to be a
psychological disturbance for the experimenters that attracted them away
from an intent and comprehensive search for the experimental
manifestations of torsion effects.  It was only in the early 80s that in
Russia attention was paid to the global role of the torsion fields dynamic
theory findings.  It was then that heed was given to the presence in
physics of a vast experimental phenomenolgy containing many experimental
results nonexplained in terms of four known interactions, while denoting
the experimental manifestation of torsion effects.  With the devising in
Russia in the 80s of the world's first torsion field generators, target-
designated research work was unfolded and put into effect along numerous
directions of searching for torsion fields manifestations, which yielded a
large volume of practical results. 

<snip 30 page illustrated paper>


Literature

1. ???? (in cyrilic characters)

2. Tetrode H. Uber den Wirkungszusammenhang der Welt. Ein Erweiterung der
Classischen Dynamik. Ziet. fur Physic, 1922, Bd. 10, s.317.

3. Fokker A. D. Ein invarianter Variationssatz fur die Bewegung mehrerer
electricher Massenteilchen. Zeit. fur Physic, 1922, Bd. 10, s. 317

4. Wheeler J. A, Feynman R. P., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1945, 17, N 1, p157

5. Wheeler J. A., Feynman R. P., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1949, 21, N3, p425

6. Hehl F. W., Spin and Torsion in General Relativity. I:Foudations. GRG,
1973, N 4, p333

7. Hehl F. W. , Heyde P., Kerlick G.D., Nester J. M., General relativity
with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects.  Rev. Mod. Phys., 1976,
N3, p393

8. F. W. Hehl, On the Kinematics of the Torsion Space-Time.  Found. Phys.,
1985, v15, N4, p451

9. T. W. B. Kibble., Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field. J.
Math. Phys, 1961, N 2, p212

10. D. W. Sciama.  The Physical Structure of General Relativity.  Rev.
Mod. Phys., 1964, n36, p463
 
<snip> remaining 43 refs in cyrilic characters
.
.
53



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar  5 23:53:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA25876;
	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:52:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:52:10 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:52:04 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: wallace patents, gigundous vortex-L space!
In-Reply-To: <l03102800b124b83a2af2 [12.64.66.166]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980305234742.4697h-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"qjUeg.0.DK6.fiw_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16330
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rick Monteverde wrote:

> Bill -
> 
> Some time ago Rob Dowse sent me photocopies of some patents by Henry
> Wallace which are 'mysteriously' missing from the IBM patent server. The
> machines in the patents are claimed to create a 'spin' field that
> apparently isn't magnetic or electrical. They aren't very complicated, and
> they appear to be complete descriptions with no essential components
> obscured or left out.

Bob Dinse, owner of eskimo.com, kindly donated SIXTY MEGABYTES of online
storage just now!  Send them along, or post them where I can get them by
FTP. 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 00:24:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA31852;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:20:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:20:12 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:20:05 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Levitron Ripoff
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305232908.22360C-100000 college>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980306000830.4697j-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Uo8Zs1.0.cn7.x6x_q" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16331
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


The real inventor, Roy Harrigan, is at dfwhoppy aol.com.  All info is on
www.levitron.com/expose.html

And the guy who was writing up an analysis of the Levitron mechanics is... 
Sir Michael Berry!  The 'spin Dr' himself! 

BTW, I've been layed low by a stomache ailment the last couple of days,
and so moved onto the internet fulltime.  Now the bug has passed and I
shall doubtless return again to normal harried email-reading, too little
time to actually respond.  :) 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 04:42:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA10281;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 04:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 04:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004701bd48fc$6f46a0a0$668cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Burning Deuterium
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 05:35:25 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"QgQNB2.0.YW2.3x-_q" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16332
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

With a Hydrino-like reaction, combustion of
Deuterium with oxygen should separate the
Neutron from Deuterium (Stripping?)with the formation of a Hydrino from the
proton in the deuteron:

1, D2 <---> 2 D

2, D + K+ ----> Hydrino + Neutron + Energy + K+

With a neutron reaction cross-section of
several thousand barns for the reaction:
n + Boron 10 ----> Li7 + He4 + 2.78 Mev, a
Potassium-Deutero-Borane fuel, DxByKz with O2 should make for a high Isp
rocket fuel.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 07:00:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23871;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 06:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 06:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35000CE9.7CB4 skylink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 06:49:13 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: A criterion for an energy vortex in a sound field 
References: <34FF4CF0.59961728 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"E21w41.0.sq5.uw00r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16333
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John Steck wrote:
> Ran across this abstract and though it might be of interest.  Kind of runs
> parallel to my half-baked theory of energy vortex concentrations and aether
> sinks.
> http://sound.media.mit.edu/~dpwe/AUDITORY/jasa/v81/n5/v81n5p1323.html>

Extract from above website:
> Two examples are given for a vortex in (a) a duct of square cross
> section, and (b) the field of two monopole sources, one of which just
> extinguishes the other. Some relations for the interaction between two
> monopole sources are also given.

Regarding part b of above. If you try to derive the VECTOR potential of
a point charge, it has source components which result only in components
of vector potential related to (del)dot(A). But, if you combine two equal 
and opposite monopole source charges, making a dipole field, you generate 
a vortex type vector potential, which can be described by source components
related to (del)cross(A). I've been trying to work this math out for a
few weeks, and can't get it right. 

Maybe someone can help. It can be very confusing -- especially, if you 
neglect to cross your eyes and dot your tease.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 07:18:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24374;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 07:14:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 07:14:17 -0800
Message-ID: <35003D32.2575 bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 10:15:14 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
References: <199803060428.UAA19665 norway.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YZQe73.0.Zy5.7B10r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16334
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael Randall wrote:

[snip]
 
> Henry W. Wallace, 3,626,606 - Method and Apparatus for Generating A Dynamic
> Force Field, Dec. 14, 1971.
> 
> The IBM patent server only goes back to 1975.
> 
> Regards,  Michael

And the online database at http://www.uspto.gov/ only goes back to
1976.  But copies of these are available at most technical university
libraries.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 09:20:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21620;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:08:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:08:01 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:07:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199803061707.JAA15532 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="iso-8859-1"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Dark Sucker Theory  ;-)   (humor)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA21568
Resent-Message-ID: <"oQuqK1.0.gH5.kr20r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16335
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Someone sent me this.  What is even more funny, is that empty space, aka
their "dark", does have mass!

RT


>The Dark Sucker Theory
>
>For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but
>recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs donít emit
>light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.
>
>The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark
>
>has mass and is heavier than light.
>
>First, The basis of The Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck
>dark. For example, like The Dark Sucker in the room you are in, there is
>
>much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger The
>Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the
>parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in
>this room.
>
>So with all things, Dark Suckers donít last forever. Once they are full
>of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a
>full Dark Sucker.
>
>A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You
>can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all
>
>the dark that has been sucked into it.  If you put a pencil next to the
>wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got
>in the way of the dark flowing into the candle.
>
>One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their
>limited range.
>
>There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs canít handle
>all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit.
>when The Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or
>replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
>
>Dark has mass.  When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the
>mass generates heat.  Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark
>Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a
>
>solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount
>
>of heat and therefore itís not wise to touch an operating candle.
>
>Also, dark is heavier than light.  If you were to swim just below the
>surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light.  If you were to
>slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and
>darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This
>is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the
>lighter light floats at the top. This is why it is called light.
>
>Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light.  If you were to
>stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened
>
>the closet door, you would see the light slowly enters the closet. But
>since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the
>closet.
>
>Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 09:23:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23697;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:15:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:15:40 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:15:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199803061715.JAA18984 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: A criterion for an energy vortex in a sound field 
Resent-Message-ID: <"Eo25F1.0.Bo5.xy20r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16336
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>John Steck wrote:
>> Ran across this abstract and though it might be of interest.  Kind of runs
>> parallel to my half-baked theory of energy vortex concentrations and aether
>> sinks.
>> http://sound.media.mit.edu/~dpwe/AUDITORY/jasa/v81/n5/v81n5p1323.html>

Anyone have the full paper?  That sounds a little like the spacetime and
particles I am working with, so am curious.

530 273-5119 is my fax number if anyone has it and wouldn't mind zapping it
over, assuming it is not in electronic form.

Thanks.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 09:38:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29908;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:33:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:33:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980306123416.00bf4210 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 12:34:16 -0500
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Cc: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <004701bd48fc$6f46a0a0$668cbfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"2_x573.0.9J7.PD30r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16337
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:35 AM 3/6/98 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>With a Hydrino-like reaction, combustion of
>Deuterium with oxygen should separate the
>Neutron from Deuterium (Stripping?)with the formation of a Hydrino from the
>proton in the deuteron:
 
   Unlikely, but I have been thinking about a fusion model very different
from current hot, warm, or cold fusion models.  (Although, given a little
bit of isotopic juggling, it might account for PdD systems.)  There is a
mechanism called photodissociation, where a deuterium atom absorbs a photon
and breaks into a neutron and a proton.  Of course, it has to be a pretty
energetic photon:  d + gamma --> p + n.  The neutron produced can be
absorbed by a high-Z nucleus and to choose one not so random example, Ag109
+ n --> Ag110 + gamma.  This gamma has more than enough energy to
dissociate another deuteron, but that's not all.  Silver110 is unstable,
and the primary decay mode is beta decay, creating  a 2.9 MeV electron.
(Actually, there are two meta-stable forms of Ag110, but only the first
would be created in any quantity from Ag109. The second state has a longer
half-life, but produces a more energetic beta.)

    Can this beta dissociate deuterium?  Yes, barely.  But it does it via:
d+ + e- --> n + n.  So one neutron capture event can procude three
neutrons.  In this case it doesn't look all that likely, but there are
possibilities where neutron capture is going to produce a cascade of high
energy gammas and betas.  Find exactly the right mix, and you could create
a self sustaining reaction.  Not however, a fast one, in the nuclear sense.
 I suspect that capture times for thermal neutrons will be in the seconds
range, and also most of the gammas and beta decays will impose delays.  In
fact, even if it is possible to achieve a criticality of say 1.1 or 1.2, it
may take weeks to build up power output levels.

    (Yes, I know this sounds an awful lot like cold fusion, except for two
things.  One, no one has detected the gammas, and two, palladium while it
contains some possible starting points, such as Pd105, doesn't really
measure up.  Both silver isotopes, on the other hand, have interesting
possibilities. They produce isotopes which decay through energetic betas,
and have fairly high radiative capture cross-sections. I'm looking for better.)

                                        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 Mar  6 11:21:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02356;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD668 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Minato Update 3/98
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:06:29 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"LwDsA2.0.fa.qc40r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16338
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael
	I live in LA, and would like to be included in a group that
views this motor. I am an electrical engineer.
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Michael Randall[SMTP:mrandall earthlink.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 04, 1998 8:33 PM
> To: 	freenrg-l eskimo.com
> Cc: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Minato Update 3/98
> 
> Here is an 3/4/98 update on Kohei Minato's over-unity permanent magnet
> inventions from his USA sales representative's  Bob Vermillion and
> John
> Kenworthy [polenetic aol.com].
> 
> Mr. Minato demonstrated at the Japanese "Energy Expo '98" his large
> unit,
> (4) connected 10 foot long units that can power 30 homes, and several
> smaller table top units, .  CNN, NHK and other TV networks took
> video's of
> his devices, and of the whole Expo, but he did not know when it was
> re-broadcasted.  Minato's staff had their own video on for the four
> day
> event and Bob is making copies of a typical single day video coverage.
> There were not any instruments connected to the large unit to measure
> energy
> input to output but his table top unit was connected and it showed 48
> Watts
> input to 550 Watts output.   Minato's demonstration attracted a lot of
> public attention by the large daily crowds and also from a number of
> interested Japanese corporations.
> 
> Bob said he received all of your e-mail's and took them back with him
> to
> Japan and gave a copy to Mr. Minato and his staff to show the interest
> here
> in the USA and the world.  He has not replied to all of your e-mail's
> due to
> there is nothing to report about just yet and he will answer all of
> your
> e-mail's when he has at least a demonstration unit to show.   They are
> still
> waiting for a table top power demonstration unit for their Los Angeles
> office but the Japanese engineer's want to perfect it first.   
> 
> Bob is looking forward to receiving a magnetic "bicycle wheel" unit in
> April
> and interested parties can then schedule an appointment to see the
> wheel
> spinning by itself without any energy input!   :-)
> 
> Regards,   Michael Randall
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 12:50:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA06539;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:44:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:44:06 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:43:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199803062043.MAA10771 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: Aether Tectonics prediction:
Resent-Message-ID: <"tvOwz2.0.2c1.K060r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16339
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

OK vor, here is my neck on a chopping block:

Some of you have followed some of my aether tectonics articles.  They are a
bit tongue in cheek, but there is a bonified structural reason for the name
that becomes clear when you realize that aether can flow and thus curve
spacetime.

Any way, the earth, according to this theory, is immersed in an ocean of
aether, and composed of resonances, or solitons, of that aether sort of like
a jellyfish in the ocean.  So like the jellyfish, when waves come by it will
distort.

The sun, converts "mass to energy".  But according to a soliton model, this
must mean that the sun emits aether, and thus we have waves of aether coming
out of the sun.  I mentioned to you already that the earth is coupled to
these pulsations, and that they are driving the rotation of the earth in
that we have a source of mechanical energy, and a coupling to the earths
rotation, and so they happen to be locked together.  There are pulsations at
160 minutes, 2 hours, etc. which divide into the 24 hour rotation.

I also told you that the length of the 24 hour solar day changes from spring
to fall.  It slows and speeds up and slows down by about a millisecond if I
recall off the top of my head.  Anyway, easily measured. 

This means that the locations of the nodes must move over the surface of the
earth as the earth orbits the sun and the phase angle coupling the two librates.

We know that there are places on the planet where the jet stream seems to
always dip down for no real good reason.  And, I know that the jet stream
shifts from winter to summer, but, I don't presently know which direction
the nodes shift across the face of the earth, ie west / east, and when.

So, based on my model, I know that the locations of the nodes coupled to the
earths rotation shift from south east to north west as we move from Northern
winter to summer solstice.  Thus, I predict that the solar wind must also
have the locations of the Rossby wave dips also shift in the same manner.
this means that in the Northern summer, the dips predominant locations
should be shifted slightly to the west.

I hadn't worked this out when I started typing, I just started blurting it
out as a little test for you to see how hard I can push this model and not
get my tit in a wringer!  But now that I think about it, I think there is a
high pressure that tends to develop off the west coast of america in the
summer, and this is probably due to the jet stream shifting the nominal
Rossby dip to the west.  but I put that up there regardless, and we can see
whether or not the theory I am working on can predict yet one more seemingly
impossible consequence!

Later, Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 13:06:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA11017;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:04:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:04:06 -0800
X-ROUTED: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:59:48 -0500
X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula
Message-ID: <35006524.6F99B29E southconn.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:05:41 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Ross Tessien <tessien@oro.net>
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5jNcQ3.0.1i2.4J60r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16340
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Reading over Ross Tession theories, and his suggestion that something cone shaped

might be able to tap (shield) frequencies when rotating, in such a manner as to
exert
a force....has anyone done anything with a brown type device, which is a shaped
electrostatic field that shows a force in the positive direction...by which I
mean has
anyone tried rotating a brown device ???.....am thinking of something like a
multi-layered
capacitor in the shape of a cone.....or a spiral layed capacitor....charged to
high voltage....
Ross would like any comments on what you think about this.....I understand that
toys
are not what you are interested in, but for some of us playing with toys is the
only way
we can really understand something <g>....thanks...steven opelc




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 13:44:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17335;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:35:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:35:28 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35006C0E.3508873C ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:35:10 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net> <35006524.6F99B29E@southconn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"KMlSV3.0.nE4.Um60r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16341
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

paula wrote:

> Reading over Ross Tession theories, and his suggestion that something cone shaped
> might be able to tap (shield) frequencies when rotating, in such a manner as to
> exert a force ...

Many claims along those lines at:
<http://www.keelynet.com/davidson.htm>


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 14:25:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29475;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:19:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:19:07 -0800
X-ROUTED: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:14:48 -0500
X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula
Message-ID: <3500769D.CFE930A1 southconn.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:20:13 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net> <35006524.6F99B29E@southconn.com> <35006C0E.3508873C@ecg.csg.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fvUZC.0.OC7.QP70r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16342
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John - Reading over the basic theory it sounds a lot like what Ross has been saying, it

sounds like he may have gone further in testing what rotating shapes may affect the
aether....anyone know what happened to the so called "anti gravity" device ???....steve

John Steck wrote:

> paula wrote:
>
> > Reading over Ross Tession theories, and his suggestion that something cone shaped
> > might be able to tap (shield) frequencies when rotating, in such a manner as to
> > exert a force ...
>
> Many claims along those lines at:
> <http://www.keelynet.com/davidson.htm>
>
> --
> John E. Steck
> Prototype Tool Engineering
> Motorola CSS, Libertyville





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 14:35:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00101;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:31:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:31:24 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:31:17 -0800
Message-Id: <199803062231.OAA22259 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: Ideas on where to go
Resent-Message-ID: <"xahGE1.0.T1.xa70r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16343
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

...am thinking of something like a
>multi-layered
>capacitor in the shape of a cone.....or a spiral layed capacitor..

If you want to make up some wierd EM field, go ahead you can do it.  That is
what motors of all sorts do already!  As for anti grav, NO, that won't work,
IMO.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 14:45:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02508;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:39:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:39:11 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:38:36 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd4950$9a00ffd0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"Ae217.0.vc.Di70r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16344
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here are some comments I received from Jeff Kooistra in
response to my questions:

        >>Did you perform an experiment with a thin foil ring and brushes
which successfully rotated?<<

        No.  I measured the torque on a torus using both a ring and a shell
and found no difference, implying that the back torque on the ring/shell is
the same in both cases.  I have no doubt the shell will rotate.  Still, I
want to do the actual experiment.  I bought a copper pipe to cut into
shells to measure against the results with rings, but then my new kid came
along so lab time is scarce.
        The rubber hits the road on the ring rotation, though.  Critics can
yap as they will about lead effects, leakage, etc., but I don't see how any
of that can rotate the ring when the torus is fixed.

  >> This would help clear up questions about the importance of the
force on the ring connections.<<

        Both Ligon and I noted a slight increase in force when the leads
are held vertically, which is to be expected from simple ordinary
"compass-like" lining up with prevailing field lines.  Actually, when I did
my second vertical test, I didn't lift the leads all the way up past the
top of the torus, and that didn't add as much.  (We actually tried the lead
thing because a different critic argued that all motion should go away
(almost) with vertical leads.)  Frankly, since the ring rotates, the back
torque from the torus must be acting on the ring, and not the leads, so I
think the actual argument is moot.  (Well, I think that now--I had lots
more time to dink with this thing than have the vortex crew--more power to
them!)

Now to a couple of the notes: (Jeff commenting on MJS comments)
 (MJS)    > Radial magnetic field Br is zero at midpoint, but it is large
above
>and below. Vertical current feed wires have to cross Br. Radial current
>feeds have to cross vertical magnetic field Bv. No matter how you feed
>current in, it has to CROSS magnetic field, which makes a torque. In fact,

>if the magnetic field does not vary with angle [which is true in
Kooistra's
>experiment when the feed wires lie in the plane of the rotor torus (I
don't
>know George's geometry)] then it can be proved from Maxwell's equations
>that the torque is _independent_ of how the feed wires are run in and out.
 (JK)     It doesn't matter.  When the torus is fixed, the ring rotates--the
leads do not deflect which is what would happen if the back torque was
operating on the leads.
        Again--the torus turns primarily because of current in the ring.
We know this because when one fixes the torus and allows the ring to
rotate, it does.  Now, if we're going to hang ring rotating force on the
radial component of the ring current  (the Lorentz orthogonal "hook"), then
torque on the torus should also be dependent upon the size of this radial
component.  It isn't and we know this because if you substitue a shell for
a ring in the turning torus experiment, the torque remains the same (all
appropriate things remaining equal).
   (GH)   >>But since it is in the same direction as the connection Lorentz
force<<
      (JK)  Note well:  The ring can rotate only one of two ways.  If it
goes
in accord with Lorentz qualitatively, it also has to do so quantitatively.

 Side note--Peter Graneau sent me a paper called "Find the missing
magentic force law."  See, if you build a simple rail gun , both Ampere and
Lorentz predict that a conducting projectile will head for the muzzle.  But
it turns out that if you use a FERROMAGNETIC conductor (though NOT
magnetized), the projectile will head for the breach.  This actually scared
him since he's never heard of such a thing, nor has anyone else.  Ligon
tried the experiment with a magnet and found polarity dependence on
direction of motion.  There are still some funky little corners of physics
that need to be looked into.

(GH) It looks like we need quantitative data or a foil/brush experiment
to convince the skeptics. I'll be away on a business trip till next
wednesday, so no more experiments from me for a while.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 15:14:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07944;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:02:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:02:04 -0800
X-ROUTED: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:57:42 -0500
X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula
Message-ID: <350080BD.91446973 southconn.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:03:26 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803062231.OAA22259 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"zJiIW1.0.px1.e180r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16345
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross - am trying to think of something "like a paddle wheel" that would work
against the
aether...with the blades not material but forces (screening  individual
frequencies)...as I
understood it that is what you suggested ???.....am sorry if I misunderstood, or
read things
into your theory.....steve

Ross Tessien wrote:

> ...am thinking of something like a
> >multi-layered
> >capacitor in the shape of a cone.....or a spiral layed capacitor..
>
> If you want to make up some wierd EM field, go ahead you can do it.  That is
> what motors of all sorts do already!  As for anti grav, NO, that won't work,
> IMO.
>
> Ross Tessien





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 15:50:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17104;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.3.16.19980307101424.2b5771a6 main.murray.net.au>
X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (16)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 10:14:24
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Geoff Egel <egel main.murray.net.au>
Subject: Re: Leviton
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980305215523.22360A-100000 college>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"TxaeL3.0.1B4.0h80r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16346
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:00 PM 3/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>	Dear Vo.,
>
>	I had heard the inventor of Leviton, the levitating spinning top 
>toy was not the person who was getting the royalties for the work.
>
>	I do not know if this is true or not.  I am considering buying 
>one as a gift.    In the interests of contributing to the history and 
>ethics of science, making a statement and maybe starting a trend, I wish 
>to know:
>
>	a] Is it true the inventor is not getting his due?
>	b] How do we know this?
>	c] Who is the inventor and how do I get in touch.
>
>	If the inventor is NOT getting his due I wish to pay, out of 
>pocket, a percentage of the purchase price.  If others do the same maybe 
>this will encourage faith.  For all inventors.
>
>
>			Thanks,
>
>
>					JHS
>
>
>You might like to check out my web page  at geocities and check out magnetic

motors I have brief explanation of how the unit works.
after you see how one works you may change your mind on purchasing one and
make one yourself.

The device is interesting   butr I don't think it worth $60 dollars they
were asking for it in Australia
Geoff
*****************************************************************

Geoff Egel
Check out my energy page at
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135

Promoting the search for new energy sources for the 21st
Century ,like to hear from you

Snail Mail
18 Sturt Street
Loxton 5333
South Australia
Australia


*****************************************************************

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 15:54:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17527;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35008B0D.BB1FE21E ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:47:25 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net> <35006524.6F99B29E@southconn.com> <35006C0E.3508873C@ecg.csg.mot.com> <3500769D.CFE930A1@southconn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"N7SJZ2.0.kH4.4k80r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16347
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

paula wrote:
> John - Reading over the basic theory it sounds a lot like what Ross has been saying, it
> sounds like he may have gone further in testing what rotating shapes may affect the
> aether....anyone know what happened to the so called "anti gravity" device ???....steve

According to Dan, he's made progress since writing that.  The 2D device he
describes there is a little different now, and he claims his latest setup is
producing much larger effects.  Just weight reduction though, not negative
thrust.  The effect is reportedly somewhat variable.  He didn't share details,
but gave me a rough ballpark how he was doing it.  I decided to order his book
and give it a once over.  I don't agree with all his theories on why, but his
results parallel what could be expected applying aether resonance models like
Ross's.

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 16:10:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA23588;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:06:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:06:01 -0800
Message-ID: <35008F7A.F6744DA3 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 13:06:19 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Dark Sucker Theory  ;-)   (humor)
References: <199803061707.JAA15532 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"zaaL12.0.Nm5.dz80r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16348
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I guess that changes you view of sunspots err?

Ross Tessien wrote:

> Someone sent me this.  What is even more funny, is that empty space, aka
> their "dark", does have mass!
>
> RT
>
> >The Dark Sucker Theory
> >
> >For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but
> >recent information has proved otherwise.
> >Snip  Snip  Snip
> >Snip  Snip  Snip
> >Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
> >
> >



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 16:15:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20278;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <009401bd492a$4debe040$668cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:03:53 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"get2H2.0.my4.m290r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16349
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert I. Eachus <eachus mitre.org>
To: Frederick J. Sparber <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium


>At 05:35 AM 3/6/98 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>>With a Hydrino-like reaction, combustion of
>>Deuterium with oxygen should separate the
>>Neutron from Deuterium (Stripping?)with the formation of a Hydrino from
the
>>proton in the deuteron:

Snip lots of theory, Robert.  :-)
>
>   Unlikely,
>

What? You would give an off-hand dismissal of Mills' BLP Hydrino-Deutrino
Theory, in a 3,000K Rocket Flame?

When the Deuteron "swallows" the electron it must release the Neutron as it
forms the Hydrino with the Proton portion of the Deuteron, This is most
likely why Stripping
of Deuterium occurs in plasmas of 1.0 ev or so.

1, D2 + Heat <---> D+ + e-  +  D

2, D + D+ (internal pair production from charge interaction VIRTUAL
PHOTONS) ---->  Hydrino + Neutron + Energy + Electrino +  D+

Or, D + K+ (internal pair production from charge interaction VIRTUAL
PHOTONS) ----> Hydrino + Neutron + Energy + Electrino + K+

How could you possibly dispute this?   :-)

Regards,     Frederick

>
>                                        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 Mar  6 16:19:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20651;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3500911D.9FF88760 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 13:13:17 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net> <35006524.6F99B29E@southconn.com> <35006C0E.3508873C@ecg.csg.mot.com> <3500769D.CFE930A1@southconn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PSJnl.0.W25.U590r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16350
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rotating shapes affect aether hmmm....  Well there were many cloud busters that were
rotating cones.

John Berry

paula wrote:

> John - Reading over the basic theory it sounds a lot like what Ross has been saying, it
>
> sounds like he may have gone further in testing what rotating shapes may affect the
> aether....anyone know what happened to the so called "anti gravity" device ???....steve
>
> John Steck wrote:
>
> > paula wrote:
> >
> > > Reading over Ross Tession theories, and his suggestion that something cone shaped
> > > might be able to tap (shield) frequencies when rotating, in such a manner as to
> > > exert a force ...
> >
> > Many claims along those lines at:
> > <http://www.keelynet.com/davidson.htm>
> >
> > --
> > John E. Steck
> > Prototype Tool Engineering
> > Motorola CSS, Libertyville



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 16:26:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27940;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:23:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:23:25 -0800
Message-ID: <3500930D.7436 darknet.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 19:21:33 -0500
From: Steve <darklord darknet.net>
Reply-To: darklord darknet.net
Organization: DarkNet Online/Digital Fusion
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net> <35006524.6F99B29E@southconn.com> <35006C0E.3508873C@ecg.csg.mot.com> <3500769D.CFE930A1@southconn.com> <3500911D.9FF88760@ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mKocV1.0.Rq6.wD90r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16351
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Rotating shapes affect aether hmmm....  Well there were many cloud >busters that were rotating cones.

(sorry to drift off topic here.. heh)

Hi All,

I've tried several times to find info on Cloudbusters without luck..
I've been interested in cloudbusters for a while now, and was wondering
if anyone had any info on them.. eg. theory, construction details, etc..

thanks!

-Steve
-- 
     darklord darknet.net | UIN: 5113616    
   DarkNet Online: http://www.darknet.net
Digital Fusion: http://www.darknet.net/fusion

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 16:36:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA30742;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:32:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:32:56 -0800
X-ROUTED: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:28:34 -0500
X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula
Message-ID: <35009616.48DEB88A southconn.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 19:34:30 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803041842.KAA25302 Au.oro.net> <35006524.6F99B29E@southconn.com> <35006C0E.3508873C@ecg.csg.mot.com> <3500769D.CFE930A1@southconn.com> <3500911D.9FF88760@ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y4J8W2.0.vV7.qM90r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16352
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Might be a stretch, if rotating shapes do/did effect the aether seems like any disturbance
would be in the immediate vicinity unless they were gigantic...however we are talking about
the aether and if it exists, who knows ???....looking at the keelynet page it looks like they

did show that there somethings happening around different rotating shapes....but then it
seems they try and apply it to everything....steve

John Berry wrote:

> Rotating shapes affect aether hmmm....  Well there were many cloud busters that were
> rotating cones.
>
> John Berry
>
> paula wrote:
>
> > John - Reading over the basic theory it sounds a lot like what Ross has been saying, it
> >
> > sounds like he may have gone further in testing what rotating shapes may affect the
> > aether....anyone know what happened to the so called "anti gravity" device ???....steve
> >
> > John Steck wrote:
> >
> > > paula wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reading over Ross Tession theories, and his suggestion that something cone shaped
> > > > might be able to tap (shield) frequencies when rotating, in such a manner as to
> > > > exert a force ...
> > >
> > > Many claims along those lines at:
> > > <http://www.keelynet.com/davidson.htm>
> > >
> > > --
> > > John E. Steck
> > > Prototype Tool Engineering
> > > Motorola CSS, Libertyville





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 17:57:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA05770;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01BD4938.47783B60 pm3-126.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: ZPE
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:44:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD4938.47783B60"
Resent-Message-ID: <"geWCa1.0.1Q1.2TA0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16353
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4938.47783B60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



----------
From: 	John Schnurer[SMTP:herman antioch-college.edu]
Sent: 	Tuesday, February 17, 1998 10:03 PM
To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 	RE: ZPE



=09
>	Why is this stange?

I guess I assumed it is since several scientist have told me to forget =
it, called me an imbecile, etc. I really don't think its stange.

>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>	AND:  Make me up a 2 gram vial of ZPF or ZPE, please....
>
>	With all the myriad things it is claimed to do, we could probably=20
>sell it!

Until the customers figure out its everywhere around us, in every place =
in the universe. Then we flee with the billions we made. I hear Hawaii =
is nice this time of year...:-)

I guess my reply to this never made it. My apologies.

Best Regards,
Kyle R. Mcallister

P.S.: Anything on NASA's Podkletnov device? I haven't heard anything =
from them.


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4938.47783B60
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4938.47783B60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 19:14:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA30333;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:11:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:11:49 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:11:40 -0800
Message-Id: <199803070311.TAA18669 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: Ideas on where to go
Resent-Message-ID: <"g6tpz3.0.mP7.phB0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16354
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Ross - am trying to think of something "like a paddle wheel" that would work
>against the
>aether...with the blades not material but forces (screening  individual
>frequencies)...as I
>understood it that is what you suggested ???.....am sorry if I
misunderstood, or
>read things
>into your theory.....steve

Forces shearing forces aren't going to get you much.  YOu must get an
interaction with the solitons with solitons.  "Fields" are nothing but the
solitonic wave structure.  But the fields are just waves and they pretty
much just pass through each other.  The solitons induce such a large energy
density gradient that in their innermost Planck scale center of convergence,
the aether actually condenses.  This condensate is also inside of a black
hole, which is a region where aether is flowing into and condensing inside
of a BH, the event horizon simply being where the inflow velocity reaches c.

IMO, the only kind of devices that will work to induce any sort of zpe
interaction, or aether pumping, will be devices that use atomically flat
helices.  Unfortunately this is beyond the ability of me, and most of you
due to the expense.

Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 19:17:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA18365;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:11:38 -0800
Message-Id: <199803070311.TAA18657 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: Sunspots, was Re: Dark Sucker Theory 
Resent-Message-ID: <"IW8Pt1.0.jU4.AjB0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16355
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I guess that changes you view of sunspots err?
>
>Ross Tessien wrote:
>
>> Someone sent me this.  What is even more funny, is that empty space, aka
>> their "dark", does have mass!

Sunspots are incredible.  I have a couple of movies from the Big Bear solar
observatory.  You can see dark blobs like ghosts sort of flying into the sun
spots at times.  Other times, the regions around them all erupt into flaring.

I am still trying to figure out all of those dynamics, but basically I think
what you have going on is that aether is percolating up through the suns
matter (matter being aether soliton resonances, so it is aether percolating
through regions of high density and low propogation velocity for the aether
waves).  But that means that huge bubbles of excess aether are sort of
deflating like letting air out of a balloon, but underneath the surface
regions of the sun.

If you deflate a region of aether vapor under the surface of the sun, then
the remaining solitons are going to fall downward into that void.  This is
like how when you have an air bubble in a glass tube of water, the air
bubble is going up while around the bubble, the water is flowing downward.
Think of the aether flowing out of the sun as being like the air bubble, and
the solitons of the sun which are more massive, ie more aehter confined in
them, are flowing downward.

But when you consider bleeding a huge pocket of aether under the surface,
and then how the particles are going to fall downward into that void to fill
it, it becomes fairly natural to anticipate a sort of back wash inward.  

When you see some of the phenomena spraying out, and others diving into the
holes it begins to make some sense.  But I don't have that all sorted out
just yet.  However, I do know one thing, Nothing in the universe "sucks".
Our present belief in attraction forces is equally as silly as our old
belief in a flat earth.  Neither is accurate, or even close to accurate.
But the old ideas appeased our conscience back then, and the attraction idea
appeases our minds today.  That said, neither is based on a treatment of how
you transfer action from one thing to another.

Think of it this way, how do you throw a baseball, photon, or whatever from
one object, hit another object, and have both objects recoil toward one
another???????????????   When you ponder that, you will hopefully come to
realize how silly the idea of forces of attraciton are.  When an airplane
window breaks, the vacuum outside doesn't suck you out, the high air
pressure inside blows you out.  Casimir plates don't attract, they have a
lack of push between and the wave energy of space pushes.  Gravity isn't a
pull, it is a push downward.  Magnets down attract, they set up helical
vortices and it takes filtering of incident wave energy to set up the helix
and so two magnets with the same helicity are pushed toward one another
because they DON't push away from each other. etc etc.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 19:32:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA01413;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:28:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:28:46 -0800
X-ROUTED: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:24:26 -0500
X-TCP-IDENTITY: Paula
Message-ID: <3500BF45.9E7675DC southconn.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 22:30:13 -0500
From: paula <paula southconn.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803070311.TAA18669 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QnRdH1.0._L.jxB0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16356
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross - thanks - think I have a clearer idea  of what you are talking
about....steve

Ross Tessien wrote:

> >Ross - am trying to think of something "like a paddle wheel" that would work
> >against the
> >aether...with the blades not material but forces (screening  individual
> >frequencies)...as I
> >understood it that is what you suggested ???.....am sorry if I
> misunderstood, or
> >read things
> >into your theory.....steve
>
> Forces shearing forces aren't going to get you much.  YOu must get an
> interaction with the solitons with solitons.  "Fields" are nothing but the
> solitonic wave structure.  But the fields are just waves and they pretty
> much just pass through each other.  The solitons induce such a large energy
> density gradient that in their innermost Planck scale center of convergence,
> the aether actually condenses.  This condensate is also inside of a black
> hole, which is a region where aether is flowing into and condensing inside
> of a BH, the event horizon simply being where the inflow velocity reaches c.
>
> IMO, the only kind of devices that will work to induce any sort of zpe
> interaction, or aether pumping, will be devices that use atomically flat
> helices.  Unfortunately this is beyond the ability of me, and most of you
> due to the expense.
>
> Later, Ross Tessien





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 19:55:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA22705;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:42:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199803070342.TAA21447 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: Ideas on where to go
Resent-Message-ID: <"mYAj-3.0.hY5.v9C0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16357
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

 >Ross - am trying to think of something "like a paddle wheel" 

Also, remember that aether is all pervasive.  the atoms you are building
your device with are resonances where the solitonic waves become important
at about E-15 meters, the nuclear scale.  But the spacetime wave energy is
way down at the Planck scale at about E-35 meters.  ie, what you think of as
solid matter, is virtually a transparent whisp of fog in the overall ocean
of our universe.  That is why you cannot think about getting some wall, or
paddle wheel to do anything.

The best you can hope for is to build some structure that shears a tiny
percentage of the E-35 wave energy at a very shallow angle.  This is how
they make reflection devices for x-ray's and gamma rays to focus them in our
space telescopes for example.  Shallow glancing angles will refract the wave
energy.  There is no such thing as a "solid".  That is a notion born of the
**old** "particle physics beliefs" of the 20th century.  In this new
milenium, we know that the real physics are solitonic and wave mechanical,
and that particles do not exist. ;-)  

Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 19:58:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23525;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:51:21 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question... Cosmological Constant
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 04:50:03 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3501bf55.179861906 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <199803060314.TAA11338 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803060314.TAA11338 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: <"_svou1.0.Rl5.sGC0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16358
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:14:35 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote:
[snip]
>So, with that, I expect to hear in a few months that someone on vortex has
>managed to build this thing.  And when I do, I expect to find some funding
>for the other devices I want to build!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You see, for you to fly
>your device to the moon, you are going to need my nuclear energy device to
>power it!
[snip]
Ross,

While reading the above description of a spiral wrapped around a cone
etc. I couldn't but help be reminded of the "Clem" engine (see
Keelynet).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar  6 20:24:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA08281;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:13:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:13:02 -0800
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803070412.UAA24632 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 <mrandall earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Minato Update 3/98
Resent-Message-ID: <"9e8qK.0.J12.CbC0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16359
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hank,

When any the of unit(s) arrives in LA I'll post it so you can set an
appointment to see it.  Their office hours are from 9 to 5pm M-F, so you or
a group of people can see the unit at your convenience.

There are two types of technologies developed by Minato.
1) A bicycle wheel with all NIB magnets that spins by the approach of a
stator NIB magnet.  A unit is expected in April.
2) An all NIB magnet rotor with an electromagnet stator.  Electric energy
input has been measured less than electric output.  This unit is estimated
to arrive in LA within 6 months.

For more info see Keelynet files:

   http://keelynet.com/gravity/curtis0.htm   Minato Index
   http://keelynet.com/gravity/curtis3.htm

Regards,  Michael

At 11:06 AM 3/6/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Michael
>	I live in LA, and would like to be included in a group that
>views this motor. I am an electrical engineer.
>Hank
>>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 20:35:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28994;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 21:23:09 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sunspots, was Re: Dark Sucker Theory 
In-Reply-To: <199803070311.TAA18657 Au.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980306211831.897E-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"haMsM1.0.x47.jrC0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16360
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


> >I guess that changes you view of sunspots err?
> >
> >Ross Tessien wrote:
-snip-
> 
> Sunspots are incredible.  I have a couple of movies from the Big Bear solar
> observatory.  You can see dark blobs like ghosts sort of flying into the sun
> spots at times.  Other times, the regions around them all erupt into flaring.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out all of those dynamics, but basically I think
> what you have going on is that aether is percolating up through the suns
> matter (matter being aether soliton resonances, so it is aether percolating
> through regions of high density and low propogation velocity for the aether
> waves).  But that means that huge bubbles of excess aether are sort of
> deflating like letting air out of a balloon, but underneath the surface
> regions of the sun.

Just considering examples that might work in your book, and that is the
little "bubblers" I put on our Christmas tree yearly.. Methanol I think
enclosed in a glass tube and heated.... bubbles like crazy, but if you
look at it for a while, you realize many of the bubbles never make it to
the TOP! (surface).

-=se=-
ekwall2 diac.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 20:35:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11139;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:32:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:32:20 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "torsion field" xmitters and rcvrs
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 05:32:12 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3504db9a.187099869 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <199803060428.UAA19665 norway.it.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803060428.UAA19665 norway.it.earthlink.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: <"Wq0wV3.0.zj2.JtC0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16361
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:28:02 -0800 (PST), Michael Randall wrote:
[snip]
>Henry W. Wallace, 3,626,606 - Method and Apparatus for Generating A Dynamic
>Force Field, Dec. 14, 1971.
>
>The IBM patent server only goes back to 1975.
>
>Regards,  Michael
>
A third patent (re. heat pumps) #3823570 is available on the IBM
patent server.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar  6 21:08:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA16771;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 21:04:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 21:04:18 -0800
Message-ID: <3500D557.3C1F7326 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 18:04:27 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sunspots, was Re: Dark Sucker Theory
References: <199803070311.TAA18657 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"A1B1o.0.l54.FLD0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16362
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

First it was of course a joke about the sunspots but you are taking a very
limited view of reality by saying that there is no such thing as attraction.

If I tie a rope around you, You will find a pulling force so strictly your
argument does not even hold with physical models (can your theory fully explain
what sticks atoms together and it must be able to be understood not some complex
mathematical wave function), However the claim you make is only a limited
physical material model, Where fields don't exist as real but as waves in a fluid
material aether.

You need to see that such a limited physical view is only one view of many.
Your theory does have support of Occam's razor but only if it stays simple in
explaining apparent attraction, otherwise to assume attraction and repulsion is
not of any difficulty.

If you keep the theory that everything is just waves and flows in a sea of
particles (aether) you must ask what makes the particles repel from each other?
If these elementary particles don't have fields (fields can push and pull) then
there will be no pressure at any densitys until they are at maximum density
(though a random vibration like heat would change that) which is when these
spherical particles are touching each other, So if you had zero motion in the
aether you would have an aether in which you could change the density yet have
zero compressibility!


John Berry


Ross Tessien wrote:

> >I guess that changes you view of sunspots err?
> >
> >Ross Tessien wrote:
> >
> >> Someone sent me this.  What is even more funny, is that empty space, aka
> >> their "dark", does have mass!
>
> Sunspots are incredible.  I have a couple of movies from the Big Bear solar
> observatory.  You can see dark blobs like ghosts sort of flying into the sun
> spots at times.  Other times, the regions around them all erupt into flaring.
>
> I am still trying to figure out all of those dynamics, but basically I think
> what you have going on is that aether is percolating up through the suns
> matter (matter being aether soliton resonances, so it is aether percolating
> through regions of high density and low propogation velocity for the aether
> waves).  But that means that huge bubbles of excess aether are sort of
> deflating like letting air out of a balloon, but underneath the surface
> regions of the sun.
>
> If you deflate a region of aether vapor under the surface of the sun, then
> the remaining solitons are going to fall downward into that void.  This is
> like how when you have an air bubble in a glass tube of water, the air
> bubble is going up while around the bubble, the water is flowing downward.
> Think of the aether flowing out of the sun as being like the air bubble, and
> the solitons of the sun which are more massive, ie more aehter confined in
> them, are flowing downward.
>
> But when you consider bleeding a huge pocket of aether under the surface,
> and then how the particles are going to fall downward into that void to fill
> it, it becomes fairly natural to anticipate a sort of back wash inward.
>
> When you see some of the phenomena spraying out, and others diving into the
> holes it begins to make some sense.  But I don't have that all sorted out
> just yet.  However, I do know one thing, Nothing in the universe "sucks".
> Our present belief in attraction forces is equally as silly as our old
> belief in a flat earth.  Neither is accurate, or even close to accurate.
> But the old ideas appeased our conscience back then, and the attraction idea
> appeases our minds today.  That said, neither is based on a treatment of how
> you transfer action from one thing to another.
>
> Think of it this way, how do you throw a baseball, photon, or whatever from
> one object, hit another object, and have both objects recoil toward one
> another???????????????   When you ponder that, you will hopefully come to
> realize how silly the idea of forces of attraciton are.  When an airplane
> window breaks, the vacuum outside doesn't suck you out, the high air
> pressure inside blows you out.  Casimir plates don't attract, they have a
> lack of push between and the wave energy of space pushes.  Gravity isn't a
> pull, it is a push downward.  Magnets down attract, they set up helical
> vortices and it takes filtering of incident wave energy to set up the helix
> and so two magnets with the same helicity are pushed toward one another
> because they DON't push away from each other. etc etc.
>
> Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar  6 23:43:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA11650;
	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:40:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:40:13 -0800
Message-ID: <35011416.1843 keelynet.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 01:32:06 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KeelyNet-L lists.kz
CC: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy Rally
References: <19980306175954.5200.qmail hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"wTVWr1.0.or2.RdF0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16363
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts, Hi, Greetings and Felicitations!

A date has now been scheduled for the 'March for Peaceful Energy', i.e. 
pressure on the US goverment to focus our resources towards improvements 
and implementation of renewable energy power systems in the United States 
and throughout the world.

It will be October 24th, 1998 in Washington, DC.

Details are posted at a temporary index page at;

         http://keelynet.com/energy/rally.htm

until Richard Lasken and supporters get their website up.  Please pass 
the information to anyone you think might be able and willing to help.
-----------------------------------------------------
IMHO, the project has many permutations, specifically;

  1)  global warming effects would be significantly impacted OVER TIME 
      if we can get away from using oil and its byproducts as a 
      combustible fuel source,
  2)  everyone, not just the US and allies, would benefit from the use
      of devices which would produce heat for cooking or to keep warm, 
      to precipitate water from the air, to refrigerate and thus 
      preserve food, to eliminate waste and garbage via shock disruption, 
      etc.
  3)  awareness and education of people through local energy generation 
      would open the door to foster creativity in looking for new 
      sources, such as zpe/aether tapping, magnetic/high 
      voltage/mechanical overunity and cold fusion.
  4)  worldwide changes in government policies towards other countries 
      will return their inherent right to craft their own destinies, 
      without the biasing influences based on the oil based excuse of 
      'national interest'.
----------------------------------------------
We are also working on a discussion list for the 'Renewable Energy Rally' 
specifically for supporters and organizers to communicate with the rest, 
so that everyone is playing from the same sheet of music...<g>....THANKS!
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 00:09:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA20724;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:03:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:03:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000d01bd493c$8fcbb780$b0efd4cf natvita.ihug.co.nz>
From: "natvita" <robert natvita.co.nz>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy Rally
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 09:15:06 +1300
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"QhHxv.0.j35.dzF0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16364
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Kirlionics 26th March 1998..
Visit the First New Zealand workshop of the human atmosphere
and approaches to Applied  Bioelectrography


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 01:09:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA22962;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 01:06:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 01:06:02 -0800
Message-ID: <35012834.2F51 keelynet.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:57:56 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KeelyNet-L lists.kz
CC: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Flipping Magnetic Fields??
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xr9fY1.0.Xc5.utG0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16365
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Folks!

This is an email I sent to a friend and researcher;

>  Well, better to try and fail....this info was shared courtesy of Wes 
>  Crosiar..so thank him if you have occasion to communicate...he's been 
>  ill with a flu and is better now...

>  Something odd you might be interested in...a fellow (Wes) says you 
>  can take a magnet, like a cylinder or bar....put a thick metal piece 
>  on one pole (doesn't matter)....then bring a similar magnet close to 
>  the metal plate so that the approaching pole is identical to the one 
>  it is moving near to.

>  As I am told, when you slowly move the magnet towards the metal plate,
>  you will find the magnets repel until right before you get to the
>  plate...then all of sudden, it will attract and both magnets will 
>  stick to the plate.

>  He says this happens not because the attraction to the plate is 
>  stronger than the pole repulsions (after all, it has magnetized the 
>  plate with the same polarity so is essentially an extension of the 
>  magnet pole energy)....but he says he watched the fields at different 
>  points and when the magnets begin to attract, the moving magnet pole
>  actually FLIPS!

>  He believes this is the key to the Sweet device, the Minato 
>  self-driven magnetic wheel and other devices....it is almost exactly 
>  what Wesley Gary said happened with his magnetic 'neutral line'.....

>  Isn't that interesting????  I'm going to do that when I get some steel
>  plate...he says the thicker the better....--------------------------------------------
The email response was;

>> Well - it does! (flip polarity)
>> I have a few rare earths. This effect can be seen at 4 to 6 inches. 
>> The non metallic magnet turns and tries to spin around. (I just went 
>> in the shop and tested it!) There is something else odd, the magnet at
>> a distance, turns about 30 to 45 degrees and stays there. 
>> (with regard to the Minato self-running bicycle wheel as at;
>> http://keelynet.com/gravity/curtis0.htm ) I am trying to find a 
>> small smooth plate I can mount 1 nib to so I can see exactly what it 
>> does. It would seem many on a plate will turn..... 

>> But I have to test this magnet thingy! I find heavy chrome from my old 
>> motorcycle makes super conductor for magnets. I get more power using 
>> them than iron.  If I can rig it, I will have pictures for you. -------------------------------------------------
Many of my associates think the Sweet device used such a magnetic bubble 
switch effect, and Wes says Coler and Hendershot also used it..>>> Jerry
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 04:41:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA04573;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980307123833.0069afe4 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: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 07:38:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: RE: Minato Update 3/98
Resent-Message-ID: <"b9Bgv2.0.N71.M0K0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16366
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:12 PM 3/6/98 -0800, Michael Randall wrote:
>
>There are two types of technologies developed by Minato.
>1) A bicycle wheel with all NIB magnets that spins by the approach of a
>stator NIB magnet.  A unit is expected in April.
>
>Regards,  Michael
>
ICCF-7 is in the latter part of April.  Is there any chance that a
demonstration unit could be set up at the Vancouver meeting?  Or is this not
an appropriate topic for ICCF?

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 04:40:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA09161;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:39:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:39:51 -0800
Message-ID: <35014033.9F60D976 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 01:40:19 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy Rally
References: <000d01bd493c$8fcbb780$b0efd4cf natvita.ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0bSu41.0.3F2.M0K0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16367
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Where and when?

natvita wrote:

> Kirlionics 26th March 1998..
> Visit the First New Zealand workshop of the human atmosphere
> and approaches to Applied  Bioelectrography



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 08:08:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA24233;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:03:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803071603.IAA15021 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 <mrandall earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Minato Update 3/98
Resent-Message-ID: <"nCIxF.0.Xw5.p0N0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16368
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:38 AM 3/7/98 -0500, Ed Strojny wrote:
>>
>ICCF-7 is in the latter part of April.  Is there any chance that a
>demonstration unit could be set up at the Vancouver meeting?  Or is this not
>an appropriate topic for ICCF?
>
>Ed Strojny

Good questions.  I believe these technologies should be shown wherever
possible. Currently they are developing the applications markets with $30
million min. investment. You might ask Minato's USA representatives Bob
Vermillion and John Kenworthy at [polenetic aol.com]  :-)

Regards,  Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 09:57:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09029;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 09:49:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 09:49:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980307113758.006be0ac agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 12:46:58 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Flipping Magnetic Fields??
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bFq7G1.0.zC2.aYO0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16369
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Without the benefit of familiarity  with the cited research, here is a
casual interpretation of two magnets with the "un-magnetetized" plate between:

When the common poles both cling to the  "un-magnetized" plate, (between),
this plate is "short circuiting" or "short angling"  the respective
magnetic fields. So instead of describing a "fountainhead"  field shape,
the un-magnetized plate forces a "crew cut"  field shape, (while forced
between two common poles) .


Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 10:08:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11482;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:06:08 -0800 (PST)
From: JNaudin509 <JNaudin509 aol.com>
Message-ID: <8eff51a1.35018c13 aol.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:04:01 EST
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: An Urine Battery......
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 116
Resent-Message-ID: <"N9sOs1.0.Ip2.BoO0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16370
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear All,

You will find all informations about the URINE BATTERY from Nelson Camus at:

http://members.aol.com/overunity2/nelson/urbat.htm

These documents has been demonstrated by Nelson Camus during the latest
Conference on freeNRG technologies in Zuerich ( Dec 6, 1997).

Ps: This is not a joke.....  :-)

Sincerely,

Jean-Louis Naudin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 10:12:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11871;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004301bd49f3$5b657be0$508cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:03:04 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"pov392.0.Ov2.LqO0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16371
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here you go,Robin. :-)

There are 5A - Z "units" in any atom (or nucleon):

2A "up" or Positive Units

2A-Z "down" or Negative Units

A - Z  Neutrinos

    Z  External Electrons
Total = 5A - Z


       5A - Z   "Units"      A - Z Neutrinos

4Be7    35-4      31          7-4   =  3

3Li7    35-3      32          7-3   =  4

1H1      5-1       4          1-1  =   0

1H2     10-1       9          2-1  =   1

0H1*     5-0       5          1-0  =  1

0H2**     10-0       10       2-0  =   2

* Hydrino     **  Deutrino

Conclusion: Just like in the K Electron Capture by 4Be7 to make 3Li7 a
Neutrino IS Created in
electron capture by a proton to make a Hydrino or a deuteron captures an
electron to make a Deutrino.

Now the question is; Is The Deutrino just two
Neutrons that should be unbound by 70 Kev, or
does attachment to a proton create Tritium,and are these Neutrons Lighter
and different,than "other" Neutrons?    :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 10:45:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20046;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:39:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199803071839.KAA22348 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: Where are Warren York & Matt Campbell??
Resent-Message-ID: <"b66Ql1.0.xu4.KJP0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16372
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This guy asked me if I knew where these guys are.  I don't know them so if
any of you do, please send me an email for him.

Ross Tessien


Hi Ross!

I'm Looking for E-mail or website addresses of two other Aether 
Theorists, and would appreciate your help.  I have unsuccessful with
search engines.

1. Warren E. York
2. Matt Campbell

Could you Please help?

Thanks in advance!

Dave Burla
gravman netinc.ca


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 11:40:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04130;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803071932.TAA04721 axionet.com>
X-Sender: wchipman pop3
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 11:22:56 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, dmn@blueplanetsoftware.com, 72130.165@compuserve.com
From: Wilf Chipman <wchipman axionet.com>
Subject: Re: Nuclear Beer
Resent-Message-ID: <"OYw6w.0.K01.X7Q0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16373
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi David,

Just had to pass this one on. This should sell well over this way. Thank God
we don't have any nuke plants in BC. Hope all is going well.


Wilf C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 09:43 PM 3/4/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Gnorts!
>
>Well, the radioactivity situation has now been solved. It doesn't matter 
>whether the earth is saturated with radioactive contaminants now because 
>of the following solution from the 02/25/98 'News of the Weird';
>
>  In July, the Lomsko Pivo Beer brewery in Lom, Bulgaria, announced
>  that brewmeister Yordan Platikanov has developed a beer that could
>  neutralize any lingering amounts of uranium 134 and strontium in the
>  body after exposure to nuclear radiation.  Platikanov said the new
>  beer should be urged on nuclear power plant workers relaxing at the
>  end of a shift.
>-- 
>               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
>          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
>       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
>   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 11:49:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06728;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:01:39 -0800
Message-Id: <199803071901.LAA24389 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"s_Ax13.0.ye1.AGQ0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16374
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Hi Ross,
> but
>one thing still puzzles me above all others.. I can't figure out how
>time fits in with the rest of the theory.. Can you help explain this to
>me?

Time is an interesting one.  I am not as mystical about it, time machines
and all.  I work with a structure of acoustic standing waves in place of our
notion of spacetime.  I don't know if that statment makes any sense, but you
may get it from this.  Take an ocean, and set upon that ocean an endless
train of waves, all parallel to one another, all equally spaced.  Then,
imagine another entire set of waves, but at a right angle to the first.  You
now have a checkerboard pattern of waves.  Now take that structure into 3
dimensions and you now have a sort of checkerboard pattern of cubes where
the waves are at high pressure, and where they are at low pressure.  Call
those white and black cubes with black being at high pressure and white
being whispy, less dense.

So, high pressure wants to explode out into low pressure, black explodes out
into white.  but notice the whole thing is symmetrical.  So, when all of the
black nodes explode, they become rarefied, or white, and the aether slams
into itself dumping the KE into a hydraulic jump where the white nodes were,
thus forming into black nodes.  

So where you had black nodes previously, you now have white ones and vice versa.

The only glitch to that description is I cheated, using waves you were
familiar with rather than standing waves you may not be familiar with.  The
latter are moving in both directions simultaneously, ie, their pressure
fronts are moving both ways but the medium isn't ever moving anywhere.

OK, back to the cubic structure.

If I position myself in a white node, I notice that is will alternate from
white to black to white again.  The **period** from white to black to white,
IS TIME.

The INTERVAL, if I freeze that structure for analysis, from white to black
to white across the lattice through "space", IS LENGTH.

I now need to make up a name for this structure of waves.  I will make up
the name, "spacetime".

Now, if I work with a soliton, and it is oscillating and coupled to one of
the white spaces at some time zero, I can define that soliton to be
oscillating at a 0 degree phase angle relative to my "spacetime" acoustic
structure of waves.  Thus, I can define 0 degrees phase angle to represent
some notion for which I need to make up a name.  

I will make up the name, "charge", to represent any soliton that is
resonating in cadence with 0 degrees phase angle of my "spacetime".

Now, if i cause my soliton to move through the manifold of waves, ie, to
move through space, and I want to measure how far it has moved, all I do is
count how many waves it experiences.  And if I want it to move through time,
all I do is to sit still and count how many waves it experiences.  

But if all I can do is to count how many waves it experiences, all I can
measure is the sum of how far through space, and how far through time, it
has moved.  I cannot measure either independently with using some reference
because I don't know if I am translating through time or distance just
because I measure some oscillation.

In breif, Time, is nothing but a measure of how the solitons we call matter
oscillate, and that is identical to our idea of distance.  There IS, an arrow of
time in our universe.  It is given by the direction of vaporizing more
aether confined in solitons and releasing it out to supplant the pressure of
deep space, the ocean of aether.  In fact, what we call exothermy, or
fusion, is nothing but a continuation of the vaporization of the aether just
as was the big bang.  The ocean of aether universe is essentially a universe
of aether in a condition a bit below that of a saturated vapor.  And the KE
in the aether ocean is enough that the aether condenses all over the place
all the time, sort of like white caps on an ocean wave.

That is how you form virtual particles.

Any way, as for time, hope that helps.  But you cannot consider time without
considering space too, as they are identical phenomena as far as we could
ever tell at our huge macroscopic scale.

Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 11:57:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07733;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:49:10 -0800
Message-Id: <199803071949.LAA28308 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: Sunspots, w/ web sites showing aether pouring out of things
Resent-Message-ID: <"rT6b9.0.eu1.LKQ0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16375
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>First it was of course a joke about the sunspots but you are taking a very
>limited view of reality by saying that there is no such thing as attraction.

Understood re joke, and I did get it!  But as for the attraction notion, I
believe it is you who are taking the limited view.  More accurately, to
believe in forces of attraction is tantamount to believing that the
Ptolemaic planets orbited on celestial spheres that wandered back and forth
displaying retrograde motions.  You have no evidence for how action is
transferred to prove any force of attraction any more than Ptolemy had any
evidence for how the action was transferred to the planets to cause them to
wander all of a sudden backwards.

When you work with resonances, you do not need to include forces of
attraction and forces of repulsion.  With resonances you can accomplish both
with just a single method of transference of action.  You cannot, however,
accomplish both if you have static pea like particles.  Therefore, the
solitonic model is restricted in that you cannot have any particle of matter
that is indeed, pea like.  All matter must be wavelike.  But then, we know
this is  precisely the case!

>
>If I tie a rope around you, You will find a pulling force so strictly your
>argument does not even hold with physical models (can your theory fully explain
>what sticks atoms together and it must be able to be understood not some
complex
>mathematical wave function), 

First of all, atoms are not stuck together.  They have no little arms.  And
when you pull on me with a rope, you are not pulling on me with some
continuous material.  Rather, you are pulling on me with a long train of
large numbers of bb's we call atoms that are all arranged in some order very
close to one another, but not touching.  Atoms are virtually all empty
space, even if you think the nucleus is some material goo.  

If those atoms are indeed solitons, then they are going to phase and
frequency cohere, just like the two pendulums in Huygens room that caused
him to study phase and frequency coupling.  This is just like a series of
JJ's all locking their oscillations together.  

However, once you have a group of oscillations that are locked together, and
surrounding them you have some noisy wave energy, they are going to filter
out some of that noisy wave energy and be pushed away from it.  but as there
is no noisy wave energy coming from inside of the ropes fiber, and there is
noisy energy coming from exterior to the ropes fiber, all of the atoms are
going to be pushed toward one anther because the wave energy arriving from
outside of their happy little group is smashing them toward one another.

So, when you pull on me, all you are doing, really, is releiving some of the
smashing that is going on in outer space.  

If I resist, then you must lean backward and I must lean backward so that we
are applying a tug of war pull.  Gravity is pushing me downward, and I use
the inclination to cause my body to rotate about the pivot locations, my
feet.  The rotation causes a vector in the downward direction from gravity,
and in the horizontal direction, due to the friction of my shoes on the
grounds atoms.  So my bodies atoms are all extra compressed due to my game.

I am also compressing the atoms in the earth, and pushing them toward you.
And you are resisting my "pull" and also leaning backward.  So my
compression of the earth meets your shoes, which are thus being pushed by
the earth too, and that is pushing right on up through your bodies
compressed atoms.  You and I are compressing our atoms to a greater degree
than is the wave energy arriving from space that is crushing our atoms just
like it is crushing the ropes atoms.

And so as that wave energy of compression moves up through your body, your
inclination backwards causes your interference with the wave energy arriving
from space to push you down ward due to a frequency filtering effect because
the earth filtered out some energy from space beneath your feet.  That is
why you are pushed down by gravity harder than you are pushed up, the earth
is your gravity umbrella!

So, in that entire system, there need be no attractive force mechanism at
all.  A solitonic universe does not have any, and none are needed to explain
anything, anywhere, anytime.


However the claim you make is only a limited
>physical material model, Where fields don't exist as real but as waves in a
fluid
>material aether.

All fields are nothing more mysterious than structures of wave energy in and
of the aether.  

nuclear weak, strong, and electric are due to phase angle interferences of
interacting solitons.  Gravitation is due to frequency interference of wave
energy incident from deep space.  cosmological expansion is due to aether
emission from stars, and behaves very much like gravitation but in
opposition.  It interacts with smaller particles more effectively simply
because smaller particles filter out gravitational wave energy less effectively.


>
>You need to see that such a limited physical view is only one view of many.
>Your theory does have support of Occam's razor but only if it stays simple in
>explaining apparent attraction, otherwise to assume attraction and repulsion is
>not of any difficulty.

Hope that was simple enough.  It is repulsion interactions all the way round
the loop you set up.  If that loop wasn't simple enough, or if you think it
need be more complicated in the nuclear realm, try to find any attraction
you know of that cannot be replaced by a repulsion using resonances.  

Here is a good one for you.  Our present models have quarks gluon forces
getting stronger with increasing seperation distance.  That makes no sense.

If you think in terms of solitons, then you have a soliton to soliton
repulsion due to wave interference.  this repulsion decreases with distance
as we expect.  Then, you have a filtering of incident external wave energy,
and this is due to the individual solitons (quark structures are 3 muon
resonances).  So, as the solitons move toward one another, their repulsion
increases as we should expect.  But as they move away from one another,
their compression due to a repulsion from wave energy arriving from space
stays the same, but their repulsion from each other decreases, as we would
expect.  So the net thrust is back toward each other.

We call that an attraction that GETS STRONGER AS THE SEPARATION DISTANCE
INCREASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  NOW ISN'T THAT MORE SILLY THAN MY MODEL???


>
>If you keep the theory that everything is just waves and flows in a sea of
>particles (aether) you must ask what makes the particles repel from each other?

Well, I could ask God that one, but don't think I need to.  Occam would say
that since your theory needs to assume the following:

1)  hundreds of fundamental particles
2)  four fields, maybe a fifth, and as many more as you need whenever you
need a     new one such as recent cosmological findings, and such as the
nuclear forces     were just added this century, who knows what you might
need to add next     century.
3)  spacetime that is deformable
4)  mass
5)  energy
6)  spin
7)  isospin
8)  hyperspin
9)  charge conservation
10) mass must be allowed to appear and disappear
etc etc

I need:

1)  aether, the amount of which is associated with something, being, that
somethings MASS
2)  Aether repulses aether, and has no means of tensile transference of action.
3)  Aether is conserved in all interactions.

That is it.  There are two possible solutions to that set of constraints.
The first, is an infinite universe of pea soup, nothingness, no motions,
nothing.

The second, is our universe.



>If these elementary particles don't have fields (fields can push and pull) then
>there will be no pressure at any densitys until they are at maximum density
>(though a random vibration like heat would change that) which is when these
>spherical particles are touching each other, So if you had zero motion in the
>aether you would have an aether in which you could change the density yet have
>zero compressibility!
>John Berry
>
>

If you force yourself to work with particles, then yes, you need spaces
between them.  But if you work with a continuous aether, you don't need to.

The two concepts become identical if you allow the particles you want to
introduce to become about E-70 meters in size.  As long as your particles
are far smaller than the Planck scale, I won't argue that there are or are
not particles of aether.  that model is like the model of Paul Stowe, and
Barry Mingst.  And I don't argue with them either.

However, I do demand that you obey the law of conservation of aether, and
therefore of conservation of mass.  Thus, I do demand that we seek out
phenomena that is associated with emission of aether from stars and from
galaxies of stars.

And when you look, the evidence is staring you in the face.  go check out
the following sites for some images.  I sent this to someone else, but will
copy it here.


Here are some sites to look at.  Each of these are evidence of aether
pouring out of stars, out of or into, black holes.  Remember, the key that
differentiates my model from all other aether models is that I equate
"amount of aether", to "mass".  And this means that exothermic reactions are
aether emissive, and endothermic reactions are aether absorptive.  

The solar magnetic carpet is "like" the surface of the sun is boiling,
according to current ideas;

http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/ssu/magnetic_carpet.html

Any time a star ignites, you will find that aether comes blasting out along
the path of least resistance, the axis of rotation, and that it induces
inertial accelerations of the ions involved.  So you find neutral ions
accelerated, or ions that seem like they came from the interior regions of
the star, or you find that very different charge to mass ratio ions are
accelerated to the same velocities.  Here are a few of these examples;

FLIERs, are when helium ignites after the hydrogen ran out and the star
swelled into a red giant.  Note, the red giant is what we should expect all
stars to be like, ie the gas getting colder with increasing altitude, unlike
our sun where the solar wind actually accelerates away from the sun, despite
gaining in gravitational potential!  Any way, here are some FLIERs, these
are beautiful;

http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/W_F_P_C_2/

Here is APOD, a must on any desktop connection to the net:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

In APOD, here is another beautiful nebula showing aether blasting out of the
star, 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971223.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970802.html

Here are 2 light year long jets blasting out of a newborn T-tauri star still
hidden in the clouds out of which it was born;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970619.html

So that there is no misconception, such as we only see a few of these kinds
of thing now and then, here are some jet images of quasars.  These are the
guts from inside of the event horizon shooting aether back out of the black
hole core inside the EH.  These are million light year long jets, whereas
the T-tauri jets are about 2 light years long.  Here are the QSO jets, and
you can click on them for larger images;

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/atlas/icon.html

Alan Bridles image gallery of QSO's

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/images.htm

SOHO, LASCO device including movies of coronal mass ejections.  When you
look at these, you will no longer doubt that aether is pouring and blasting
out of the sun.  Check out the November 6th movie and or the images of that
first fast event caught by SOHO during this current solar cycle as the
fireworks are just now heating up in our sun.  

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/LASCO/index.html

Well, I could go on without end.  Check those out whether you are the
technical guy or not as the images will amaze you.  Also, check out the
movie of the CME on the sun, Nov 6, 97.  You see, we only just got these
telescopes up in the sky, and so this is the first climb toward solar
maximum with them.  See SOHO home page for all of the instruments, but LASCO
is a neat one for aether theorists to view.

Later, Ross Tessien












From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 12:50:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20551;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 12:46:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 12:46:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:57:22 -0800
Message-Id: <199803071957.LAA28988 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: Sunspots, was Re: Dark Sucker Theory 
Resent-Message-ID: <"oVPfo.0.z05.R8R0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16376
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>
>> >I guess that changes you view of sunspots err?
>> >
>> >Ross Tessien wrote:
>-snip-
>> 
>> Sunspots are incredible.  I have a couple of movies from the Big Bear solar
>> observatory.  You can see dark blobs like ghosts sort of flying into the sun
>> spots at times.  Other times, the regions around them all erupt into flaring.
>> 
>> I am still trying to figure out all of those dynamics, but basically I think
>> what you have going on is that aether is percolating up through the suns
>> matter (matter being aether soliton resonances, so it is aether percolating
>> through regions of high density and low propogation velocity for the aether
>> waves).  But that means that huge bubbles of excess aether are sort of
>> deflating like letting air out of a balloon, but underneath the surface
>> regions of the sun.
>
>Just considering examples that might work in your book, and that is the
>little "bubblers" I put on our Christmas tree yearly.. Methanol I think
>enclosed in a glass tube and heated.... bubbles like crazy, but if you
>look at it for a while, you realize many of the bubbles never make it to
>the TOP! (surface).

Good observation, but not like the aether.  The aether is expanding, and
those bubbles disappear because they condense back into the liquid.  Aether
bubbles rising are more like air bubbles from a diver, they expand as they
head up.

But they are also flowing through all of the mass,  in and around the
solitons, more like air flowing up through a fluidized bed of grain in a
silo where you are blowing the chaff out by blowing air upward at the
terminal velocity of the grain particles.  As you slow the air flow, the
particles all drop down a bit, tightening up the area for the air to flow
through, thus building up the pressure again leading again to the particles
being at their terminal velocity, in the denser air flow and thus the air
flow velocity is reduced, but the particles are still floating!

that actually happens in the sun on the 11 year solar cycle!

We know that the sun changes it's density globally, due to the changes in
the pitch of the solar acoustic oscillations.  This really baffles
researchers because it takes 170,000 years for heat energy to move from the
center of the sun to the surface via Compton scattering.  So how the heck
can the entire sun change density in just 11 years when you cannot
communicate the thermal energy that fast??????????????????????????

Well, simple.  Aether flow variations, and so what you are seeing is what is
happening inside the core of the sun within just a few hours ago.  

when you play with the timings of the oscillations, and consider our planets
like jellyfish, you begin to expect all manner of radical things, and then
when you look, you find them ;-)

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 14:12:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09403;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <3501C52F.899612F0 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 16:07:43 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803070311.TAA18669 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"25OF72.0.qI2.NMS0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16377
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:

> >Ross - am trying to think of something "like a paddle wheel" that would work
> >against the aether...with the blades not material but forces (screening  individual
> >frequencies)...
> 
> Forces shearing forces aren't going to get you much.  YOu must get an
> interaction with the solitons with solitons.  "Fields" are nothing but the
> solitonic wave structure.  But the fields are just waves and they pretty
> much just pass through each other.  The solitons induce such a large energy
> density gradient that in their innermost Planck scale center of convergence,
> the aether actually condenses.  This condensate is also inside of a black
> hole, which is a region where aether is flowing into and condensing inside
> of a BH, the event horizon simply being where the inflow velocity reaches c.
> 
> IMO, the only kind of devices that will work to induce any sort of zpe
> interaction, or aether pumping, will be devices that use atomically flat
> helices.  Unfortunately this is beyond the ability of me, and most of you
> due to the expense.

Consider this :

What if 'energy' (ZPE, aether, etc) behaves fluid dynamically and exhibits
adhesion-like properties.  Experiments that create rotational flows and/or
vortex structures in our 'energy' field might be able to 'drag' in ambient
'energy' and form a density.  Containment would be proportional to the strength
of the rotation.  Applying RT's resonance model, this adhesion would be
plausible through frequency locking of passing soliton structures to the vortex
structure.  Similar oscillating resonances would be pushed together due to
reduced filtering between each other's wave form (Casimir).  Isolate enough
'energy' at the same resonance and you get a singularity (frequency isolation
and containment as a function of the event horizon of the vortex structure;
cavitation turbulance, phase angle shift, whatever....).  Sustain this vortex
structure and BINGO, fully conserved anomalous behavior like gravity
modification, excess energy signatures, etc.

...or not.  ha ha ha



-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 14:25:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA30867;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:15:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:15:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3501E134.4EB5 keelynet.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 16:07:16 -0800
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
Organization: KeelyNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
References: <199803071901.LAA24389 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_W6iG2.0.dX7.bRS0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16378
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Ross!

You wrote;
>  ...So, high pressure wants to explode out into low pressure, black 
>  explodes out into white. 

You might want to check out my article on AntiTime;

             http://keelynet.com/time/antitime.htm

I think it is much more useful than time travel per se....
-- 
               Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker keelynet.com
          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"
       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501
   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 14:32:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03102;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:29:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:29:43 -0800
Message-ID: <002301bd49b5$af779580$cf974cd1 natvita.ihug.co.nz>
From: "natvita" <robert natvita.co.nz>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kirlionics Energy Rally
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:42:09 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01BD4A22.A53B1CA0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"TDhU.0.Gm.JfS0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16379
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_0020_01BD4A22.A53B1CA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Kirlionics in New Zealand on 26/3/98.  Details on various sites dealing =
with this subject or on application to Nutrition Research Laboratories =
Box 101732, NSMC, New Zealand.   =20
Booklet 40 pages also is the ticket of registration teaches how you can =
see your own energy field  every night before you go to bed. If you cant =
work it out then ill give you back up by email.=20
Wide field of discussion includes
Quantum biology. The human Aura: scientific, spiritual and practical =
aspects.=20
Applications in  self healing determination. Identifying undesirable =
lectin presence in the diet.
>From parapsychology to bioenergy information.=20
New medical technologies in diagnosis and treatment.=20
Folk medicine, healing, self-healing.=20
Kirlian effect  visualised and experienced=20
Exchange of ideas, achievements, techniques, new concepts in biology, =
consciousness sciences, bioelectrography, Kirlionics.=20
Venue:=20
The workshop  will be held in The Memorial Hall, Central Takapuna, North =
Shore, New Zealand. The hall is behind the Mecca Caf=E9.  7pm  26th =
March 1998 cost of attendance and participation is $40, which includes: =
Registration Fee entitles you to advance information of future =
workshops, news of International conventions and a reduced rate on =
equipment seen at the workshop. There are presently 14 known commercial =
systems available for recording the =93auric=94 discharge.

Workshop Applications of the Russian CrownTV Complex. Discussion, =
demonstration of the  Brazilian  Magitronica, demonstration of the C400 =
from USA etc
How to detect and sight the energy fields.  Self healing.

regards
Robert Beasley

Kirlionics March 1998.. Visit the First New Zealand workshop of the =
human atmosphere and approaches to Applied  Bioelectrography



------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BD4A22.A53B1CA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Kirlionics in New Zealand on 26/3/98.&nbsp; Details on various =
sites=20
dealing with this subject or on application to Nutrition Research =
Laboratories=20
Box 101732, NSMC, New Zealand.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>Booklet 40 pages also is the ticket of registration teaches how you =
can see=20
your own energy field&nbsp; every night before you go to bed. If you =
cant work=20
it out then ill give you back up by email. </DIV>
<DIV>Wide field of discussion includes</DIV>
<DIV>Quantum biology. The human Aura: scientific, spiritual and =
practical=20
aspects. <BR>Applications in&nbsp; self healing determination. =
Identifying=20
undesirable lectin presence in the diet.<BR>From parapsychology to =
bioenergy=20
information. <BR>New medical technologies in diagnosis and treatment. =
<BR>Folk=20
medicine, healing, self-healing. <BR>Kirlian effect&nbsp; visualised and =

experienced <BR>Exchange of ideas, achievements, techniques, new =
concepts in=20
biology, consciousness sciences, bioelectrography, Kirlionics. =
<BR>Venue:=20
<BR>The workshop&nbsp; will be held in The Memorial Hall, Central =
Takapuna,=20
North Shore, New Zealand. The hall is behind the Mecca =
Caf&eacute;.&nbsp;=20
7pm&nbsp; 26th March 1998 cost of attendance and participation is $40, =
which=20
includes: Registration Fee entitles you to advance information of future =

workshops, news of International conventions and a reduced rate on =
equipment=20
seen at the workshop. There are presently 14 known commercial systems =
available=20
for recording the &ldquo;auric&rdquo; discharge.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Workshop Applications of the Russian CrownTV Complex. Discussion,=20
demonstration of the&nbsp; Brazilian&nbsp; Magitronica, demonstration of =
the=20
C400 from USA etc<BR>How to detect and sight the energy fields.&nbsp; =
Self=20
healing.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>regards</DIV>
<DIV>Robert Beasley</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Kirlionics March 1998.. Visit the First New Zealand workshop of the =
human=20
atmosphere and approaches to Applied&nbsp; Bioelectrography</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BD4A22.A53B1CA0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 14:44:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16702;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:40:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:40:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000101bd4a19$466b0ae0$3c8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Hal Puthoff" <puthoff aol.com>
Subject: Hydrinos-Deutrinos Tapping ZPE?
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:34:19 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Glk8W.0.m44.yoS0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16380
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The 2.23 Mev binding energy of the neutron in
Deuterium is easily broken in Deuterium "Stripping" in plasmas as cold as
1.0 ev.

If the Deuteron is actually forming a Hydrino by absorbing an electron as in
K Capture and allowing the neutron to sloughs-off which must be the case as
these "non-thermonuclear neutrons" were detected even in the early Columbus
II experiments. But no one thought to
look to see if the Proton portion of the deuteron had absorbed an electron
and formed the Hydrino.  :-)

Either way the 2.23 Mev binding energy has to be provided along with the "K
Capture-like" Hydrino formation with EUV-Kev energy release. Small stable
Neutron (it has to contain a neutrino too)?

Seems that this may be Zero Point Energy (ZPE)
tapping, at work. In the isolated Proton case the energy for an Euv-Kev
energy release and  net mass increase-energy balance would need to come from
ZPE also.  Where are you, Hal?  :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 15:13:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11629;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:53:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:53:36 -0800
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:56:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <199803071901.LAA24389 Au.oro.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <7A6C0E0E08 hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"qgZpD3.0.Wr2.j_S0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16381
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


> Now, if i cause my soliton to move through the manifold of waves, ie, to
> move through space, and I want to measure how far it has moved, all I do is
> count how many waves it experiences.  And if I want it to move through time,
> all I do is to sit still and count how many waves it experiences.  
> 
> Later, Ross Tessien
> 

Let's take this idea and see how it compares to special relativity.  
Assume that a particle is at rest relative to me, and that time is 
defined by the number of wave peaks passing the particle in the X 
direction, plus the number of wave peaks passing the particle in the 
-X direction.  Let t by an interval of time in my reference frame, 
and let t' be an interval of time in the particle's reference frame.  
Since we are at rest relative to each other, the same number of wave 
peaks passes the particle as pass by me, and thus t = t' -- so far so 
good. 
	Now assume that the particle is at velocity V in the X direction, 
and thus, as observed by me, the velocity of the oncoming waves to 
our particle is c + V in the -X direction and c - V in the +X 
direction.  Now let D be the distance between wave peaks, so that the 
number of wave peaks passing me in any time interval, t, is n= 2ct/D.
	But let us now calculate the number of waves passing the 
moving particle, as observed in my reference frame.  It is clear that 
n = (c + V)t/D + (c - V)t/D.  n = t(2c + V - V)/D   n = 2ct/D.
	Note that, as observed by someone at rest, the same number of wave 
peaks (in the X dimention) passes a stationary particle as a moving 
particle in the same interval of observer time.  Therefore, t = t' 
for ALL one dimentional, inertial, reference frames and this is not 
what is observed.  Can anyone see an error in this simple analysis?  
Is there some big, obvious thing I have left out Ross?

JAY OLSON

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 15:35:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26964;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:32:01 -0800
Message-Id: <199803072332.PAA12733 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: Ideas on where to go
Resent-Message-ID: <"cXmjH.0.Cb6.AbT0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16383
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Consider this :
>
>What if 'energy' (ZPE, aether, etc) behaves fluid dynamically and exhibits
>adhesion-like properties.  

Problem #1:  in the statement you equate energy, zpe, aether, etc.  Then,
you try to include an adhesion property, which of course is an attraction
mechanism.

First, energy is the ability to transmit action.  Thus, it has the units of
mass, times length squared divided by time squared.  This is the amount of
aether, times the number of spacetime nodes squared translated due to motion
across space, divided by the number of spacetime nodes squared which "time"
has caused to transit your location.  When you boil it down, you have mass,
times number of nodes space divided by number of nodes time, and thus result
in just a single term with units of "mass".  

I have never quite done the above like that before, but will let it stand
because it boils everything down to how much aether is associated with a
spacetime event.

Let me begin again.  When you use the term "energy", and say that energy
moves through spacetime, you are attributing to energy a material nature.
energy is the measure of how much action, material in motion can impart to
other material in some other form of motion.  

Aether, is the material.

So material * length/distance /= not equal, material
ie           energy           /=    aether

However,      energy    is equal to    zpe

And thus zpe is not equal to aether.

This confusion arises because of an error made at the turn of this century
when Einstein discovered E = mc^2.  Because of that equation having been
incorrectly interpreted as meaning that energy and mass are equivalent, all
of us were taught to be comfortable with thinking of a moving particle as
being the same thing as moving energy.  

That thinking is incorrect, wrong, dumb.  energy is equivalent to mass in
motion.  It is the ability of mass in motion to impart action unto some
other clump of mass.  Mass, IS, Aether.   Aether, IS, Massive.  

Mass, IS NOT, Energy

Energy  IS  Mass * velocity^2

Taken with the caveat, "There exist in nature, no intrinsic tensile means of
transferring action", we learn that,

There exist no "adhesion" means.

What you can do is to work with the resonances, and show that they get
slammed into one another such that they "stick".  And that then becomes
adhesion.  However, it is not "Energy" that is sticking.  It is an aether
solitonic resonance that is being slammed into a localized acoustic node,
just like you can move your head in your room and sometimes hear an acoustic
node due to reflected wave energy leaving your computer bouncing off of the
walls, and constructively interfering.  

See!  ;-)

Anyway, the confusion regarding the distinction of mass and energy began
long ago, and will take some time to undo.  You need to realize that the
empty vacuum is massive, and thus that mass is conserved, or equivalently,
aether is conserved.  to say that energy is conserved is also true, but they
are two different things.  One is a measure of the medium, and the other is
a measure of the ability of the medium in motion to induce some other region
of the medium to take on that motion.

Later, Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 15:36:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21508;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:32:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:32:09 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:32:02 -0800
Message-Id: <199803072332.PAA12755 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"nD6HL3.0.vF5.uZT0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16382
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>You might want to check out my article on AntiTime;
>
>             http://keelynet.com/time/antitime.htm

Checked it out, and that is along the lines of some of the other forms of
time inversion, or time travel, etc.  None of these ideas produce any
physical behavior that IS, time.  The model I gave you gives you a physical
meaning for our concept, time, and for space.  The problem is that without
any structure, we can assume, or conjure up anything we want, and no one can
say it is, or is not like that in our universe.

I cannot say you are wrong, nor can I get behind you and say there are
reasons to consider your ideas seriously.

OTOH, my theory presents you with a model for what time really is.  Time, is
simply a measure of how our subatomic solitonic resonances are induced to
translate around due to perturbations of incident wave energy coming from
the spacetime manifold of oscillations.  

My model also shows you what the arrow of time is.  It is the direction in
which the universe depletes the amount of mass in it's interior.  ie, time
moves forward in the direction of vaporization of aether confined inside the
solitonic waveforms.  This is nothing but a slower version of the
inflationary period of the Big Bang expansion of the universe, but now
rather than rampant boiling, we instead have the continuation of the boiling
taking place via re-configurations of the solitonic wave form geometries.

You can consider this version of time to run backwards in the sense that you
could have a universe that was converging, rather than diverging.  In such a
situation, all solitons would tend to interact in such a way as to once
again maintain the condition of near saturated vapor aether for "empty
space" ocean we live in.  Thus, the universe would favor reactions that
absorbed aether, in preference to those that emitted aether.  

In that universe, every reaction we today call "endothermic" would be
instead, "exothermic".  And the converse would be true too.  In fact it is
this point that allowed me to distinguish between whether our universe was
indeed converging or diverging.  ie, if you are sailing into a black hole
inside of the event horizon, everything around you is moving away from you
in all directions!

Anyway, in our universe, exothermy is driven by aether emission, and thus by
mass loss.  The old idea, "caloric" was correct, but you can replace
"caloric" with "aether".  And time proceeds toward a universe that is less
massive.

Even in a converging universe, though, entropy still works the same way.
And things tend from order to disorder.  The way they get there, though, is
reversed.  They do so by encouraging endothermic reactions in preference to
exothermic reactions (using todays terms.  But if we lived in that universe,
we would use the term "exothermy" to describe the reaction, n + He3 -->  D +
D, because that reaction would accelerate the particles involved to a
greater KE.  

I have not explored that domain for two years, so may be a bit glib on the
results.  There may not be a perfectly symmetrical path between a converging
and a diverging universe.  But you would need to consider the way that
aether flows into and out of various particles, ie solitons, in order to see
whether they become heated or cooled.  

I'm going to drop this now becuase it is headed off on a tangent and out
into a universe I have not studied closely, and I can see some problems
brewing with the above arguments that would take quite a bit of effort to
sort out.  That kind of universe would not be any easier than ours to
reconcile, and I have spent 3 years so far on ours ;-)    The point being,
it is possible to have a universe either where the aether density would be
falling, were it not for aether emission exothermy.  And, it is possible to
have a universe that is converging and thus the aether density is maintained
via aether absorption and what we call endothermy.  

In fact, inside of the event horizon, this is what happens in our own
universe, as aether precipitates out and forms into a core onto which aether
droplets rain down.  See the 3CR catalogue of QSO's in the web site email I
sent this AM to see a bunch of jets shooting out of QSO's that breached
confinement of that core, and which have shot aether back out into space as
it boils and blasts out of an FTL jet stream.

Later, Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 15:50:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29074;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 15:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <3501DBE0.D355D507 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 17:44:32 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on where to go
References: <199803072332.PAA12733 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"A5LYt2.0.667.InT0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16384
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:

> What you can do is to work with the resonances, and show that they get
> slammed into one another such that they "stick".  And that then becomes
> adhesion.  However, it is not "Energy" that is sticking.  It is an aether
> solitonic resonance that is being slammed into a localized acoustic node,
> just like you can move your head in your room and sometimes hear an acoustic
> node due to reflected wave energy leaving your computer bouncing off of the
> walls, and constructively interfering.

Yep, that's why I qualified the 'adhesion' concept with respect to your model. 
8^)


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 16:22:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02165;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 16:18:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 16:18:44 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 16:18:36 -0800
Message-Id: <199803080018.QAA16909 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"ANiWn1.0.jX.ZFU0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16385
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>
>> Now, if i cause my soliton to move through the manifold of waves, ie, to
>> move through space, and I want to measure how far it has moved, all I do is
>> count how many waves it experiences.  And if I want it to move through time,
>> all I do is to sit still and count how many waves it experiences.  
>> 
>> Later, Ross Tessien
>> 
>
>Let's take this idea and see how it compares to special relativity.  
>Assume that a particle is at rest relative to me, and that time is 
>defined by the number of wave peaks passing the particle in the X 
>direction, plus the number of wave peaks passing the particle in the 
>-X direction.  Let t by an interval of time in my reference frame, 
>and let t' be an interval of time in the particle's reference frame.  
>Since we are at rest relative to each other, the same number of wave 
>peaks passes the particle as pass by me, and thus t = t' -- so far so 
>good. 

correct pretty much.  But to get into details, you need to work not just
with "waves passing me", but with "number of oscillations of the local
standing wave".  You are also going to need to figure out how the wave
velocity is altered by the aether density gradient you are about to produce,
I imagine, as we rocket toward c.  But here goes, and good of you to work on
this.  It has been two years since I played with this but will do my best.
I have been studying sub atomic geometries, and aether emission for the most
part as of late, because that is where the majority of easily identified
evidence lies.


>	Now assume that the particle is at velocity V in the X direction, 
>and thus, as observed by me, the velocity of the oncoming waves to 
>our particle is c + V in the -X direction and c - V in the +X 
>direction.  Now let D be the distance between wave peaks, so that the 
>number of wave peaks passing me in any time interval, t, is n= 2ct/D.
>	But let us now calculate the number of waves passing the 
>moving particle, as observed in my reference frame.  It is clear that 
>n = (c + V)t/D + (c - V)t/D.  n = t(2c + V - V)/D   n = 2ct/D.
>	Note that, as observed by someone at rest, the same number of wave 
>peaks (in the X dimention) passes a stationary particle as a moving 
>particle in the same interval of observer time.  Therefore, t = t' 
>for ALL one dimentional, inertial, reference frames and this is not 
>what is observed.  Can anyone see an error in this simple analysis?  
>Is there some big, obvious thing I have left out Ross?

OK, first of all, you must realize that permeating the entire universe, you
are working with a spacetime structure of standing waves.  That wave energy
arrives from all around the universe, and it is to the beat of that wave
energy that your soliton resonates.  It cannot get ahead of, or behind, the
spacetime topology.

Second, when you think that the photon is moving at c + v throughout the
travel, you are not considering how this aether must work.  consider a car
as a simple example.  What is the velocity of sound we hear from another
cars horn if we measure it inside the car?  answer, c.  What is the velocity
of sound if we measure it from inside of the car honking?  answer, c.  What
is the velocity of the sound if we measure it from the location of an
observer on the ground?  answer, c.  

In other words, you must account not only for the velocity of the
spacecraft, but also of the aether density gradient associated with that
motion.  Thus, you must follow the velocity of the wave group like a wave
group, and not like a "particle" which just maintains some velocity v+c no
matter what else is going on.  A smoke ring vortex cannot propogate super
sonically, no matter how fast you are moving when you blow the thing out of
your mouth!

Below, are some more details to try to dive into it deeper, and I give you
an example of how to exceed c in an FTL spacecraft near the end.  Have fun,
I am off to research some other stuff for a while.

Ross Tessien



In order to "accelerate", a soliton must emit aether in some direction, just
like a rocket ship.  We do this via emission of fuel gases in rockets, where
the ejected atoms are aether resonances, and thus possess more aether in a
solitonic form than does empty space.  Alternately, you can consider a
single fusion reaction of say, DD >  n He3, where the latter particles emit
aether as they interfere with one anothers standing wave structures. 

Either way, if you are going to accelerate a soliton or group of solitons in
aether, you are going to need to emit some of the aether on board.

thus, behind the rocket ship, is a cloud of aether at greater density than
normal empty space.  And any wave energy propogating through that density
gradient is going to be refracted and slowed by the greater denstiy (ergo
gravitational lensing).  

Now, consider the interaction of the rocket ship with aether ahead of it as
it accelerates.

the aether solitons if the rocket ship constitute again, an aether density
gradient.  So as you come into the vicinity of the rocket ship, the density
of the aether in empty space is increasing.  but now, if we accelerate the
craft by emitting aether backwards, we additionally compress the wave energy
emitted in the forward direction, and compactify the wave group ahead due to
Doppler blue shifting, as viewed by some observer the craft is headed toward.

thus, as a light beam moves from a forward located observer into the craft
from ahead, the light beam becomes slowed as it enters the density gradient
of the craft.  When observed by members on board the craft, the beam appears
to be moving at "c".  

Now look behind the craft.  Again the aether density is greater near the
craft, but compared to the leading edge, the aether is less dense, ie it is
rarefied behind the craft, relatively speaking (we are not thrusting right
now, and are just coasting).

A light beam arriving from behind the craft, will experience a slowing as it
approaches the craft, due to the aether density rising due to the effect of
the matter of the ship and the density gradient.  But, the amount that the
light beam is slowed is not as great as it was for a light beam arriving
from ahead of the craft.  When the beam arrives inside the craft, it is
again in the local aether motion environment, and it is observed to be
moving at c.

For beams emitted from the craft, forward directed beams exit more slowly,
and then accelerate.  Rearward directed beams exit faster, and then
accelerate to a lesser degree up to the velocity c in free space.  

The effect above allows us to understand how light beams arriving from
ahead, or from behind, will be observed to be moving at c by observers in
the craft or outside of the craft.  The velocity of light, is the velocity
that light moves through the real, tangible, aether, local to the observer.
And this is the same no matter what direction the observer wishes to measure
from.  Remember too, that the observer is using solitonic aether made
devices when he measures the velocity of light!  ie, MM's experiment assumed
that matter was one thing, and aether was another.  I am not saying that.
Thus, both matter and light are both affected equally by any aether motions.


Now, to try to address the SR effect of time slowing.

As the craft accelerates, what I think is going on is that we are in
essence, shifting the degree to which the matter of the craft is translating
through time, and the degree to which matter is travelling through space.
When we accelerate, we are moving through space more so, and time less so.
Remember that time and space are just oscillations of the standing wave
structure.

In your treatment, you assumed that the light beam was emitted at some
velocity v, and that it continued with that motion independent of the region
of spacetime it was in.  With my model, the light you are following is a
wave vortex like a smoke ring toroidal vortex of pressure gradients in the
medium.  So it cannot move at faster or slower than c no matter where it
goes, or where it originated from.

It may well be that light over there, is moving at faster or slower than c
relative to some object over here.  But we cannot measure the velocity from
two locations at the same time.  We can only make local measurements of any
phenomena.  And in each location, the velocity will turn out to be
identical, c.  
we know, for example, that c is different in a medium, or in a gravitational
field, than it is in empty space.  So changing velocities are not unknown,
they are necessary.

So what you are missing is that the velocity of the light beam, relative to
some fixed stars reference, is changing along the trajectory.

If you try to work with the spacecraft as literally being an aether density
distortion in the aether ocean, then you will begin to see that this makes
sense.

But what is really hard to do, is to understand that as the spacecraft
accelerates, it is increasing the amount of wave energy that converges into
(ie is refracted into), it's vicinity.  Thus, as the craft begins to
approach c, it begins to build up in the aether density locally.  In
essence, the craft is beginning to push the universe's ocean of aether, just
like an aircraft begins to push a shock front in front of it as it
approaches the speed of sound.

but now this allows you to think of the universe, and the ocean of aether in
a brand new way and to consider the unthinkable as pertains to space travel.

We know that what we call particles are solitons of aether ;-)   We also
know that it is possible to condense these particles right out of nothing,
or more correctly, right out of that ocean of aether.  We proved this last
year in an experiment involving two gamma rays colliding and forming
electron positron pairs, in the absence of any other particles being around.
so basically, you forced two solitons to smack one another and precipitated
two spherical standing wave solitons named, e and p.

for our spacecraft, then, we can now understand that by shooting an intense
beam of energy and or particles **forward**, in exactly the opposite
direction we would expect if we wanted to accelerate, that we can cause the
high density aether ahead of the spacecraft to condense.  And as the
geometry of the vortex ahead of the craft is that of a smoke ring too, when
these particles condense, they will blast apart and open up the spacetime
ahead of the craft by dropping the aether pressure ahead of the craft.

As we have not imparted enough energy to maintain their existence, those
"virtual particles" will vaporize as the craft passes them by and exposes
them to the rarefaction wake behind the craft.  They will then vaporize, and
create a wave that expands toward the craft and seals the rift in spacetime
the craft temporarily created.  The craft must get the wave moving, but once
it does, it can then flip the wave from the front of the craft to the rear
of the craft via a tricky condensation vaporization technique, ergo a man
made wormhole in today's sci fi jargon.

Any way, if you consider the density gradients in the aether, you will
realize that the velocity of motion of the light waves, relative to some CBR
fixed framework, is not constant throughout the flight of the photons.  It
is changing according to the density, and the motion, of the aether it is
moving through.  This is what causes the effects of slowing time.

And remember, you cannot ever "see" light from a star.  What you can do is
to sense photonic energy that hits the back of your eye when you point your
eye toward the direction of a star's emission.  Your brain tells you that
you are seeing the star, but you really aren't.  You are "feeling" the
effect of waves that were sent from that star by using your optic nerves.

So, our present measurements tell us nothing about the velocity of the light
beams along the way, they only tell us about the times of arrival at various
locations.

PS, if the above is correct, then if we make velocity measurements for ligth
or radio emissions passing between Venus and Earth, we should be able to
discern some errors due to the motions of the planets through the ocean of
aether.  And indeed, there is some controversy regarding the Venus ranging
data results.

However, you must realize that we simply do not really know where objects
are, when they are "out there".  All we know is what direction the light
photons are coming from.  If there is aether drift in larger systems such as
our planetary space, it is tiny and not easily seperated from other factors.
We do not know the precise track of any planetary body except earth,
relative to the distant pulsar location markers.  

Ross Tessien







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 19:19:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25140;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 22:09:48 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: Re: Kirlionics Energy Rally
In-Reply-To: <002301bd49b5$af779580$cf974cd1 natvita.ihug.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980307220846.12063C-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"YXJeP2.0.f86.vsW0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16386
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


	Dear Nativa,

	Can you pleas send this as ASCII?

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, natvita wrote:

> Kirlionics in New Zealand on 26/3/98.  Details on various sites dealing =
> with this subject or on application to Nutrition Research Laboratories =
> Box 101732, NSMC, New Zealand.   =20
> Booklet 40 pages also is the ticket of registration teaches how you can =
> see your own energy field  every night before you go to bed. If you cant =
> work it out then ill give you back up by email.=20
> Wide field of discussion includes
> Quantum biology. The human Aura: scientific, spiritual and practical =
> aspects.=20
> Applications in  self healing determination. Identifying undesirable =
> lectin presence in the diet.
> >From parapsychology to bioenergy information.=20
> New medical technologies in diagnosis and treatment.=20
> Folk medicine, healing, self-healing.=20
> Kirlian effect  visualised and experienced=20
> Exchange of ideas, achievements, techniques, new concepts in biology, =
> consciousness sciences, bioelectrography, Kirlionics.=20
> Venue:=20
> The workshop  will be held in The Memorial Hall, Central Takapuna, North =
> Shore, New Zealand. The hall is behind the Mecca Caf=E9.  7pm  26th =
> March 1998 cost of attendance and participation is $40, which includes: =
> Registration Fee entitles you to advance information of future =
> workshops, news of International conventions and a reduced rate on =
> equipment seen at the workshop. There are presently 14 known commercial =
> systems available for recording the =93auric=94 discharge.
> 
> Workshop Applications of the Russian CrownTV Complex. Discussion, =
> demonstration of the  Brazilian  Magitronica, demonstration of the C400 =
> from USA etc
> How to detect and sight the energy fields.  Self healing.
> 
> regards
> Robert Beasley
> 
> Kirlionics March 1998.. Visit the First New Zealand workshop of the =
> human atmosphere and approaches to Applied  Bioelectrography
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 19:46:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03660;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:42:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:42:50 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 03:41:35 GMT
Message-ID: <350ba8e6.12886215 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803071901.LAA24389 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803071901.LAA24389 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: <"l0v962.0.5v.uEX0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16387
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:

>Time is an interesting one.  I am not as mystical about it, time machines
>and all.  I work with a structure of acoustic standing waves in place of our
>notion of spacetime.  I don't know if that statment makes any sense, but you
>may get it from this.  Take an ocean, and set upon that ocean an endless
>train of waves, all parallel to one another, all equally spaced.  Then,
>imagine another entire set of waves, but at a right angle to the first.  You
>now have a checkerboard pattern of waves.  Now take that structure into 3
>dimensions and you now have a sort of checkerboard pattern of cubes where
>the waves are at high pressure, and where they are at low pressure.  Call
>those white and black cubes with black being at high pressure and white
>being whispy, less dense.

>So, high pressure wants to explode out into low pressure, black explodes out
>into white.  but notice the whole thing is symmetrical.  So, when all of the
>black nodes explode, they become rarefied, or white, and the aether slams
>into itself dumping the KE into a hydraulic jump where the white nodes were,
>thus forming into black nodes.  

Hi Ross

I agree with you that processes like this are going on.  However I don't
think that they are happening at the Planck scale as you do, but only at
larger scales down to nuclear frequencies (10^23 Hz maximum) and that
very many simultaneous frequencies are present everywhere at once.

If you are right, then it seems to me that you require ALL the black and
white cubes to be synchronized because otherwise weird things will begin
to happen.  Do you agree with that?

If so, then how do you explain the gravitational redshift?  It is
observed that all atomic frequencies are slower for atoms that are down
a gravitational well.  I cannot see how that would work in your idea.

Ray

-- Ray Tomes == http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 20:39:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA12340;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:37:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:37:07 -0800
Message-ID: <000e01bd49e9$083153e0$88954cd1 natvita.ihug.co.nz>
From: "natvita" <robert natvita.co.nz>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Kirlionics Energy Rally
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 05:49:41 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"YM1M01.0.f03.o1Y0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16388
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_000A_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000B_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0"


------=_NextPart_001_000B_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


hope attached Word file is acceptable



------=_NextPart_001_000B_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>hope attached Word file is=20
acceptable<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_001_000B_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0--

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0
Content-Type: application/msword;
	name="Dear Natvita.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Dear Natvita.doc"
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------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD4A55.FDA0EEA0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 20:52:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05910;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35022252.436FE5F8 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 17:45:11 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Sunspots, w/ web sites showing aether pouring out of things
References: <199803071949.LAA28308 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"A5tkY3.0.7S1.RAY0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16389
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Ross Tessien wrote:

> >If I tie a rope around you, You will find a pulling force so strictly your
> >argument does not even hold with physical models (can your theory fully explain
> >what sticks atoms together and it must be able to be understood not some
> complex
> >mathematical wave function),
>
> First of all, atoms are not stuck together.  They have no little arms.  And
> when you pull on me with a rope, you are not pulling on me with some
> continuous material.  Rather, you are pulling on me with a long train of
> large numbers of bb's we call atoms that are all arranged in some order very
> close to one another, but not touching.  Atoms are virtually all empty
> space, even if you think the nucleus is some material goo.
>
> If those atoms are indeed solitons, then they are going to phase and
> frequency cohere, just like the two pendulums in Huygens room that caused
> him to study phase and frequency coupling.  This is just like a series of
> JJ's all locking their oscillations together.
>
> However, once you have a group of oscillations that are locked together, and
> surrounding them you have some noisy wave energy, they are going to filter
> out some of that noisy wave energy and be pushed away from it.  but as there
> is no noisy wave energy coming from inside of the ropes fiber, and there is
> noisy energy coming from exterior to the ropes fiber, all of the atoms are
> going to be pushed toward one anther because the wave energy arriving from
> outside of their happy little group is smashing them toward one another.
>
> So, when you pull on me, all you are doing, really, is releiving some of the
> smashing that is going on in outer space.
>
> If I resist, then you must lean backward and I must lean backward so that we
> are applying a tug of war pull.  Gravity is pushing me downward, and I use
> the inclination to cause my body to rotate about the pivot locations, my
> feet.  The rotation causes a vector in the downward direction from gravity,
> and in the horizontal direction, due to the friction of my shoes on the
> grounds atoms.  So my bodies atoms are all extra compressed due to my game.
>
> I am also compressing the atoms in the earth, and pushing them toward you.
> And you are resisting my "pull" and also leaning backward.  So my
> compression of the earth meets your shoes, which are thus being pushed by
> the earth too, and that is pushing right on up through your bodies
> compressed atoms.  You and I are compressing our atoms to a greater degree
> than is the wave energy arriving from space that is crushing our atoms just
> like it is crushing the ropes atoms.
>
> And so as that wave energy of compression moves up through your body, your
> inclination backwards causes your interference with the wave energy arriving
> from space to push you down ward due to a frequency filtering effect because
> the earth filtered out some energy from space beneath your feet.  That is
> why you are pushed down by gravity harder than you are pushed up, the earth
> is your gravity umbrella!
>
> So, in that entire system, there need be no attractive force mechanism at
> all.  A solitonic universe does not have any, and none are needed to explain
> anything, anywhere, anytime.
>

You have to create a very complex answer to ask this very simple question, Yet the
answer leaves me quite unsatisfied.You throw away the concept of attraction just
because in a fluid model it is not apparent, Yet it is apparent in solid materials
and by fields which hold the solid materials together. (though in a totally fluid
model as yours it may be a good idea)

I am not saying that your idea is wrong as I have looked at it before anyway, But it
is a limited materialistic view.

> However the claim you make is only a limited
> >physical material model, Where fields don't exist as real but as waves in a
> fluid
> >material aether.
>
> All fields are nothing more mysterious than structures of wave energy in and
> of the aether.
>
> nuclear weak, strong, and electric are due to phase angle interferences of
> interacting solitons.  Gravitation is due to frequency interference of wave
> energy incident from deep space.  cosmological expansion is due to aether
> emission from stars, and behaves very much like gravitation but in
> opposition.  It interacts with smaller particles more effectively simply
> because smaller particles filter out gravitational wave energy less effectively.

I see that a field may just be a flow wave or structure in the aether but it is only
one view of reality, a very materialistic view.

>
>
> >
> >You need to see that such a limited physical view is only one view of many.
> >Your theory does have support of Occam's razor but only if it stays simple in
> >explaining apparent attraction, otherwise to assume attraction and repulsion is
> >not of any difficulty.
>
> Hope that was simple enough.  It is repulsion interactions all the way round
> the loop you set up.  If that loop wasn't simple enough, or if you think it
> need be more complicated in the nuclear realm, try to find any attraction
> you know of that cannot be replaced by a repulsion using resonances.
>
> Here is a good one for you.  Our present models have quarks gluon forces
> getting stronger with increasing seperation distance.  That makes no sense.
>

No, I tied a piece of elastic to them thats why, I used superglue to attach the
elastic so if you want to take it off you will have to buy superglue remover.

> If you think in terms of solitons, then you have a soliton to soliton
> repulsion due to wave interference.  this repulsion decreases with distance
> as we expect.  Then, you have a filtering of incident external wave energy,
> and this is due to the individual solitons (quark structures are 3 muon
> resonances).  So, as the solitons move toward one another, their repulsion
> increases as we should expect.  But as they move away from one another,
> their compression due to a repulsion from wave energy arriving from space
> stays the same, but their repulsion from each other decreases, as we would
> expect.  So the net thrust is back toward each other.
>
> We call that an attraction that GETS STRONGER AS THE SEPARATION DISTANCE
> INCREASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  NOW ISN'T THAT MORE SILLY THAN MY MODEL???
>

I think that the whole quark model stinks anyway! And the theory that the attraction
gets stronger is only because they have never seen a lone quark.

> >
> >If you keep the theory that everything is just waves and flows in a sea of
> >particles (aether) you must ask what makes the particles repel from each other?
>
> Well, I could ask God that one, but don't think I need to.  Occam would say
> that since your theory needs to assume the following:
>
> 1)  hundreds of fundamental particles
> 2)  four fields, maybe a fifth, and as many more as you need whenever you
> need a     new one such as recent cosmological findings, and such as the
> nuclear forces     were just added this century, who knows what you might
> need to add next     century.
> 3)  spacetime that is deformable
> 4)  mass
> 5)  energy
> 6)  spin
> 7)  isospin
> 8)  hyperspin
> 9)  charge conservation
> 10) mass must be allowed to appear and disappear
> etc etc
>

No my theory needs only one material, the electric field.That exists in an
infinitely large space, Space that has no substance that cannot be deformed (there
is nothing to be deformed  void, vacuum, the empty place) and time is not a
dimension in the sense that the past exists except from what you remember and any
echos of the past. (though I am sure God has a pretty good memory)

There is no such thing as solid mass, it is a illusion.
A particles inertia is just an electromagnetic effect (well there is no such thing
as magnetism)
and particles never touch, only there fields only touch, in fact there need not be
such a thing as size, they are just field so they are infinite in size, there is no
core.

Magnetic fields are created by moving electric fields or charge (same thing) and
detected by electric charges so the magnetic field is just an abstraction.

Gravity is also abstract it is just an type of electric field.(possibly the same as
longditudinal force found in wires)

So both magnetic fields and gravitational fields are created by motion of charge,
just differnt motion.


so all I need is;

1.  space
2.  time
3.  electric field

> I need:
>
> 1)  aether, the amount of which is associated with something, being, that
> somethings MASS
> 2)  Aether repulses aether, and has no means of tensile transference of action.
> 3)  Aether is conserved in all interactions.
>
> That is it.  There are two possible solutions to that set of constraints.
> The first, is an infinite universe of pea soup, nothingness, no motions,
> nothing.
>
> The second, is our universe.

I do like your the basics of you aether theory, It is quite good

>
>
> >If these elementary particles don't have fields (fields can push and pull) then
> >there will be no pressure at any densitys until they are at maximum density
> >(though a random vibration like heat would change that) which is when these
> >spherical particles are touching each other, So if you had zero motion in the
> >aether you would have an aether in which you could change the density yet have
> >zero compressibility!
> >John Berry
> >
> >
>
> If you force yourself to work with particles, then yes, you need spaces
> between them.  But if you work with a continuous aether, you don't need to.
>
> The two concepts become identical if you allow the particles you want to
> introduce to become about E-70 meters in size.  As long as your particles
> are far smaller than the Planck scale, I won't argue that there are or are
> not particles of aether.  that model is like the model of Paul Stowe, and
> Barry Mingst.  And I don't argue with them either.

As I think about it, A particle aether similar to the aether that you are describing
does not make as much sence as the continuis aether, you may be right there.

>
>
> However, I do demand that you obey the law of conservation of aether, and
> therefore of conservation of mass.  Thus, I do demand that we seek out
> phenomena that is associated with emission of aether from stars and from
> galaxies of stars.

I am happy to agree with the conservation of aether, But I must demand that you
don't rule out the creation or destruction of energy.

Where does the aether re-enter the star or does a star burn till it ejects all it's
aether or can a star still burn once it has depleted it's aether.


John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 21:31:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22034;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:30:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:30:19 -0800
Message-ID: <19980308052940.6542.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [209.48.94.150]
From: "Peter Aldo" <prospector85 hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Utilizing energy from lightning
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 21:29:40 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"VnjMe3.0.CO5.fpY0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16390
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Hi enthusiasts,

     I'm planning on constructing a huge capacitor for storing 
atmospheric energy. The plan is to have model rockets carry a wire into 
the clouds in order to trigger a lightning discharge. This is a proven 
method of triggering lightning. I plan to accumulate the energy in a 
large capacitor after which it will be quickly transformed into a form 
that will enable longer lasting storage than a capacitor alone could 
provide. Does anyone know of any limitations there would be to using a 
capacitor-based system like this?

Peter




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 21:42:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA12716;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:40:59 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:42:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Sunspots, w/ web sites showing aether pouring out of things
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <35022252.436FE5F8 ihug.co.nz>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <812F8D1E45 hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"KNl6-2.0.c63.ezY0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16391
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

... 
> There is no such thing as solid mass, it is a illusion.
> A particles inertia is just an electromagnetic effect (well there is no such thing
> as magnetism)
> and particles never touch, only there fields only touch, in fact there need not be
> such a thing as size, they are just field so they are infinite in size, there is no
> core.
...

Then please explain to me the difference between an electron and a 
muon.  :)  They are virtually identical except for their masses.  You 
might just need more than your three below requirements to explain 
the universe.
...
> so all I need is;
> 
> 1.  space
> 2.  time
> 3.  electric field
...
> 
> John Berry
> 

JAY OLSON

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar  7 22:09:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA14942;
	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 22:06:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 22:06:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 22:05:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199803080605.WAA09583 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tjc2-2.0.Kf3.jLZ0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16392
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Greetings Ray, and welcome to Vortex, didn't know you were monitoring this
list.  Dear Vor, Ray Tomes also works with aether models, and one of the
best three I know of.  His work begins at large scales, and he divides waves
to smaller and smaller scales beginning from the scale of the entire
universe.  My theory begins from the smallest scales and builds up larger
and larger waves up to the scale of the universe.  Thus, our theories
overlap and have a lot of commonality.

That said, I think Ray still thinks aether is more of a rigid sort with
attraction repulsion capability, whereas I obviously believe only in a
fluidic aether with compression, and no tension.  That said, for those of
you wondering about harmonic interactions Ray is the guy.

Now, for the questions and then I am out for the evening;

Ray said;

>I agree with you that processes like this are going on.  However I don't
>think that they are happening at the Planck scale as you do, but only at
>larger scales down to nuclear frequencies (10^23 Hz maximum) and that
>very many simultaneous frequencies are present everywhere at once.

I completely agree with all of the frequencies being present, and that
harmonically related frequencies can have greater amplitudes etc etc as you
have done an excellent job demonstrating.

However, I do contend that you must work with frequencies that continue to
actually far below the Planck scale,  I place no limit on the frequencies
and consider that you have a sort of black body sort of spectrum that
literally continues ad infinitum.

However, there is a fundamental frequency at the Planck scale which I think
is the drummer driving all of our observations, and that frequency is the
frequency of spacetime itself.  All other **organized** frequencies of
oscillation are lower frequency harmonics of that one frequency.

The basis of maintenance of that primary frequency is that the aether waves
are so intense, that at that frequency "white caps" on the ocean of aether,
cause the aether to collapse into a more dense state, call it aether
condensate for familiarity to water and steam, considering the universe to
be a steam bath, and any where that the density of the aether gets too great
due to convergence of wave energy the aether can condense.  

As far as the frequencies you are mentioning, those are very low frequencies
of resonance of sub atomic matter, ie that number is in the realm of quark
resonances, where as the Planck scale is way up there at about E45 Hz.  

>
>If you are right, then it seems to me that you require ALL the black and
>white cubes to be synchronized because otherwise weird things will begin
>to happen.  Do you agree with that?

Yes I do agree with that.  If the black and white cubes could get out of
connection, then positively charged particles could become negatively
charged particles and we would have colliding galaxies with no necessity to
remain coupled from the time of the big bang.

The thing that set it all in motion was, the big bang.  In the model I work
with, our universe was born from a huge black hole confined inside of a
galaxy about the size of our entire universe.  When the inflow momentum
began to slow, the size of the event horizon began to shrink.  I need to
perhaps go into this, but in a model where a black hole is the result of the
aether condensing, the event horizon is the radius at which the KE is
capable of forcing the condensation at any smaller radius due to the
spherical convergence leading to a fourth power build up in the energy density.

You may recall a recent paper by Steve Carlip at UCD, where he works with
our present theories and finds a sort of analogous phenomena where the
quantum vacuum can take on more states if you have a super exponential build
up in energy density.  I think that as the aether slams into the core inside
of the event horizon, that this is what you have.

The major difference is, such a core can be any size at all, because there
is no singularity "pulling anything inward".  Rather, you have the stars
outside in the galaxy that are all emitting aether in spherical symmetry
(elliptical galaxy or spiral galaxy central bulge).  Thus, the emissions of
aether from the stars are creating a ram pressure slamming aether down the
event horizon of the hole, inside of which the aether condenses.  That
means, that the "size" of the black hole in the core is really independent
of how much mass is inside of the black holes event horizon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rather, the gravitation we will observe on the outside will be proportional
to the number of stars in the galaxy ramming the hole with aether!!!!!  That
is what they find ;-)

Any way, if the numbers of stars dwindles, due to absorption into the BH
interior, then the amount of aether emission exterior to the EH is being
reduced.  If it drops too much, the core can meet the EH and breach
confinement, blasting out into the surrounding universe obliterating
everything in it's path as the core boils back into steam again.

That boiling leads to all of the waves in the aether becoming broken into
smaller and smaller wavelengths (  ;-), you ought to like that one Ray! ).
The droplets of the aether condensate that are out of cadence with all of
the vibrations will simply vaporize.  The droplets that team up, and begin
to resonate in cadence, can jointly set up an organized structure of
acoustic oscillations, or nodes, within the inflating boiling mess.  At some
point, IMO, the wave energy self organized, just like we observe with
vibrating beds of beads used to form "Oscillons".

That organization then becomes spacetime, and the remaining droplets become
the resonances that survive, and become particles.  The distortion to the
spacetime topology near those vibrating droplets trapped in the acoustic
nodes become "fields".  

Now, that entire universe is all phase and freqeuncy locked together, and so
the rampant boiling ceases, but the momentum of expansion continues, and all
of the "matter" continues flying apart later to form galaxies and stars etc.
And the density gradients of the universe are already established from the
beginning due to the harmonic structure of the vibrations that originated
from the beginning when the core breached.

As for the CBR anisotropy, that is due to the stars and galaxies rammed by
the explosion of our universe out into the previously existing universe, as
a new member of the very much larger "Omniverse" was born.

>
>If so, then how do you explain the gravitational redshift?  It is
>observed that all atomic frequencies are slower for atoms that are down
>a gravitational well.  I cannot see how that would work in your idea.

Aether density gradients lead to a slower time of propogation for wave
energy.  Both spacetime, and particle waves are susceptible to this slowing
of wave motion.  The spacetime oscillations do not need to remain frequency
coupled, I don't think.  What they need to do, is to remain topologically
continuous.  ie, the black and white nodes need to remain continuous, though
you could have a region where the frequencies of oscillation slowly are changed.

Remember that this spacetime topology is not some rigid thing.  It is a
structure of standing waves in a fluidic medium.  And that medium is flowing
out of stars, into black holes, out of black holes that breach (AGN's), etc.
There are E35 nodes per meter, so any deviation is manifest over a huge
number of nodes.  But typically the gradients are trivial and the density
gradients are trivial.  Even the sun is virtually transparent to wave energy
at E45 Hz.

So the sun only marginally alters the spacetime topology.  It may seem like
a huge modification to us, but compared to other beasts like neutron stars
and BH's, it is trivial.  

This sort of spacetime is a wave structure, so it can deform, bend,
compress, undulate, stretch, etc.  but what it cannot do is to detach from
all of the wave energy permeating the universe.

A BH could cause a rip in spacetime when it breaches a jet and shoots aether
outward at super luminal velocities.  but the rest of the universe will heal
that unruly BH in time as the rest of the universe has far more energy
content than does that single BH.  The only exception would of course be a
huge BH that breached all at once to give rise to a new universe.  I don't
think I would want to be around if M87 breached either though ;-)

Spacetime, is the power weighted sum of all incident wave energy in a given
region of the universe.  The primary frequency of oscillation being that at
which the most fundamental processes occur.  This, IMO, is the Planck scale.
And huge E-15 meter structures like a nucleon are huge vortices, just like a
smoke ring  or a tornado or a hurricane are huge structures composed of very
tiny molecular motions on the order of E-6 meters if I recall the MFP of air
molecules off hand.

When you get a much larger vortex set in motion, and you have a source of
wave energy to maintain that motion, it will persist indefinitely.
Particles, ie sub atomic and nuclear particles, are the vortices, and
spacetime is the source of wave energy.

The source is continually replenished by the continuation of the boiling
process of the big bang described above.  Except today, that boiling process
isn't rampant like it was during the inflationary period of the universe.
Instead, we today call it "exothermy", and it results from reactions such as
fusion where we erroneously contend that "mass" is converted into "energy".  

In the solitonic model, "mass" is aether and is conserved.  "energy", is
aether in motion relative to other aether such that it is capable of
effecting a change to the motion of the other aether, ie, it is capable of
communicating action.

Well, off for some pool to test out collision theory ;-)

Later, Ross Tessien







From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 02:03:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA29238;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <006601bd4a78$504b8760$3c8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Conservation of Radius?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:54:49 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"46bY23.0.m87.cmc0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16393
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r

Then: m = k*q^2/(c^2*r)

Lumping the Constants into K';mass = K'/radius!

According to this, conservation  of mass equals
conservation of radius. Thus you can make more mass simply by drilling a
smaller hole in the Aether?  :-)

Watch out for that full moon coming up, guys.   :-)

Regards,   Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 02:05:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA21046;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:02:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:02:27 -0800
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:02:22 -0800
Message-Id: <199803081002.CAA18854 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: Sunspots, w/ web sites showing aether pouring out of things
Resent-Message-ID: <"02CY23.0.h85.noc0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16394
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Then please explain to me the difference between an electron and a 
>muon.  :)  They are virtually identical except for their masses.  You 
>might just need more than your three below requirements to explain 
>the universe.

The electron is a spherical resonance in and of, aether.  This is a
spherical standing wave similar to that studied by Thomson and Bjerknes in
the 1870's.

At the very center of convergence, the energy density build up by the fourth
power of the radius due to spherical convergence of the acoustic wave
energy.  At the center, the aether crushes to what we might call, condensate
as I have mentioned before.  Thus, at the center of convergence, the
electron alternates between condensate and vapor aether, back and forth at a
frequency of the Planck scale resonance of E45 Hz.  That resonance, is what
we call an electric field, or, "negative charge".

The muon is the identical shape of resonance, ie spherical.  So is tauon.
The difference is, rather than having the energy density reach the
condensation pressure at the innermost sphere, a muon induces condensation
in a spherical shell around that innermost sphere at double the radius as
electron.  Tauon, induces condensation at triple the radius of electron.

Thus, if you account for the energy density amplification, and for the
volume increase, you get an amplification of the "mass" of the particles due
to a 2^7, and a 3^7 ratio.  By multiplying the electron mass by those
numbers, you get 62 percent of the mass of each of the larger resonances,
muon and tauon.

The reason for the percentage rather than the total, is because for electron
the condensate only persists for part of the cycle, whereas for muon and
tauon there is always a condensate core throughout the complete cycle, and
there is a spherical shell where condensation / vaporization alternates.  So
the geometry is slightly different for muon and tauon.

All three, however, are spherical convergences and from the outside, you can
find no difference except that there is more aether to accelerate, ergo,
they have more mass.

Now, show me any derivation that comes even remotely close to muon and tauon
mass from any other rationale! ;-)

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 03:00:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA24481;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:57:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:57:13 -0800
Message-ID: <19980308105637.1872.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [158.152.228.34]
From: "Rob King" <kingrs hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Utilizing energy from lightning
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 02:56:36 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"tvOlt2.0.R-5.8cd0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16395
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi there,
I think there are a few limitations like you would need a fairly thick 
wire to carry the high current, I don't know what the current might be 
though then again if you only capture a small amount of the charge then 
a thin wire is OK.
The capacitor would have to be a very high voltage and you may need to 
build it yourself, I bet Tandy's don't stock them. (Part CAP14L 5F 200MV 
lightning capacitor). :(
You might use kitchen foil and sheets of glass say 500cm square and drop 
the whole thing in a plastic tub of oil. 
As for converting it into something useful, very difficult.
Maybe some kind of mechincal switching device to drive a step down 
transformer.

Rob

>From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Mar  7 21:31:14 1998
>Received: (from smartlst localhost)
>	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22034;
>	Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:30:19 -0800
>Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:30:19 -0800
>Message-ID: <19980308052940.6542.qmail hotmail.com>
>X-Originating-IP: [209.48.94.150]
>From: "Peter Aldo" <prospector85 hotmail.com>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Subject: Utilizing energy from lightning
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 21:29:40 PST
>Resent-Message-ID: <"VnjMe3.0.CO5.fpY0r" mx1>
>Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
>X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16390
>X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
>
>
>Hi enthusiasts,
>
>     I'm planning on constructing a huge capacitor for storing 
>atmospheric energy. The plan is to have model rockets carry a wire into 
>the clouds in order to trigger a lightning discharge. This is a proven 
>method of triggering lightning. I plan to accumulate the energy in a 
>large capacitor after which it will be quickly transformed into a form 
>that will enable longer lasting storage than a capacitor alone could 
>provide. Does anyone know of any limitations there would be to using a 
>capacitor-based system like this?
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 04:24:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA04695;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 04:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 04:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <350236C3.475A0CF mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 06:12:19 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
References: <006601bd4a78$504b8760$3c8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------602DA9CE6C9D44A39F81D88"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YkKSP3.0.H91.lre0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16396
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.

--------------602DA9CE6C9D44A39F81D88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

--------------602DA9CE6C9D44A39F81D88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"


Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r

Then: m = k*q^2/(c^2*r)

Lumping the Constants into K';mass = K'/radius!

According to this, conservation  of mass equals
conservation of radius. Thus you can make more mass simply by drilling a
smaller hole in the Aether?  :-)

Watch out for that full moon coming up, guys.   :-)

Regards,   Frederick

Hi Frederick,

Dr. Paul M. Brown, "An Alternate Interpretation Of Mass-Gain
At Near Light Velocities," Infinite Energy, Vol. 3, No. 13
and No. 14, 1997,  pages 52-53, proposes that

KE = m0v^2/2 + q^2v^2k/3r 

where r = radius of the charged particle, q = the charge,
and v = the velocity of the particle.  k = 3.336 x 10^-4.
m0 is the gravitational or rest mass of the particle.  This
design equation also fits the data very well.  Dr.  Brown
writes that a 1 GeV electron has a rest mass of
9.107 x 10^-31 kg and a velocity of 2.9999994 x 10^8 m/sec.

KE = mc^2 = 1.294 x 10^-10 Joule.

KE = q^2v^2k/3r = 1.364 x 10^-10 Joule.

Continuing to play with these design equations,

 mc^2 = m0v^2/2 + q^2v^2k/3r 

m = m0v^2/2c^2 + q^2v^2k/3rc^2

Lumping constants,

m = v^2( k'/r  +  m0/2c^2 )

So, if the hole stops moving, the mass totally disappears?

This sounds like something out of "Through The Looking Glass".

Jack Smith


--------------602DA9CE6C9D44A39F81D88--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 07:13:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24115;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 07:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 07:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00a201bd4aa3$bd177e00$3c8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 08:04:40 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"9uRgs3.0.hu5.2Kh0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16397
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor J. Smith <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, March 07, 1998 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?

Jack Smith wrote:

>So, if the hole stops moving, the mass totally disappears?
>This sounds like something out of "Through The Looking Glass".

This is typical behavior for a Mass-Hole, Jack.    :-)

I think Mr. Carroll was cognizant of what the "New Math and Physics" had in
store.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 07:32:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02970;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 07:24:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 07:24:23 -0800
Message-ID: <3502B837.2AFB interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 10:24:39 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Utilizing energy from lightning
References: <19980308052940.6542.qmail hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"reRu12.0.Fk.cWh0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16398
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Peter Aldo wrote:
> 
> Hi enthusiasts,
> 
>      I'm planning on constructing a huge capacitor for storing
> atmospheric energy. The plan is to have model rockets carry a wire into
> the clouds in order to trigger a lightning discharge. This is a proven
> method of triggering lightning. I plan to accumulate the energy in a
> large capacitor after which it will be quickly transformed into a form
> that will enable longer lasting storage than a capacitor alone could
> provide. Does anyone know of any limitations there would be to using a
> capacitor-based system like this?
> 

Peter, figure 5 billion watt-seconds = 1400 kwhr of energy per flash.
IF you could capture 10 percent of this in a capacitor bank (not easy!)
, this would be about 140 kwhr "in the bank" per flash.  Here in Ohio,
this is worth about 140 * .07 = $9.80 .

	1. How much does it cost to capture each stroke?
	2. How many thunder-days where you live?  Central Florida
	   is very "good" at about 90 thunderstorm-days per year.
	   For me in Ohio, it's about 35 TSDPY.
	3. You have forgiving neighbors? - I would have trouble and I
	   live on 53 acres of land.
	4. I would guess that an investment in solar cells for the
	   same money would put you ahead of the game.

See the book, "ALL ABOUT LIGHTNING" by Martin A. Uman for more details.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 09:25:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA31715;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:15:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:15:10 -0800
Message-ID: <00b901bd4ab5$46a38720$3c8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: BLP O/U BLIP?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 10:11:06 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"pmCQq.0.Ll7.S8j0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16399
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The Saha equation:

Log10(ni/no)= -5040(Vi/T)+Log10 T + 15.385

Then: M + Heat <---> M+ + e-

says that at a low pressure the ionized alkali metals that have ionization
energies of about 3.5 to 5.3 ev (4.34 ev for potassium) are going to release
more energy upon recombination than the T/11,600 (about 0.2 ev)from the hot
plasma
or heated filament?

Then: H2 + Heat <---> 2 H which should also follow the Saha equation (if the
5.52 ev dissociation energy for H2 also follows the equation)would give a
breakeven energy return.

Then: M+ + H ---> H+ + M, and H+ + e- ---> H
giving off as much 13.6 ev, which is 13.6/0.2
or an O/U "multiplier" of 68! :-)

Darn Good Energy R.O.I., Huh Frank?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 09:50:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22110;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19980309174333.39754 tao.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:43:33 +0000
From: Josef Karthauser <energy tao.org.uk>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: E=SOL3/98
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
In-Reply-To: <199802111706_MC2-32ED-68ED compuserve.com>; from Jed Rothwell on Wed, Feb 11, 1998 at 05:02:36PM -0500
Resent-Message-ID: <"T2rqd2.0.LP5.7aj0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16400
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, Feb 11, 1998 at 05:02:36PM -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> To: Vortex; >INTERNET:energy_solutions hotmail.com
> 
> I am still wondering what this mysterious moniker "E=SOL3/98" means.

I'd guess: E=SOL3/98 means Energy Solutions, March 1998.

Joe

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 10:02:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05496;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:50:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:50:20 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:50:05 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: More Russian vacuum spin waves
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980308094608.16338A-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Yn1MQ.0.ZL1.Ofj0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16401
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Forwarded with permission...

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:42:42 +0300
From: "V.Petrov" <sobolev1 online.ru>
To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Thank you


Hi William!

Yes, I have this book and also I've seen 18 hrs video materials of that
conference.  You are absolutely right that real scientists are
experimenting and skeptics are just showing their skepticism without doing
anything else. 

As for the 'torsion fields' there is one important thing i want to tell
you.  Maybe this subject seems to be 'pseudoscientific' for someone but it
is not so.  I don't want to make any advertising of any theory or
something.  Just pure facts. I guess not many people know these facts. 
Anatoly Akimov is not just a doctor of science. And the 'torsion field
theory' he is talking about is not just a theory which was stated by some
'unrecognized scientist'.  Akimov is the director of CISE VENT. And this
organization was formed by the special order of Nikolay Ryzhkov - the
prime minister of USSR - under the State Commettee of the USSR of science
and technics (sorry i'm not sure if i translated the name of organization
correctly).  At first, it was named 'The Center of non-traditional
technologies' and later CISE VENT. 

There were series of publications in respectable(as well as
non-respectable) newspapers. For example after the 'putsch' in august of
1991 two articles were published in 'Nezavisimaya gazeta' and
'Komsomolskaya pravda'(don't be confused by the name of the paper - it
does't mean that it is communist, just old name taken in the days of
USSR). 

These are respectable newspapers and in these articles it was stated that
500 million rubles(something like tens of millions of dollars)  were spent
for the developing of the 'torsion or spinor fields'.  The sponsors were
named - KGB, the Ministry of defence of the USSR, and several other very
serious organizations. 

And the first in the list of the developers was named the Institute of
materials technology in Kiev, Ukraine. 

And there is a preprint of CISE VENT named 'Dalnodeistvuyushie spinornye
polya'(Long range spinor fields) which was published in 1989 by that
institute. Akimov doesn't deny it - you can read this in his and Shipov's
article 'Torsion fields and their experimental manifestations'.  Another
scientist of that institute V.Mayboroda stated that they achieved positive
results in the experiments of affecting different melts and materials by
'spinor' or 'torsion field generator'.  This info is also in another
preprint. 

There is a number of preprints by CISE VENT concerning torsion fields. 
But it is very difficult to find them - i live in moscow and could find
them only in the main state library. That's why people can't find any
info. 

But actually Akimov and his group are not the only people who are talking
about torsion fields. There is A LOT of information on that.  Nobody talks
on TV of course but there is a lot of reports, articles and books by other
scientists who are talking about the same - torsion effects, form effects,
etc. 

For example prof. A.Veinik was talking about these effects in the
conference 'New ideas in natural sciences' of june 1996.  He talks about
resonators and generators in his books and articles.  Many reports were
made at different conferences by different scientists.  'Skeptics' just
don't want to read or to listen. 

Thank you for your interest William!
Good luck!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 11:49:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA30005;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:34:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:34:35 -0800
Message-ID: <3502F2A1.6BE7 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 14:33:53 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BLP O/U BLIP?
References: <00b901bd4ab5$46a38720$3c8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"zz2Qk.0.dK7.9Bl0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16402
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
> 
(snip)

> Then: M+ + H ---> H+ + M, and H+ + e- ---> H
> giving off as much 13.6 ev, which is 13.6/0.2
> or an O/U "multiplier" of 68! :-)
> 
> Darn Good Energy R.O.I., Huh Frank?

Pretty good, Fred, but can it beat a special, 3 cans of pork-n-beans
for a dollar?  You know, Fred, when I think about it, we have plenty of
"free energy" - it's just that a lot of it smells bad!  Ya got yer
manure, yer dead cows, yer rotten leaves, yer old underwear, and don't
forget all those old Ohio fallow farm fields filled with zillions of
old auto and truck tires - hey, pretty good winding forms for big,
toroidal coils too!  Some even have steel-wire cores.

Frank Stenger --- having a s-l-o-w day.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 13:17:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25702;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000a01bd4ad5$9b44aaa0$228cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: BLP O/U BLIP?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:01:36 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"WwAV31.0.VH6.5am0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16403
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 <fstenger interlaced.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: BLP O/U BLIP?
>
>Pretty good, Fred, but can it beat a special, 3 cans of pork-n-beans
>for a dollar?  You know, Fred, when I think about it, we have plenty of
>"free energy" - it's just that a lot of it smells bad!  Ya got yer
>manure, yer dead cows, yer rotten leaves, yer old underwear, and don't
>forget all those old Ohio fallow farm fields filled with zillions of
>old auto and truck tires - hey, pretty good winding forms for big,
>toroidal coils too!  Some even have steel-wire cores.
>
>Frank Stenger --- having a s-l-o-w day.

Frankley Frank, I'm partial to those old
barns around your area that are equipped with lightning rods with the 1"
thick copper strand cables that ran up to the ridge of the roof.

Some of those rods had a "bulb" on them that lit up long before there was a
lightning strike.

I think a lot of the copper was taken off for
the WWII effort, in which case there were a lot
of those mammoth-sized barns that burned to the ground in those years. Sure
did light up the sky at night.

Made lots of roast-beef to go with those three cans of beans too.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 13:32:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28719;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:26:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:26:57 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:28:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Sunspots, w/ web sites showing aether pouring out of things
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <199803081002.CAA18854 Au.oro.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <90F4194558 hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"MiJB82.0.d07.Qqm0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16404
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> >Then please explain to me the difference between an electron and a 
> >muon.  :)  They are virtually identical except for their masses.  You 
> >might just need more than your three below requirements to explain 
> >the universe.
> 
> The electron is a spherical resonance in and of, aether.  This is a
> spherical standing wave similar to that studied by Thomson and Bjerknes in
> the 1870's.
> 
> At the very center of convergence, the energy density build up by the fourth
> power of the radius due to spherical convergence of the acoustic wave
> energy.  At the center, the aether crushes to what we might call, condensate
> as I have mentioned before.  Thus, at the center of convergence, the
> electron alternates between condensate and vapor aether, back and forth at a
> frequency of the Planck scale resonance of E45 Hz.  That resonance, is what
> we call an electric field, or, "negative charge".
> 
> The muon is the identical shape of resonance, ie spherical.  So is tauon.
> The difference is, rather than having the energy density reach the
> condensation pressure at the innermost sphere, a muon induces condensation
> in a spherical shell around that innermost sphere at double the radius as
> electron.  Tauon, induces condensation at triple the radius of electron.
> 
> Thus, if you account for the energy density amplification, and for the
> volume increase, you get an amplification of the "mass" of the particles due
> to a 2^7, and a 3^7 ratio.  By multiplying the electron mass by those
> numbers, you get 62 percent of the mass of each of the larger resonances,
> muon and tauon.
> 
> The reason for the percentage rather than the total, is because for electron
> the condensate only persists for part of the cycle, whereas for muon and
> tauon there is always a condensate core throughout the complete cycle, and
> there is a spherical shell where condensation / vaporization alternates.  So
> the geometry is slightly different for muon and tauon.
> 
> All three, however, are spherical convergences and from the outside, you can
> find no difference except that there is more aether to accelerate, ergo,
> they have more mass.
> 
> Now, show me any derivation that comes even remotely close to muon and tauon
> mass from any other rationale! ;-)
> 
> Ross Tessien

If this is true, Ross, what is there that prevents an even more 
massive electron like particle?  It seems like your model places no 
limit on the number of families of leptons.  However, the standard 
model claims that there can be no more than three, and this is what 
is observed.  Also, how does your model describe the difference 
between electron, muon and tauon neutrinos?  I know, lots of 
questions, but I wouldn't be asking so many if your theory wasn't so 
good at answering them...  :)

JAY OLSON  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 13:51:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06075;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:47:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:47:10 -0800
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:50:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <006601bd4a78$504b8760$3c8cbfa8 default>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <91521D2CEA hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"tp6Ac2.0.qU1.S7n0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16405
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r

Wait a minute!  Are you talking about a multi-particle, central 
potential problem here?  Like a H atom maybe?  I don't think that you 
can just say that E = mc^2.  If you want to use relativity, go ahead 
and use the full energy formula E = sqrt(p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4).  Now if 
you want your momentum to go to zero, in order to extract the E = 
mc^2, you gotta take into account the uncertainty principle delta x 
delta p >= hbar\2.  Put your delta p in as zero and you don't end up 
with a nice equation relating mass to radius, you end up with 
INFINITE radius!

> Then: m = k*q^2/(c^2*r)
> 
> Lumping the Constants into K';mass = K'/radius!
> 
> According to this, conservation  of mass equals
> conservation of radius. Thus you can make more mass simply by drilling a
> smaller hole in the Aether?  :-)
> 
> Watch out for that full moon coming up, guys.   :-)
> 
> Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 14:09:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10127;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:06:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:06:06 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980308170925.00592198 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 17:09:28 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: More Russian vacuum spin waves
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"SmXZ32.0.9U2.CPn0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16406
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:50 AM 3/8/98 -0800, you wrote:
>There is a number of preprints by CISE VENT concerning torsion fields. 
>But it is very difficult to find them - i live in moscow and could find
>them only in the main state library. That's why people can't find any
>info. 
>

Well, like most Americans, I am woefully ignorant of Soviet science.
Along with being illiterate in Russian. However, I have more than
a passing interest in the subject being dicussed. I propose the 
following bargain.

I have a few web servers in my office which I use for various
purposes. I also have profession quality scanning and OCR
software. If you could send me reasonable quality copies
of the preprints, I'd be happy to publish them electronically.
I would distribute the URL on this list, and you could
distribute it as you wish. Access to the site would of
course be free. My only real concern would be that the material
would be bilingual; preferably english. I can't afford to
fund translation services for technical documentation, and 
although I'd love to learn Russian I don't see that happening
anytime soon :^(

I will likely kick off the site by publishing N.A. Kozyrevs
paper on the Experimental Study of Time, translated back
during the time of Sputnik by Uncle Sam. 

Sending me material now will expedite this process, but I 
understand that you may wish to see proof that I can do
this. I anticipate that it will take about 1-2 months for
me to scrounge enough free time to execute this. Please
contact me at 

knagel cnct.com

if you are interested in donating papers or helping out
with the project.

KPN


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 14:12:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10843;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:08:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:08:39 -0800
Message-ID: <002501bd4ade$465347a0$228cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:04:38 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"9jXmn2.0.Cf2.bRn0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16407
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Olson <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?


> Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r

Wait a minute!  Are you talking about a multi-particle, central 
potential problem here?  Like a H atom maybe?  I don't think that you 
can just say that E = mc^2. 

BIG AL said it before I did. :-)

Nothing like a zealous student to rewrite Physics 101.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick



 If you want to use relativity, go ahead 
and use the full energy formula E = sqrt(p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4).  Now if 
you want your momentum to go to zero, in order to extract the E = 
mc^2, you gotta take into account the uncertainty principle delta x 
delta p >= hbar\2.  Put your delta p in as zero and you don't end up 
with a nice equation relating mass to radius, you end up with 
INFINITE radius!

> Then: m = k*q^2/(c^2*r)
> 
> Lumping the Constants into K';mass = K'/radius!
> 
> According to this, conservation  of mass equals
> conservation of radius. Thus you can make more mass simply by drilling a
> smaller hole in the Aether?  :-)
> 
> Watch out for that full moon coming up, guys.   :-)
> 
> Regards,   Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 14:15:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05909;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:10:02 -0800
Message-Id: <199803082210.OAA29506 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: Sunspots, w/ web sites showing aether pouring out of things
Resent-Message-ID: <"d4XN31.0.CS1.RUn0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16408
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>If this is true, Ross, what is there that prevents an even more 
>massive electron like particle?  It seems like your model places no 
>limit on the number of families of leptons.  However, the standard 
>model claims that there can be no more than three, and this is what 
>is observed.  

It was also observed that there were only two particles, proton and
electron.  Then, there were only three particles, proton neutron and
electron.  Then there were two leptons, electron and muon.  Then still
later, there were three leptons, electron muon and tauon.  So to say this is
what is observed, means very little.

We have observed particles of large enough energy to have found the "tess"
;-) lepton, so your point is actually pertinent.  The problem is, we create
these particles by smashing two solitons together.  It may be that this sort
of collision leads to smashed spheriodal topology for the solitons, and
thus, that we cannot easily form the next larger lepton using this
technique.  And to collide say a group of 8 particles from 8 different
uniform directions, (ie like the corners of a cube, all converging into the
center at the same time), is not possible let alone a collision of 3
particles all at the same time.  There is always an assymetry to the
collision timing and momenta.

But yes, I do think there should be an infinite sequence of these particles.
In fact, a black hole is actually nothing but an overgrown electron
according to this model.  That may actually be a clue in that a BH
apparently can breach confinement via jet emission, rather than entering
into a radial resonance.  Also, Pulsars, I think, are neutron stars with
resonant black holes at their cores, the BH resonance being essentially the
same thing as the electron resonance, but at a very much lower frequency for
the bulk motions.

Also, how does your model describe the difference 
>between electron, muon and tauon neutrinos?  

Simple.  Same geometry, but their resonances are at 90, or 270 degrees phase
angle whereas electrons are at 180 degree phase angle and positrons are at 0
degrees phase angle.

I know, lots of 
>questions, but I wouldn't be asking so many if your theory wasn't so 
>good at answering them...  :)

The day you ask one I cannot at least reasonably answer one is the day I
have found another area to focus some research.  Good luck poking holes ;-)

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 15:38:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01717;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:31:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:31:45 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:31:31 +1000
Message-Id: <199803082331.JAA29272 nornet.nor.com.au>
X-Sender: mindtech pophost.nor.com.au
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: Peter Nielsen <mindtech nor.com.au>
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"y0Geh.0.iQ.Vfo0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16409
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>OTOH, my theory presents you with a model for what time really is.
>
>Ross Tessien
>

There is an interesting book by Ted Roach which supports the concept of time
as matter in free fall. IOW time does not "pass" unless the observer
modifies in relation to the flow. This seems to correlate with your slow
bang theory. He further proposes that electrical and magnetic fields are
contiguous dimensional extrapolations of time flow, eventually involving the
nucleus as a mini-black hole. He sees gravity as an emergent compensatory
force to the altered time flow around (through) condensed mass. This is the
so-called force of attraction. 

The above appears to leave us with two handles on time, 1) vector
cancellation within energy fields, and 2) orbital rotation. There is also
the well-known work of Kozyrev which concludes that time moves slower at the
cause than at the effect. This implies a heirarchy of transactions, leading
back to the original impulse of creation. At that "central" point in the
matrix of causality, we might speculate that time would be non-existant,
i.e. a point of pure consciousness. 

Peter Nielsen



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 15:56:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05423;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:47:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:47:27 -0800
Message-ID: <35032C8B.E1C skylink.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 15:40:59 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
References: <199803071901.LAA24389 Au.oro.net> <3501E134.4EB5@keelynet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"yCqxX3.0.fK1.Euo0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16410
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jerry W. Decker wrote:

> You might want to check out my article on AntiTime;
> 
>              http://keelynet.com/time/antitime.htm

Jerry. You might enjoy the Stephen King movie, "The Langoliers".
It has some parts that are oddly similar to things in the above
article. Fair warining though -- the movie starts strong, but
gets very lame toward the end. For example, did you know that used 
space-time gets eaten up by vicious looking pac-man creatures?

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 19:08:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13373;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:59:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 19:01:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <002501bd4ade$465347a0$228cbfa8 default>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <96814D599C hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"7p3l.0.tG3.Fir0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16411
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> > Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r
> 
> Wait a minute!  Are you talking about a multi-particle, central 
> potential problem here?  Like a H atom maybe?  I don't think that you 
> can just say that E = mc^2. 
> 
> BIG AL said it before I did. :-)

Aw, c'mon Fredrick!  Go easy on me! :-)  I don't argue that in 
general E=mc^2.  But you are just talking about the potential energy, 
-k*q^2/r.  And let's not forget that when we are talking about the 
total energy of the system, we are talking about E = kinetic + 
potential.  The kinetic enegy of an electron at the ground state is 
NOT zero (or else you would get the crazy QM result below, that says 
the radius blows up to infinity).    Thus if I have some particle 
zooming along with some kinetic energy and it happens to bump your 
electron into a higher orbital, and we weigh our systems before and 
after the colision, the mass my particle lost will be equal to the 
mass your system gained!  If I didn't know better, I might be tempted 
to say mass was conserved even though radius wasn't! :-)

> Nothing like a zealous student to rewrite Physics 101.  :-)

It would be my crowning achievement, LOL!

JAY OLSON
> Regards,   Frederick
> 
> 
> 
>  If you want to use relativity, go ahead 
> and use the full energy formula E = sqrt(p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4).  Now if 
> you want your momentum to go to zero, in order to extract the E = 
> mc^2, you gotta take into account the uncertainty principle delta x 
> delta p >= hbar\2.  Put your delta p in as zero and you don't end up 
> with a nice equation relating mass to radius, you end up with 
> INFINITE radius!
> 
> > Then: m = k*q^2/(c^2*r)
> > 
> > Lumping the Constants into K';mass = K'/radius!
> > 
> > According to this, conservation  of mass equals
> > conservation of radius. Thus you can make more mass simply by drilling a
> > smaller hole in the Aether?  :-)
> > 
> > Watch out for that full moon coming up, guys.   :-)
> > 
> > Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 20:27:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28860;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:18:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:18:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000401bd4b11$cfed3b00$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:13:20 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"zI97m3.0.r27.kss0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16412
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Olson <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?


> > Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r
>
> Wait a minute!  Are you talking about a multi-particle,

Nope. By paying close attention to Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science Guy,
Nova, a bit
of Stephen Hawking, and Superstring Theory I
agree with the latter that the fundamental prticles are
one-dimensional-length only strings that make a circle with radius R. :-)

The Capacitance of space eo = 8.84E-12 Farads/M
(a length only constant)and since the Energy contained in a capacitance:
E = 0.5CV^2 = 0.5 q^2*C then C = eo*R which

comes out E = mc^2 = 0.5*q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kq^2/R

Thus; Mass = K'/Radius,   ie., q^2/c^2*4(pi)eo.

Thus a Black Hole or a heavy "quark" or a lepton has a smaller radius or
"wavelength" 2(pi)R as the mass-energy increases. :-) Something to do with
"10-dimensional space folding" or such.  I'll watch BiG Bird in the morning
to get the full story. :-)

Regards,   Frederick


>But you are just talking about the potential energy,
-k*q^2/r.  And let's not forget that when we are talking about the
total energy of the system, we are talking about E = kinetic +
potential.  The kinetic enegy of an electron at the ground state is
NOT zero (or else you would get the crazy QM result below, that says
the radius blows up to infinity).    Thus if I have some particle
zooming along with some kinetic energy and it happens to bump your
electron into a higher orbital, and we weigh our systems before and
after the colision, the mass my particle lost will be equal to the
mass your system gained!  If I didn't know better, I might be tempted
to say mass was conserved even though radius wasn't! :-)

> Nothing like a zealous student to rewrite Physics 101.  :-)

It would be my crowning achievement, LOL!

JAY OLSON
> Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>
>  If you want to use relativity, go ahead
> and use the full energy formula E = sqrt(p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4).  Now if
> you want your momentum to go to zero, in order to extract the E =
> mc^2, you gotta take into account the uncertainty principle delta x
> delta p >= hbar\2.  Put your delta p in as zero and you don't end up
> with a nice equation relating mass to radius, you end up with
> INFINITE radius!
>
> > Then: m = k*q^2/(c^2*r)
> >
> > Lumping the Constants into K';mass = K'/radius!
> >
> > According to this, conservation  of mass equals
> > conservation of radius. Thus you can make more mass simply by drilling a
> > smaller hole in the Aether?  :-)
> >
> > Watch out for that full moon coming up, guys.   :-)
> >
> > Regards,   Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 21:06:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA05670;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:03:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:49:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <000401bd4b11$cfed3b00$418cbfa8 default>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <984C211C3B hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"zKNuH1.0.UO1.fWt0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16413
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> > > Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r
> >
> > Wait a minute!  Are you talking about a multi-particle,
> 
> Nope. By paying close attention to Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science Guy,
> Nova, a bit
> of Stephen Hawking, and Superstring Theory I
> agree with the latter that the fundamental prticles are
> one-dimensional-length only strings that make a circle with radius R. :-)
> 
> The Capacitance of space eo = 8.84E-12 Farads/M
> (a length only constant)and since the Energy contained in a capacitance:
> E = 0.5CV^2 = 0.5 q^2*C then C = eo*R which
> 
> comes out E = mc^2 = 0.5*q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kq^2/R
> 
> Thus; Mass = K'/Radius,   ie., q^2/c^2*4(pi)eo.
> 
> Thus a Black Hole or a heavy "quark" or a lepton has a smaller radius or
> "wavelength" 2(pi)R as the mass-energy increases. :-) Something to do with
> "10-dimensional space folding" or such.  I'll watch BiG Bird in the morning
> to get the full story. :-)
> 
> Regards,   Frederick

Yikes!  I thought you were talking about a hydrogen atom!  When you 
didn't answer my question to that effect on my first post, I thought 
you were essentially answering "yes".  Sorry about the confusion.

JAY OLSON

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 21:36:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA10555;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <001601bd4b1c$372ceae0$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:28:05 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"XTSY_1.0.na2.Kyt0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16414
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Olson <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?


> > > Classically: E = mc^2 = k*q^2/r
> >
> > Wait a minute!  Are you talking about a multi-particle,
>
> Nope. By paying close attention to Sesame Street, Bill Nye the Science
Guy,
> Nova, a bit
> of Stephen Hawking, and Superstring Theory, I
> agree with the latter that the fundamental particles are
> one-dimensional-length only strings that make a circle with radius R. :-)
>
> The Capacitance of space eo = 8.84E-12 Farads/M
> (a length only constant)and since the Energy contained in a capacitance:
> E = 0.5CV^2 = 0.5 q^2*C then C = eo*R which
>
> comes out E = mc^2 = 0.5*q^2/2(pi)R*eo = kq^2/R
>
> Thus; Mass = K'/Radius,   ie., q^2/c^2*4(pi)eo.
>
> Thus a Black Hole or a heavy "quark" or a lepton has a smaller radius or
> "wavelength" 2(pi)R as the mass-energy increases. :-) Something to do with
> "10-dimensional space folding" or such.  I'll watch BiG Bird in the
morning
> to get the full story. :-)
>
> Regards,   Frederick

Yikes!  I thought you were talking about a hydrogen atom!  When you
didn't answer my question to that effect on my first post, I thought
you were essentially answering "yes".  Sorry about the confusion.

Gotcha. However if figure 5A - 2Z  "Quarks" in any nucleus or nucleon:

2A "up" or positive

2A -Z "down" or Negative
 A -Z  neutrinos

And add Z external electrons, Thus 5A - Z "quarks" that can change radius as
they are
absorbed or expelled from the nucleus maintaining constant spin mvr = n*hbar
it tends to put Superstring theory on a solid footing, doesn't it? Radius =
K'/Mass-Energy  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

JAY OLSON



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar  8 23:30:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA24838;
	Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:27:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:27:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:28:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <001601bd4b1c$372ceae0$418cbfa8 default>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <9AF71050BF hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"CWIu03.0.046.Bdv0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16415
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Gotcha. However if figure 5A - 2Z  "Quarks" in any nucleus or nucleon:

You are losing me here.  Why do you want 5A - 2Z quarks in a nucleus? 
 I thought 3A was the accepted model.

> 2A "up" or positive
> 2A -Z "down" or Negative
>  A -Z  neutrinos

How can this give you charge of Z in a nucleus if up quarks have 
charge +2/3, and down quarks have charge -1/3?  Are you postulating 
that up quarks have charge +1 and down quarks have charge -1?

> And add Z external electrons, Thus 5A - Z "quarks" that can change radius as
> they are
> absorbed or expelled from the nucleus maintaining constant spin mvr = n*hbar
> it tends to put Superstring theory on a solid footing, doesn't it? Radius =
> K'/Mass-Energy  :-)

Lost here...  Can you list a good book or maybe a website that would 
explain superstring theory so I could "catch up?"  Also, if we have, 
say, a proton (A=1, Z=1), and we have 5A-2Z (3) quarks to start with, 
but we have 5A - Z (4) that can change radius, where are these 4 
quarks coming from?
 
> Regards,   Frederick
> 
 JAY OLSON

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 03:13:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA16501;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 03:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 03:10:06 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 12:08:15 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3508a491.28881366 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <004301bd49f3$5b657be0$508cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <004301bd49f3$5b657be0$508cbfa8 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: <"4XD833.0.l14.Cuy0r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16416
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:03:04 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

>Here you go,Robin. :-)
>
>There are 5A - Z "units" in any atom (or nucleon):

I thought nucleons was a collective term for protons and neutrons.
With "up" and "down", I presume you are referring to quarks.
In which case, and I believe according to the standard model, there
are 2 ups and a down in a proton, and 2 downs and an up in a neutron.
In which case a whole nucleus can be expressed as 

(A-z)*(2*d+u) + z*(2*u+d).

This can be rewritten as

(A+z)*u + (2A-z)*d


>
So I can see where you get this line:
>2A-Z "down" or Negative Units
>
But I think this line should be A+z "up" ...not 2A.

>2A "up" or Positive Units
>
>A - Z  Neutrinos

Here you seem to be saying that there are as many neutrinos as
neutrons. What is this based on?

>
>    Z  External Electrons
>Total = 5A - Z

So assuming that the "neutrino count" is valid (actually, I believe
that according to the standard model, there aren't any at all),

>
>
Then the total would be:

A + z + 2A - z + (A-z) + z = 4A.

>       5A - Z   "Units"      A - Z Neutrinos
>
>4Be7    35-4      31          7-4   =  3
>
>3Li7    35-3      32          7-3   =  4
>
>1H1      5-1       4          1-1  =   0
>
>1H2     10-1       9          2-1  =   1
>
>0H1*     5-0       5          1-0  =  1
>
>0H2**     10-0       10       2-0  =   2
>
>* Hydrino     **  Deutrino
>
>Conclusion: Just like in the K Electron Capture by 4Be7 to make 3Li7 a
>Neutrino IS Created in
>electron capture by a proton to make a Hydrino or a deuteron captures an
>electron to make a Deutrino.

Now here you first assume (in the table) that z = 0 for a hydrino,
then proceed to proffer this as proof that the electron has been
"captured".
I can't speak for your hydrinos, but Mills' certainly don't look like
this. They look just like ordinary hydrogen atoms (with intact proton
as nucleus), but with the electron "orbiting" at less than the normal
distance from the nucleus. There is initially no nuclear reaction
involved, and certainly no reaction involving the weak force
(conversion of proton to neutron, or vice versa).
Deuterinos (Mills') are just normal deuterons with shrunken electron
orbital (i.e. simply a hydrino that includes a neutron in the
nucleus).

>
>Now the question is; Is The Deutrino just two
>Neutrons that should be unbound by 70 Kev, or
>does attachment to a proton create Tritium,and are these Neutrons Lighter
>and different,than "other" Neutrons?    :-)
>
>Regards,   Frederick
>
Mills does however say that two deuterinos can combine into a molecule
that he calls a dideuterino. This is essentially a "shrunken"
deuterium molecule. If the deuterinos thus bound, were initially
sufficiently shrunken, then the two nuclei will be close enough to
tunnel through the coulomb barrier, and fusion can occur. Though what
he does about conservation of momentum is a mystery to me. Perhaps he
just expects the production of He3 & T as in normal D + D fusion.
(I think there is something about this in his Australian patent as
recently published in IE).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar  9 05:00:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA10547;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 04:47:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 04:47:45 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 04:47:39 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803091247.EAA12365 slave1.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Announcement
Resent-Message-ID: <"zKGbu.0.ja2.mJ-0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16417
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Yo Bubbleheads,

        I just threw up a webpage, and I'm just about ready to float test my
computer.  It's only about a quarter of the way done, but you can get a good
idea of what it will look like.  I actually put it up a few days ago, and
saw so many errors that I only let a few people know about it until most of
the major blunders were fixed.  If you are one of the few that I told about
it, check it out again, and be sure to hit the reload button to get the
latest version.  For the rest of you, you can check it out at:

http://www.aa.net/~knuke/

Have fun, and if you see any more errors, wait a week to tell me.  I'm not
going to fix anything else until I'm in a better mood. -Knuke


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 05:49:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA31144;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 05:43:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 05:43:40 -0800
Message-ID: <006701bd4b60$e728db40$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:39:39 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"BX7YH2.0.Sc7.A8_0r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16418
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Olson <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Conservation of Radius?


> Gotcha. However if figure 5A - 2Z  "Quarks" in any nucleus or nucleon:

You are losing me here.  Why do you want 5A - 2Z quarks in a nucleus?
I thought 3A was the accepted model.

"Accepted" doesn't necessarily mean correct,does it?

I figure that the laws of physics (nature) are not determined by Popular
Vote. :-)

Actually it is my own "Model" that keeps me from wasting time chasing and
coloring-flavoring-baking "Quarks".

> 2A "up" or positive
> 2A -Z "down" or Negative
>  A -Z  neutrinos

How can this give you charge of Z in a nucleus if up quarks have
charge +2/3, and down quarks have charge -1/3?  Are you postulating
that up quarks have charge +1 and down quarks have charge -1?

YES! q = CV = eo*2(pi)R, A CONSTANT. Thus the product of the Capacitance of
Space C and it's Potential V = 1.602E-19 Coulombs. NO ONE has ever seen a
fractionally charged particle to my knowledge.

Also, since E = .5CV^2 and q = CV, is constant.  :-)

The sign +/- q is a matter of "phase" of the spin "hand" of the
one-dimensional-length-only Superstring Circles with radius R.

> And add Z external electrons, Thus 5A - Z "quarks" that can change radius
as
> they are
> absorbed or expelled from the nucleus maintaining constant spin mvr =
n*hbar
> it tends to put Superstring theory on a solid footing, doesn't it? Radius
=
> K'/Mass-Energy  :-)

Lost here...  Can you list a good book or maybe a website that would
explain superstring theory so I could "catch up?"

Most literature is in the perodicals from 1985 up,New Scientist, Scientific
American, Science etc., and other such Heretic Magazines.  :-)

In a "Happy Meal" Box too?   Sorry Jay!

 Also, if we have,
say, a proton (A=1, Z=1), and we have 5A-2Z (3) quarks to start with,
but we have 5A - Z (4) that can change radius, where are these 4
quarks coming from?

Either Heaven, or The Big Bang-Super Collider, Perhaps by way of Pair
production from photons of energy n*1.02E6/Alpha^n', n' = 0,1,2,3..., Alpha
= 0.00729729, works for the pion (274 Me)and many of the particles found in
High Energy Physics.

 Regards,   Frederick
>
JAY OLSON



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 07:34:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA04359;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:26:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:26:22 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:26:07 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: User?  Become a dealer! (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980309072551.23846B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FLHu3.0.t31.Se01r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16419
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Once they get you hooked, they want you to start selling their "Stuff" to
others.  Neodymium magnets I mean, not psychoactive compounds.  See below.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:26:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Zhang Xiaoqing <sales chinamagnet.com>
Subject: Entry to Guestbook

You have a new entry in your guestbook:

------------------------------------------------------
Purchase Magnets from China directly!
We are a manufacture and exporter of various magnets in China,
please visit us http://www.chinamagnet.com.

Agents wanted.

Zhang Xiaoqing <sales chinamagnet.com>
 China - Monday, March 09, 1998 at 06:26:07 (PST)
------------------------------------------------------


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 07:43:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19409;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980309102337.00bb1e90 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 10:23:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Utilizing energy from lightning
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <19980308052940.6542.qmail hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QagD-3.0.9l4.fr01r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16420
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:29 PM 3/7/98 PST, Peter Aldo wrote:
>     I'm planning on constructing a huge capacitor for storing 
>atmospheric energy. The plan is to have model rockets carry a wire into 
>the clouds in order to trigger a lightning discharge. This is a proven 
>method of triggering lightning. I plan to accumulate the energy in a 
>large capacitor after which it will be quickly transformed into a form 
>that will enable longer lasting storage than a capacitor alone could 
>provide. Does anyone know of any limitations there would be to using a 
>capacitor-based system like this?
 
    Have you ever seen a large capacitor explode due to internal arcing?
Realize that unless you have a very very good system for bleeding excess
charge, you will see such an explosion.  If the capacitor is in or near
your house, you will need a new house--if you survive.  If you put your
capacitor bank--more is better--in a steel or concrete hole in the ground
with a loose fitting lid, you can watch--from a distance--as that lid is
hurled several hundred feet into the air.  Got the picture?

    If you want to do this sort of experiment safely, go read up on Ben
Franklin's electical laboratory.  He drew all his power from the space
charge of thunderheads without lightning strikes, just like the famous kite
experiment.  He also used a clever circut, which also rang a bell, so that
there was no direct connection between his lightning rod and the Leyden
jars (capacitors).  If lightning did strike, it went to ground through a
spark gap.

    Notice that rockets are not needed and are actively harmful.  Any well
insulated tower (wood or stone) will do the trick.  Of course, Franklin
first proposed the tower idea, then before it was built, did a proof of
principle with a kite...  Just don't be like all the idiots who tried to
reproduce the experiment and use a conducting kite string.  A million or so
ohms per foot will keep you alive and breathing.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 08:12:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA15757;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:54:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:54:11 -0800
Message-ID: <00ba01bd4b73$217e75e0$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:50:04 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"klm2R2.0.6s3.X211r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16421
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 <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture


>On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:03:04 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>
>>Here you go,Robin. :-)
>>
>>There are 5A - Z "units" in any atom (or nucleon):
>
>I thought nucleons was a collective term for protons and neutrons.
>With "up" and "down", I presume you are referring to quarks.

Actually by this "Model" there are 5A - 2Z "quarks" or whatever in a nucleon
(proton or neutron, or hydrino-deutrino, if they exist).For the atom-isotope
it is 5A - Z total, because of the external electron which does get
"swallowed" by the nucleus in K Capture, Or expelled by the nucleus in Beta
decay.

>In which case, and I believe according to the standard model, there
>are 2 ups and a down in a proton,

Agreed.

 and 2 downs and an up in a neutron.

I Disagree. 2 downs, 2 up plus a neutrino,. How in the Hell can it decay to
a Proton, e-, and a neutrino, otherwise?   :-)

>In which case a whole nucleus can be expressed as
>
>(A-z)*(2*d+u) + z*(2*u+d).
>
>This can be rewritten as
>
>(A+z)*u + (2A-z)*d

Mathturbation?   :-)
>
>
>>
>So I can see where you get this line:
>>2A-Z "down" or Negative Units
>>
>But I think this line should be A+z "up" ...not 2A.
>
>>2A "up" or Positive Units
>>
>>A - Z  Neutrinos

Too Complicated.
>
>Here you seem to be saying that there are as many neutrinos as
>neutrons. What is this based on?

Logic?
>
>>
>>    Z  External Electrons
>>Total = 5A - Z
>
>So assuming that the "neutrino count" is valid (actually, I believe
>that according to the standard model, there aren't any at all),

You won't get a net spin 1/2 neutron without one.
>
>>
>>
>Then the total would be:
>
>A + z + 2A - z + (A-z) + z = 4A.
>
>>       5A - Z   "Units"      A - Z Neutrinos
>>
>>4Be7    35-4      31          7-4   =  3
>>
>>3Li7    35-3      32          7-3   =  4
>>
>>1H1      5-1       4          1-1  =   0
>>
>>1H2     10-1       9          2-1  =   1
>>
>>0H1*     5-0       5          1-0  =  1
>>
>>0H2**     10-0       10       2-0  =   2
>>
>>* Hydrino     **  Deutrino
>>
>>Conclusion: Just like in the K Electron Capture by 4Be7 to make 3Li7 a
>>Neutrino IS Created in
>>electron capture by a proton to make a Hydrino or a deuteron captures an
>>electron to make a Deutrino.
>
>Now here you first assume (in the table) that z = 0 for a hydrino,
>then proceed to proffer this as proof that the electron has been
>"captured".

Mills' argument not mine.
>I can't speak for your hydrinos, but Mills' certainly don't look like
>this. They look just like ordinary hydrogen atoms (with intact proton
>as nucleus), but with the electron "orbiting" at less than the normal
>distance from the nucleus. There is initially no nuclear reaction
>involved, and certainly no reaction involving the weak force
>(conversion of proton to neutron, or vice versa).

Why should Mills' (K Capture) stop at EUV levels? Only partial violation of
Conservation of Energy Law?   :-)
>Deuterinos (Mills') are just normal deuterons with shrunken electron
>orbital (i.e. simply a hydrino that includes a neutron in the
>nucleus).
>
>>
>>Now the question is; Is The Deutrino just two
>>Neutrons that should be unbound by 70 Kev, or
>>does attachment to a proton create Tritium,and are these Neutrons Lighter
>>and different,than "other" Neutrons?    :-)
>>
>>Regards,   Frederick
>>
>Mills does however say that two deuterinos can combine into a molecule
>that he calls a dideuterino. This is essentially a "shrunken"
>deuterium molecule. If the deuterinos thus bound, were initially
>sufficiently shrunken, then the two nuclei will be close enough to
>tunnel through the coulomb barrier, and fusion can occur. Though what
>he does about conservation of momentum is a mystery to me. Perhaps he
>just expects the production of He3 & T as in normal D + D fusion.
>(I think there is something about this in his Australian patent as
>recently published in IE).

Ok. That makes it Valid, doesn't it?

Regards,     Frederick
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>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 Mar  9 08:25:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25673;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:13:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:13:11 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 11:14:20 -0500
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <009401bd492a$4debe040$668cbfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"S4T0a2.0.vG6.HK11r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16422
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:03 AM 3/6/98 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>>   Unlikely,

>What? You would give an off-hand dismissal of Mills' BLP Hydrino-Deutrino
>Theory, in a 3,000K Rocket Flame?

   Not of Mills BLP theory, but that decomposition of deuterium would occur
in an oxygen hydrogen flame.  That system has been pretty well studied.

>1, D2 + Heat <---> D+ + e-  +  D
>
>2, D + D+ (internal pair production from charge interaction VIRTUAL
>PHOTONS) ---->  Hydrino + Neutron + Energy + Electrino +  D+

   Easier to just state it as the neutron in a deuterium hydrino becomes
unbound or very loosely bound.

>How could you possibly dispute this?   :-)

   Easily. ;-)  Seriously, I am very good at paying attention to the real
world.  For example, I started looking for substitues for X in the equation:

   D+ + X- --> Y
   Y + D --> He4 + energy + X-

   Muons we know about, but you don't get He4 since they are leptons and
can't particpate in the second equation.  Pions looked very interesting
(especially since they decay almost exclusively to muons), but there was a
problem...there shouldn't be that much deuterium in the universe if there
was a catalytic reaction, and Jupiter should be a lot brighter than it is.
Turns out that the reaction Pi- + p --> Pi0 + n is energetically favored.
So you burn one deuteron, but the positive pion also gets consumed.  Thats
what got me started on the silver connection.  Even if the probability of
creating a new neutron is less than one, it should be possible to get a
nice neutron economy working.  Since creating betas in the 2 to 4 MeV range
can be done with almost 100% efficiency, it might result in a useful energy
source.

    Now for a tale out of school.  During WWII, there was an explosion in
the Van de Graff generator at the University of Pennsylvania.  Nothing in
the student or Philadelphia papers about it, and the remaining structure
was quickly torn down and grass planted.  The later could just have been an
efficient grounds crew, but what exploded?  My father thinks they were
working with heavy water at the time.

    In any case the real problem with this as an explanation for cold
fusion is that no one has detected significant gammas. You have to
postulate that there is a bose condensate, or something, that absorbs ALL
the gammas.  Not very likely.   There is another model which I hesitate to
propose:  if the crowding of deuterium in the palladium is high enough,
then when a deuterium atom decides to act like two neutrons, d --> n + n -
energy, a different deuterium atom can "take it's place" in the lattice.
The heisenberg godfather has to be paid back, but that is easy, d + n --> t
+ energy.  The difference from the "standard" d + d --> t + p is obvious.
Less energy, and a thermal neutron floating around.  That neutron can be
absorbed by the palladium though, and we are back to the "where are the
gammas?" question.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 09:06:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23061;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:03:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:03:58 -0800
Message-ID: <00e501bd4b7c$dd17e300$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:59:54 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"keCEu2.0.1e5.w321r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16423
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robin,

What I am seeing (and saying) regardless of
whose model is correct, is that the Mills Theory of fractional orbits
implies that
you are increasing the mass of the bound
proton-deuteron-electron system if the electron could fall to fractional
orbits. Relativistic
increase in the electron velocity (slight though it may be)demands it.

On the other hand an LL- (0.5 to 1.5 ev)could come up to 13.6 ev mass-energy
and give off 13.6 ev energy in doing so, without a Conservation of
Mass-Energy Violation.  I think.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 09:24:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29431;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:15:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:15:37 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:10:27 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Question about Coulomb barrier
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803091214_MC2-360D-D14 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"_AU9D3.0.eB7.tE21r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16424
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Greetings, one and all. For an article I am writing, I have some questions
relating to conventional nuclear theory, an area about which I know
practically nothing. If anyone would care to address these issues here or via
private e-mail with a few paragraphs I would appreciate it. I could use an
answer in the next few days, by March 11.

With conventional fusion, hydrogen, deuterium and other light elements undergo
nuclear fusion more easily than heavier elements, like potassium or palladium.
As I understand it, the difference is not that great, corresponding to the
number of extra protons in the heavier elements. In other words, take a proton
and accelerate it to cause fusion by brute force with hydrogen, potassium and
palladium. The difficulty levels are 1, 19 and 46. Banging together two
palladium atoms would be 46 * 46. (Electrostatic force F  = K * Q1 * Q2  /
R^2). This is simplified. There are many practical issues that make fusion
with an actual machine (like a Tokamak) much easier with some light elements
than others, for example Britannica says D-T will go a 10 to 100 times faster.
And, it says:

     Other fusion reactions involving elements with an atomic number (nuclear
     charge) above 2 can be used but with much greater difficulty. This is
     because the Coulomb barrier increases with increasing charge of the
     nuclei, leading to the requirement that the plasma temperature exceed
     1,000,000,000 K.

Question 1: How much hotter is that than a regular tokamak? An extra 1,000
degrees?

When CF was announced back in 1989, many mainstream scientists took it
seriously because there is a precedent for low temperature fusion with muon
catalyzed fusion. Later, when it was suggested that other elements may be
participating in the reaction, particularly the host metal (usually
palladium), or other metals in the electrolyte like potassium in nickel cells,
some of these mainstream physicists were incensed with that idea, rejecting it
categorically. This is the transmutation problem. They could imagine deuteron
or even protium fusion, but they could not imagine why the heavy elements
might be participating by fusion, and sometimes fissioning when this
transmuted into heavier unstable elements.

Okay . . . here is my question. Why? What bothers these people? Looking at the
numbers, I do not see that heavy element fusion is much more unlikely. If you
can do anything to disturb the nucleus with CF, and you can somehow overcome
the Coulomb barrier to fuse deuterons together (or accomplish something like
that, anyway), why is it so much more difficult to imagine that a deuteron
might fuse with atom in the surrounding lattice? Am I missing something? I
suspect these people may be hung up on the mechanical or practical
difficulties of heavy element fusion as it would be done in a Tokamak. The
Britannica talks about high temperatures. I suppose these people imagine it
calls for an extra 1,000 or 100,000 degrees, which would make the engineering
of their machine go from terribly difficult to utterly impossible. Whereas,
whatever causes CF has already achieved something equivalent to a million K,
and perhaps it can just as easily achieve (or simulate the effects of) a
billion or a trillion K. To take one hypothesis, Mizuno thinks CF is caused by
extremely high pressure around defects on the metal surface, in which
recombination overpotential increases. He says that over a tiny area, at 0.5 V
this would cause pressure equivalent to the center of the sun, 10^11 atm. If
you change conditions a little, increasing recombination overpotential up to
0.7 volts, pressure increases to 10^23 atm, roughly equivalent to the center
of a neutron star. It seems to me this is equivalent to turning a knob on a
tokamak to dial up millions, billions, trillions or quadrillions of degrees
Kelvin. If the tokamak builders could do it that easily, they might consider
using other elements as fuel.

Perhaps these people have limited their hypotheses to a list of reactions
involving hydrogen isotopes only, as if the lattice of surrounding metal
consists of "supporting actors" with no lines in the script, bound by Equity
rules from participating in the action.

Finally, if it *is* so much more difficult to fuse heavy elements, or light
deuterium with heavy palladium, would anyone care to quantify the difficulty?
How many orders of magnitude more difficult?

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 10:45:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10503;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <012001bd4b85$4c0b8980$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re; Burning  Deuterium
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:00:17 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"HJ49N.0.-Z2.iz21r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16425
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>Now for a tale out of school.
>During WWII, there was an explosion in the Van >de Graff genenerator at the
University of >Pennsylvania.

I'm of the bent that most of the electrostatic charges developed in the Van
de Graaff and other friction machines are Light Leptons.  :-)

These can release 13.6 ev UV energy when absorbed by protons or deuterons.
Enough to make an explosion,No?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 11:09:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24453;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:49:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:49:45 -0800
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03020900b129cb43c019 [128.183.200.195]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980304211121.008b2ca0 mail.eden.com>
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:49:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"jclbM.0.-z5.6d31r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16426
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 There are still some people here who are having a problem accepting that
the Lorentz force is valid for a free particle.  Perhaps the most
convincing evidence comes from measuring the trajectory of a charged
particle in a constant magnetic field.  The result is always a circle with
the radius of the circular motion equal to the value predicted by the
Lorentz force and Newton's equations.
  There was one comment to the effect that under the Lorentz force a moving
charged particle could not move into a region of constant magnetic field
and undergo circular motion and that therefore one needed a magnetic force
in the direction of the velocity to get the charged particle into the
constant magnetic field.  It is true that the Lorentz force would not allow
a charged particle to enter a region of constant magnetic field and undergo
circular motion.  Therefore the charged particle must be generated in the
interior of the constant magnetic field.  This is the way it is always
done.  Never is the longitudinal force used to move the charged particle
in.  This does not work as the longitudinal force on a free particle is non
existent.
  The charged particle is generated by ionization from a photon or another
charged particle with enough energy to get in, or it is formed from a
radioactive decay.  A good reference is:

Has the Lorentz-covariant electromagnetic force law been directly tested
experimentally?, Young-Sea Huang, Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 6,
No. 3, 1990, page 257-273.

Here we have a paper by a member of the school of thought that wants to
prove the Lorentz force is wrong.  He even acknowledges T.E. Phipps for
encouragement in the end of the paper.  So what is the evidence?  He looks
at previous experiments in which muons are formed in a constant magnetic
field.  For velocities of about .999 c the error in the period of the
circular motion is about 0.7 % .  The premise of the paper is that the
Lorentz force is valid for low velocities but at higher velocities there is
some error.  So we get up to .999 c and the error is 0.7 %.  Taking the
Phipps force, on the other hand, gives an error of 50% for even the lowest
order in v/c .  So on the basis of this experimental evidence what is the
valid force?
  There can be no doubt that the proper starting point to the analysis of
electromagnetic forces in a solid should be the Lorentz force.  Any
anomalous effects should be due to the transfer of the Lorentz force to the
solid.  There is one fairly well known example of this phenomena in the
Trouton-Nobel experiment.  There a parallel plate charged capacitor is hung
from a thin strand.  The motion of this device through space should cause a
magnetic torque to be generated which in turn should cause a rotation.
However this rotation does not occur.  The explanation is in the transfer
of the magnetic torque to the solid structure of the capacitor.

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 Mar  9 14:16:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24389;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:10:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:10:19 -0800
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03020901b12a0e2d7879 [128.183.200.195]>
In-Reply-To: <199803091214_MC2-360D-D14 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:03:24 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Resent-Message-ID: <"HYVRT1.0.qy5.8Z61r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16427
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Responding to Jed's question,

>Okay . . . here is my question. Why? What bothers these people? Looking at the
>numbers, I do not see that heavy element fusion is much more unlikely. If you
>can do anything to disturb the nucleus with CF, and you can somehow overcome
>the Coulomb barrier to fuse deuterons together (or accomplish something like
>that, anyway), why is it so much more difficult to imagine that a deuteron
>might fuse with atom in the surrounding lattice? Am I missing something? I
>suspect these people may be hung up on the mechanical or practical
>difficulties of heavy element fusion as it would be done in a Tokamak.

Heavy element fusion is thought to be impossible because the heat from the
fusion is radiated away faster than it is produced.  The radiation is from
electron Bremsstrahlung and is proportional to the product of the ion
density times the electron density times the square of the atomic number Z.
The fusion power produced has the same density dependence but no Z
dependence.  Then the ratio of powers is

 Power radiated/fusion power -> (Z*Z)

For higher Z elements the power radiates faster than it is produced and the
plasma cools off before significant fusion energy can be produced.  It is
not pratical to solve this problem by increasing the density as the power
radiated would then be given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and, for example,
a 50 kev plasma would radiate 3.5 * 10^19 watts per cc of area.  That is
too large to be pratical except for the case of a tiny pellet used in laser
fusion.  It is sometimes thought that this problem could be solved by
enclosing the plasma with a good reflector.  However, the radiation is
X-rays and there is no good reflector of X-rays.
  So indeed the bias against high Z fusion is from the Tokamak experience.
In cold fusion the electrons are cold with very little Bremsstrahlung and
there is no problem with high Z fusion.  Cold fusion could work with high Z
elements if the radiation power were the only problem.  It is other
problems that prevent cf from working.

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 Mar  9 14:32:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA30536;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:25:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:25:08 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980309162637.00b03ff0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 16:26:37 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: mystery photo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"uz0nd2.0.pS7.1n61r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16428
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts,

For grins, I have posted another mystery photo (25 kb) created with my new
Mustek scanner.  The photo shows an area about 3/4" wide.  Can you guess
what it is?

http://www.eden.com/~little/what2.jpg

Scott


P.S. Hint/warning:  you will be dating yourself if you know what it is...<g>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 14:44:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA26493;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35046DCC.33884017 ipass.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 17:31:41 -0500
From: "Warren A. Huyck" <whuyck ipass.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: mystery photo
References: <3.0.1.32.19980309162637.00b03ff0 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"F6jvM.0.rT6.Uy61r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16429
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Scott Little wrote:

> Gnorts,
>
> For grins, I have posted another mystery photo (25 kb) created with my new
> Mustek scanner.  The photo shows an area about 3/4" wide.  Can you guess
> what it is?
>
> http://www.eden.com/~little/what2.jpg
>
> Scott
>
> P.S. Hint/warning:  you will be dating yourself if you know what it is...<g>

  SYS/360 memory cores.

Cheers,

   Warren A. Huyck

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 14:56:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04950;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:42:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:42:36 -0800
Message-ID: <35046ECF.1E5F skylink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:35:59 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hQYDn1.0._C1.N171r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16430
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Larry. It's good this hasn't been beat to death yet.
Maybe we can even get on to part 2 sometime soon.
BTW, what is part 2? 

You wrote:
> It is true that the Lorentz force would not allow
> a charged particle to enter a region of constant magnetic field and undergo
> circular motion.  Therefore the charged particle must be generated in the
> interior of the constant magnetic field.  This is the way it is always
> done.  Never is the longitudinal force used to move the charged particle
> in.  

The manufacturers of devices such as electron guns, tubes, and CRTs will
be very surprised to learn of the above. Most commonly, electrons are
generated by heating a filament and accelerated by an electric field
into a magnetic field. Generally this is for purposes of deflection
or focusing of an electron beam -- rather than trying to capture 
electrons in circular motion. Accelerators are an application for
circular motion, and the above comments are probably correct for
accelerators. I am not aware of any practical devices which try
to capture entering electrons in circular motion. There may be some 
microwave devices which do this. 

In any case, the thing is, the Lorentz force PREDICTS that an electron
entering a magnetic field with a velocity perpendicular to the field 
will be caught up in circular motion. You can find this prediction in
just about any Electromagnetics 101 text book. You can not account for
the average loss of incoming linear momentum without the existence of
some kind of longitudinal force with a resuling momentum transfer to 
the apparatus which generates the magnetic field. 

> There are still some people here who are having a problem accepting that
> the Lorentz force is valid for a free particle.  

Indeed so. I am one of these people. The problem is not in accepting
the actions of the Lorentz force, but accepting that the Lorentz force 
acts alone.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 15:00:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10159;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:54:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:54:52 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:50:31 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Question about Coulomb barrier
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803091753_MC2-361A-610 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"AEGhs.0.JU2.vC71r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16431
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Larry Wharton writes:

     Heavy element fusion is thought to be impossible because the heat from
     the fusion is radiated away faster than it is produced.  The radiation
     is from electron Bremsstrahlung and is proportional to the product of
     the ion density times the electron density times the square of the
     atomic number Z . . .

In other words, temperature is indeed the main restriction to heavy element
fusion in a tokamak, as I suspected from reading the Enc. Britannica. I am
sure it is a large restriction! The Mizuno hypothesis substitutes extreme
pressure for heat (one Lawson criterion for another).


     Cold fusion could work with high Z elements if the radiation power were
     the only problem. It is other problems that prevent cf from working.

Actually, nothing appears to keep it from working! But there certainly isn't
much radiation loss.

 - Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 15:02:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00523;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD671 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: mystery photo
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:55:16 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"kS4W_.0.18.JF71r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16432
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott
	Love that sense line snaking through all the cores.
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Scott Little[SMTP:little eden.com]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 09, 1998 2:26 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	mystery photo
> 
> Gnorts,
> 
> For grins, I have posted another mystery photo (25 kb) created with my
> new
> Mustek scanner.  The photo shows an area about 3/4" wide.  Can you
> guess
> what it is?
> 
> http://www.eden.com/~little/what2.jpg
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> P.S. Hint/warning:  you will be dating yourself if you know what it
> is...<g>
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 15:06:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00918;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD672 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:56:41 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zvfce2.0.BE.uG71r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16433
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert
	You have just reinvented the magnetron.
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Robert Stirniman[SMTP:robert skylink.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 09, 1998 2:35 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
> 
> Hi Larry. It's good this hasn't been beat to death yet.
> Maybe we can even get on to part 2 sometime soon.
> BTW, what is part 2? 
> 
> You wrote:
> > It is true that the Lorentz force would not allow
> > a charged particle to enter a region of constant magnetic field and
> undergo
> > circular motion.  Therefore the charged particle must be generated
> in the
> > interior of the constant magnetic field.  This is the way it is
> always
> > done.  Never is the longitudinal force used to move the charged
> particle
> > in.  
> 
> The manufacturers of devices such as electron guns, tubes, and CRTs
> will
> be very surprised to learn of the above. Most commonly, electrons are
> generated by heating a filament and accelerated by an electric field
> into a magnetic field. Generally this is for purposes of deflection
> or focusing of an electron beam -- rather than trying to capture 
> electrons in circular motion. Accelerators are an application for
> circular motion, and the above comments are probably correct for
> accelerators. I am not aware of any practical devices which try
> to capture entering electrons in circular motion. There may be some 
> microwave devices which do this. 
> 
> In any case, the thing is, the Lorentz force PREDICTS that an electron
> entering a magnetic field with a velocity perpendicular to the field 
> will be caught up in circular motion. You can find this prediction in
> just about any Electromagnetics 101 text book. You can not account for
> the average loss of incoming linear momentum without the existence of
> some kind of longitudinal force with a resuling momentum transfer to 
> the apparatus which generates the magnetic field. 
> 
> > There are still some people here who are having a problem accepting
> that
> > the Lorentz force is valid for a free particle.  
> 
> Indeed so. I am one of these people. The problem is not in accepting
> the actions of the Lorentz force, but accepting that the Lorentz force
> 
> acts alone.
> 
> Regards,
> Robert Stirniman
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 16:08:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA27801;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:54:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:54:24 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980309175015.015bd96c mail.airmail.net>
X-Sender: danyork mail.airmail.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 17:50:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Dan York <danyork iadfw.net>
Subject: Re: mystery photo
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980309162637.00b03ff0 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6zPx33.0.9o6.j481r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16434
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:26 PM 3/9/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Gnorts,
>
>For grins, I have posted another mystery photo (25 kb) created with my new
>Mustek scanner.  The photo shows an area about 3/4" wide.  Can you guess
>what it is?
>
>http://www.eden.com/~little/what2.jpg
>
>Scott
>
>
>P.S. Hint/warning:  you will be dating yourself if you know what it is...<g>

Very old style core ram. 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 17:02:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10562;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:51:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:51:45 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:51:19 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980310115101.20991A-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"isrRL1.0.va2.Ww81r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16436
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Hi Jed,
	You've heard the objections to lattice transmutations many times.

In a nutshell there are two main problems.

1. Coulomb Barrier.

2. Undetected Excess radioactivity.

For (1) as you've stated, the coulomb barrier is orders of magnitude worse.
Although the height of the coulomb barrier grows as only Z1*Z2, (the 
product of the two charges), the Barrier Penetration probability 
decreases as the Exponentional of the negative Z1*Z2.

This is because the protons or deuterons must Quantum Mechanically "tunnel"
through a classically forbidden region. ie In Newtonian Physics, d-d fusion
inside stars or tokamaks could not occur at all because the deuterons 
do not have enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion. ie It violates
onsveration of energy for a brief period of time while the proton passes
through the coulomb barrier.

Quantum Mechanics via the uncertainty principle allows brief violations 
of conservation of energy. This is called Quantum Mechanical 
tunnelling. However the probability that tunnelling occurs decreases 
expontially for the length of time or the distance the particle has to 
tunnel. This phenomen of QM tunnelling is extremely interesting and in
some respects well verified. It clearly happens in nature and is thought
to be the ultimate limiter of device sizes in semiconductors. 

So while the d-Pd Coulmob Barrier is "only" 46 times higher than the
D-D barrier, the probability for barrier penetration is well over 10^-20
times smaller. So a trillion-trillion times smaller.

 
(2) The well known dead-graduate student problem. In a fundamentally nuclear
problem, full of discrete energy levels, how can there be no radiation on 
a level 10^15 times smaller than the rate at which reactions occur.

Further-more there are vastly more radioactive nuclei than stable. Why do
reaction pathways never make radioactive nuclei in lattice transmutations?

If you count the number of neutrons in a starting nuclei (like palladium)
and the number in a daughter nucleus like Oxygen the numbers don't match.
Where do they go? They're detectable at a rate of 1/sec, to make the heat
in CF reaction they're generated at 10^12 per sec.

Regarding the intial "acceptance" of CF, I guess it was more that people
took F&P at their word and reputation. Maybe there is some new collective 
effect happening to make D-D fusion in lattices. After the many more 
negative than positive findings the mainstream rejected CF as being at 
vast variance with well known physics and much more likely to be 
explained as poor experimental technique.

Does this help?

Cheers

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 17:14:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19350;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:49:47 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
In-Reply-To: <199803091214_MC2-360D-D14 compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980310101151.12298B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"GZunS1.0.Fk4.Pw81r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16435
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Jed,
	You've heard the objections to lattice transmutations many times.

In a nutshell there are two main problems.

1. Coulomb Barrier.

2. Undetected Excess radioactivity.

For (1) as you've stated, the coulomb barrier is orders of magnitude worse.
Although the height of the coulomb barrier grows as only Z1*Z2, (the 
product of the two charges), the Barrier Penetration probability 
decreases as the Exponentional of the negative Z1*Z2.

This is because the protons or deuterons must Quantum Mechanically "tunnel"
through a classically forbidden region. ie In Newtonian Physics, d-d fusion
inside stars or tokamaks could not occur at all because the deuterons 
do not have enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion. ie It violates
onsveration of energy for a brief period of time while the proton passes
through the coulomb barrier.

Quantum Mechanics via the uncertainty principle allows brief violations 
of conservation of energy. This is called Quantum Mechanical 
tunnelling. However the probability that tunnelling occurs decreases 
expontially for the length of time or the distance the particle has to 
tunnel. This phenomen of QM tunnelling is extremely interesting and in
some respects well verified. It clearly happens in nature and is thought
to be the ultimate limiter of device sizes in semiconductors. 

So while the d-Pd Coulmob Barrier is "only" 46 times higher than the
D-D barrier, the probability for barrier penetration is well over 10^-20
times smaller. So a trillion-trillion times smaller.

 
(2) The well known dead-graduate student problem. In a fundamentally nuclear
problem, full of discrete energy levels, how can there be no radiation on 
a level 10^15 times smaller than the rate at which reactions occur.

Further-more there are vastly more radioactive nuclei than stable. Why do
reaction pathways never make radioactive nuclei in lattice transmutations?

If you count the number of neutrons in a starting nuclei (like palladium)
and the number in a daughter nucleus like Oxygen the numbers don't match.
Where do they go? They're detectable at a rate of 1/sec, to make the heat
in CF reaction they're generated at 10^12 per sec.

Regarding the intial "acceptance" of CF, I guess it was more that people
took F&P at their word and reputation. Maybe there is some new collective 
effect happening to make D-D fusion in lattices. After the many more 
negative than positive findings the mainstream rejected CF as being at 
vast variance with well known physics and much more likely to be 
explained as poor experimental technique.

Does this help?

Cheers

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 17:22:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22275;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:08:58 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:08:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003101bd4bc0$540a3100$6a8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Robin van Spaandonk" <rvspaa eisa.net.au>
Cc: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: BLP O/U BLIP?
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:02:41 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"iAP-Q1.0.vR5.ZA91r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16437
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I'm pondering an approach, Robin.

The Bohr radius R of a hydrogen atom can be derived by: R = kq/(Ee*Alpha^2)=
1.44E-9/ev, where the energy (relativistic or otherwise) determines the
orbit radius.

>From this, a Light Lepton (LL-) with a rest mass-energy of 1.5 ev or less
can be traveling very close to c and the orbit will be:
1.44E-9/relativistic mass-energy.

For instance, 1.44E-9/27.2 = 5.29E-11 meters, the Bohr radius. Half of this
is the 13.6 ev
emitted when the electron falls to the ground state radius.

An LL- can get to a stable radius of 3.86E-13 meters (3727 ev) by giving up
half of this energy (1863.5 ev). That's EUV to soft x-ray energy.
Does this look right to you?

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 18:00:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25516;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:49:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:49:59 -0800
Message-ID: <35049C56.5571 interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 20:50:14 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"uLG_G2.0.WE6.6n91r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16438
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 
 You can not account for
> the average loss of incoming linear momentum without the existence of
> some kind of longitudinal force with a resuling momentum transfer to
> the apparatus which generates the magnetic field.
> 

Robert, I don't see what the mystery is here.  If the electron enters
the magnetic field, after moving through 90 degrees of a circular arc,
it will have zero velocity component in its original direction.  This
transfer of linear momentum to the magnet happens over the 90 degree
arc.  As soon as the electron begins its deflection, the Lorentz force
will have a small component in the direction of original motion - thus
a momentum transfer in the "right" direction.  At the end of the 90
degree arc, ALL OF THE LORENTZ force will be in the original direction.
I have not integrated this Lorentz component around the 90 degree arc,
but, if you did, I'll bet it will just do the required momentum
transfer.  Thereafter, as the electron orbits the circle, it will
transfer a simple harmonic oscillation force-momentum transfer to the
magnet as though it were an unbalanced rotor.  If you let the electron
impact the magnet after the 90 degree arc, you will find the magnet
has acquired all the linear momentum of the electron - just as it
should, with no force acting on it other than the normal Lorentz force.
Integrate the "other" component of the Lorentz force and I think we will
find that it will just cancel the impact momentum on the target which
happens at 90 degrees from original direction.
(I'm not going to worry about how we keep the electron from exiting the
field after 180 degrees - but, if it did, we would have twice as much
momentum transferred to the magnet - assuming negligible motion imparted
to the magnet)
If you make me do the integration, I'll be real mad - so there!
If I'm wrong, so what else is new?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 19:31:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA22953;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:19:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:19:09 -0800
Message-ID: <006301bd4bd2$caff8280$6a8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:14:58 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"z06nb3.0.Mc5.g4B1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16440
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Jed,
Don't let Martin intimidate you with the "quantum mechanical tunneling" of
the coulomb
barrier.

The repulsive force F = Z1*Z2*kq^2/R^2 goes to zero if Z1 or Z2 goes to
zero.  :-)

The likelihood of this happening because of mathematical probability only is
about as likely as a frog leaping out of Grand Canyon!

I and a good friend of a decade or so, Dr. Ron Brodzinski at PNL, have
looked at a "Quasi-Neutron" state for a Proton or Deuteron which can drop
that barrier to zero comparable to the Proton-electron-Proton (PeP)reaction.

At the moment it looks like the Hydrino-Deutrino Theory, whether Mills'
sub-fractional electron orbit or the Light Lepton approach,either is a good
candidate for explaining "quantum mechanical tunneling"
short of brute force barrier tunneling such as 5 Mev alpha particles (Z=2)
transmuting Aluminum (Z=13) into radiophosphorus etc.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 19:36:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14621;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980309220832.00bdb880 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 22:08:32 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
In-Reply-To: <199803091214_MC2-360D-D14 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"GcHdh1.0.Na3.swA1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16439
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:10 PM 3/9/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>With conventional fusion, hydrogen, deuterium and other light elements
undergo
>nuclear fusion more easily than heavier elements, like potassium or
palladium.
>As I understand it, the difference is not that great, corresponding to the
>number of extra protons in the heavier elements. In other words, take a
proton
>and accelerate it to cause fusion by brute force with hydrogen, potassium and
>palladium. The difficulty levels are 1, 19 and 46. Banging together two
>palladium atoms would be 46 * 46. (Electrostatic force F  = K * Q1 * Q2  /
>R^2). This is simplified. There are many practical issues that make fusion
>with an actual machine (like a Tokamak) much easier with some light elements
>than others, for example Britannica says D-T will go a 10 to 100 times
faster.
>And, it says:
>
>     Other fusion reactions involving elements with an atomic number (nuclear
>     charge) above 2 can be used but with much greater difficulty. This is
>     because the Coulomb barrier increases with increasing charge of the
>     nuclei, leading to the requirement that the plasma temperature exceed
>     1,000,000,000 K.
>
>Question 1: How much hotter is that than a regular tokamak? An extra 1,000
>degrees?

    An extra 1000 degrees wouldn't even be noticed.  For D-T fusion you
need to get to about 10 keV while D-D fusion takes closer to 100 keV.  (Of
course, this all depends on the other Lawson parameters, but that gives you
a grasp.)  Its been a while since I had to do the conversion is  1 eV
11,000 degrees K?  Whatever, the numbers get pretty big.

>When CF was announced back in 1989, many mainstream scientists took it
>seriously because there is a precedent for low temperature fusion with muon
>catalyzed fusion. Later, when it was suggested that other elements may be
>participating in the reaction, particularly the host metal (usually
>palladium), or other metals in the electrolyte like potassium in nickel
cells,
>some of these mainstream physicists were incensed with that idea,
rejecting it
>categorically. This is the transmutation problem. They could imagine deuteron
>or even protium fusion, but they could not imagine why the heavy elements
>might be participating by fusion, and sometimes fissioning when this
>transmuted into heavier unstable elements.

     Their problem not mine. Pure fusion, banging two nucleii together and
having them stick, is something that just doesn't happen.  Period.  What
really goes on is that you have, almost always, two nucleii or particles
in, and two out.  Anything else is too low probability, with one exception
I'll get to later.  (Well there is also the PeP reaction where two protons
and an electron combine to make deuterium.  But that is so slow that stars
burn for billions of years.  It is only important since there is so much
hydrogen.)

    So you have two baryons in and two out.  The other constraint is that
for nuclear reactions you almost always need a strong force interaction.
So nucleii, bosons and mesons are the creatures you can work with.  The
"interesting" hot fusion reactions include:

      d + t --> He4 + n + 17 MeV
      d + d --> He3 + n + 3.8 MeV
      d + d --> t + p + 4.2 MeV 

 (Don't quote me on the numbers, they are from memory.)

     Of course, you are also going to have:

     t + t --> He4 + 2 n + energy

  For (very much) hotter burning plasmas you can also do:

     p + B11 --> 3 He4

  or 
     p + Li7 --> 2 He4

  these reactions are of interest because there are no neutrons released.

  So now what is the exception I mentioned above?  It is called radiative
capture:

     n + Zn --> Zn+1 + radiation

  This is the only true fusion reaction you are ever likely to see.  (It
can be followed by Zn --> Xn + e-, beta decay, which produces an atomic
species higher up the Periodic Chart.)  Now look at those first reactions
again.  See all those neutrons on the right?  Radiative capture releases
about 10 MeV per neutron, which is more than is released by D-D fusion.  So
much of the energy from any tokamak would come from radiative capture of
neutrons.  You will hear a lot about creating the tritium for a D-T reactor
from Lithium by:

     Li6 + n --> He4 + t

  But Li6 is expensive (about 7 per cent of ordinary Lithium) and the
lithium blanket is going to get hot--most plans call for keeping the
lithium as a liquid.

      So, almost the only true fusion is radiative capture, and there is no
coulomb barrier in radiative capture.  Multiply the charge on the neutron,
which is zero, by...never mind.

>Okay . . . here is my question. Why? What bothers these people? Looking at
the
>numbers, I do not see that heavy element fusion is much more unlikely. If you
>can do anything to disturb the nucleus with CF, and you can somehow overcome
>the Coulomb barrier to fuse deuterons together (or accomplish something like
>that, anyway), why is it so much more difficult to imagine that a deuteron
>might fuse with atom in the surrounding lattice? Am I missing something? I
>suspect these people may be hung up on the mechanical or practical
>difficulties of heavy element fusion as it would be done in a Tokamak.

      Boy do they have hangups.  Start to talk to almost any hot fusion
"scientist" about the amount of energy released in radiative capture of the
neutron flux, and most will walk away.  They don't want to think about it.
Those who have tried to do real engineering on the other hand KNOW that
most of the energy flux from the plasma will be carried by neutrons, and
they will create more energy wherever they land.  There is almost no point
to drawing energy from the plasma, 70 to 90% of the energy will wind up in
the "first wall" carried by the neutrons or created by their capture.  (And
most of the rest will be absorbed by the first wall as electromagnetic
radiation.)

>Finally, if it *is* so much more difficult to fuse heavy elements, or light
>deuterium with heavy palladium, would anyone care to quantify the difficulty?
>How many orders of magnitude more difficult?

     Mindset only... You have seen me talking about it here.   Deuterium is
fragile.  Break it apart for about 2 MeV invested, and fusion will pay back
about ten MeV for the neutron if you have a suitable target.  (Or you can
use uranium or plutoium, or even thorium as a target and get back around
200 MeV.) And of course you can take out a loan at the Heisenberg Bank and
Trust, so the problem is not to get deuterium to fuse with palladium or
whatever, it is to keep it from stripping and fusing with anything in sight.

     That is actually an exaggeration, some nucleii have high radiative
capture cross-sections--tens of barns, others are down in the microbarn
area.  For example, He4 and O16 are almost immune to neutron capture.
Ordinary hydrogen, of course, has a fairly high cross-section, which is why
parafin blocks (or water) are the normal way to shield neutron emitters.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 19:44:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA21037;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:35:09 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
In-Reply-To: <006301bd4bd2$caff8280$6a8cbfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980310143202.20181B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZRuDV1.0.a85.OLB1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16441
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

> 
> The likelihood of this happening because of mathematical probability only is
> about as likely as a frog leaping out of Grand Canyon!
> 

Hey Great quote! Standard QM tunnelling of thermal protons into Pd is MUCH
less likely though. 

As you say, you need substantial new Physics to make it happen.

Cheers

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 20:15:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27314;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:02:22 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: The biochemistry .. VS .. non biochemistry  An Urine Battery
In-Reply-To: <8eff51a1.35018c13 aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980309183200.5590C-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"gk5Y71.0.ig6.hqB1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16443
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	An examination of biochemistry will tell you that there is not a 
great deal of ATP, AMP or cAMP in urine.  It is a great idea.... but it 
is a better idea to have a background in more than one area of science.

	Whenever I see such a description I examine it, and I teach 
myself, or research the key points.   The oxygen contribution of the 
adenosine nucleotides and nucleosides to the electrochemical reaction, in 
this case, are small becasue the amount is small.  If the amount were 
large it would be not very efficient.

					JHS


On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, JNaudin509 wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> You will find all informations about the URINE BATTERY from Nelson Camus at:
> 
> http://members.aol.com/overunity2/nelson/urbat.htm
> 
> These documents has been demonstrated by Nelson Camus during the latest
> Conference on freeNRG technologies in Zuerich ( Dec 6, 1997).
> 
> Ps: This is not a joke.....  :-)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jean-Louis Naudin
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 20:19:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09335;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:16:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:16:19 -0800
Sender: barry math.ucla.edu
Message-ID: <3504BE8C.2111 math.ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 20:16:12 -0800
From: Barry Merriman <barry math.ucla.edu>
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: Announcement
References: <199803091247.EAA12365 slave1.aa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kt_Ps1.0.iH2.HwB1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16444
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael T Huffman wrote:
> 
> Yo Bubbleheads,
> 
>         I just threw up a webpage

What ever happened to your claim that you could
make overunity devices a 'la Griggs for ~ $150 each.
Never heard much about that since the initial claims.
I take it that means you found the devices are not
"over unity"?


-- 
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 Mar  9 20:23:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06608;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:07:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:07:54 -0800
Message-ID: <007201bd4bd9$9e9fc860$6a8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:03:47 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ief_6.0._c1.KoB1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16442
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: Frederick J. Sparber <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier


>
>
>On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>
>>
>> The likelihood of this happening because of mathematical probability only
is
>> about as likely as a frog leaping out of Grand Canyon!
>>
>
>Hey Great quote! Standard QM tunneling of thermal protons into Pd is MUCH
>less likely though.
>
>As you say, you need substantial new Physics to make it happen.

Hi Martin, I figured the Full Moon due on Friday the 13th would bring you
out.  :-)

An exercise that Mother Nature can do to bring
the potential Nature provides to get that frog out of the Colorado river and
the mile up to the edge of Grand Canyon:

Drop a large flat boulder (earthquake or tourist) and a smaller rock off the
ledge.
Large rock hits water a fraction of a second before small rock. Mr. Frog
jumps on small rock at instant of rebound and collision of large rock with
small rock. Small rock and amphibian passenger pass top ledge moments later,
frog makes leap of a few meters on the way back down, (optional).

This is a NO NEW PHYSICS analogy of "QM Tunneling".

If you want to see "Bessie The Heifer" jump over the Moon in a similar
improbable event, you work out the details, by Friday.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick


>
>Cheers
>
>Martin
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 20:39:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01978;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:26:44 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
In-Reply-To: <007201bd4bd9$9e9fc860$6a8cbfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980310152516.20181E-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"E9L1F.0.jU.66C1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16445
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> 
> Drop a large flat boulder (earthquake or tourist) and a smaller rock off the
> ledge.
> Large rock hits water a fraction of a second before small rock. Mr. Frog
> jumps on small rock at instant of rebound and collision of large rock with
> small rock. Small rock and amphibian passenger pass top ledge moments later,
> frog makes leap of a few meters on the way back down, (optional).
> 
 Cute! The trick is to make it happen 10^12 times per second :-)!

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 20:51:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16980;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:44:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:44:04 -0800
Message-ID: <00b001bd4bde$a7548900$6a8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:39:56 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"LK-Hg3.0.494.GKC1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16447
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: Frederick J. Sparber <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier


>>
>> Drop a large flat boulder (earthquake or tourist) and a smaller rock off
the
>> ledge.
>> Large rock hits water a fraction of a second before small rock. Mr. Frog
>> jumps on small rock at instant of rebound and collision of large rock
with
>> small rock. Small rock and amphibian passenger pass top ledge moments
later,
>> frog makes leap of a few meters on the way back down, (optional).
>>
> Cute! The trick is to make it happen 10^12 times per second :-)!

Got a Tokamak handy, or maybe 3 amps or so of protons-deuterons into a Pd
cathode?  :-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
>Martin
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 20:53:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05010;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:44:33 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:40:18 GMT
Message-ID: <3508be30.24639359 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <v03020901b12a0e2d7879 [128.183.200.195]>
In-Reply-To: <v03020901b12a0e2d7879 [128.183.200.195]>
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: <"LBt6z1.0.AE1.gKC1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16446
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>Heavy element fusion is thought to be impossible because the heat from the
>fusion is radiated away faster than it is produced.  The radiation is from
>electron Bremsstrahlung and is proportional to the product of the ion
>density times the electron density times the square of the atomic number Z.
>The fusion power produced has the same density dependence but no Z
>dependence.  Then the ratio of powers is
>   Power radiated/fusion power -> (Z*Z)

While not disputing what you say I wonder whether this is really
relevant.  Maybe there are other things going on...

1. What if the most important thing is oscillations?  This is suggested
by experiments in sonofusion etc. but it may be happening in other
experiments by accident.

2. In that case isn't it possible that the excess heat is absorbed by
the very rapid expansion phase of oscillations?

3. Is it also further possible that the heating contributes to
maintaining the oscillation?

It seems to me that unless all assumtions are tested then we will
continue to see experimental results as impossible.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 20:55:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20291;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:51:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:51:29 -0800
Message-ID: <3504C6DC.D4D0C162 ro.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 22:51:40 -0600
From: "Patrick V. Reavis" <preavis ro.com>
Organization: NASA Volunteer
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <199803082331.JAA29272 nornet.nor.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_a-G42.0.ly4.DRC1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16448
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Time is what keeps everything from happening at once...
;^}


Patrick V. Reavis
Student at Large
       /\
      /  \
     / G  \
    ~~~~~~~~
    DELTA-G


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 21:04:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA22439;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:57:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:57:59 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980310040832.006f59c4 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:08:32 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Wall, Blue, Miles, Rothwell, Spaandonk, Little: scientific
  distortions
Cc: To: world.std.com
In-Reply-To: <34F6F61E.7D86 earthlink.net>
References: <34AA67B2.3230 earthlink.net>
 <34AC64F1.20B9 earthlink.net>
 <34AC6C86.6EA6 earthlink.net>
 <34AEFCFB.39E1 earthlink.net>
 <34B0F513.24A8 earthlink.net>
 <34B1C4B2.72F0 earthlink.net>
 <34B5A2F4.6506 earthlink.net>
 <34B65404.6276 earthlink.net>
 <34BC2AB6.77F7 earthlink.net>
 <34BC36BC.CB5 earthlink.net>
 <34BCDCAF.A1B earthlink.net>
 <34BD9AC3.31D4 earthlink.net>
 <34BEAB94.73FC earthlink.net>
 <34C04660.47AF earthlink.net>
 <34C04DA2.16AC earthlink.net>
 <34C439DD.75C8 earthlink.net>
 <34C578C0.1C32 earthlink.net>
 <34C6779A.369C earthlink.net>
 <34C7EAEC.AC6 earthlink.net>
 <34C822AB.5B9B earthlink.net>
 <34C8B094.6977 earthlink.net>
 <34CD670D.1E0C earthlink.net>
 <34CDFF1B.34D4 earthlink.net>
 <34CF224E.1014 earthlink.net>
 <34D01AC2.216A earthlink.net>
 <34D3163E.3C13 earthlink.net>
 <34D400B8.260 earthlink.net>
 <34D51CDA.4E43 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E39A.4B46 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E553.29FA earthlink.net>
 <34D6A346.5E02 earthlink.net>
 <34D88B9E.1BAD earthlink.net>
 <34D8995A.78A4 earthl! ink.net>
 <34D8F09C.6BDA earthlink.net>
 <34D9D680.4B88 earthlink.net>
 <34D9DF18.5206 earthlink.net>
 <34DA96D5.49DA earthlink.net>
 <34DFC098.4EB3 earthlink.net>
 <34DFCF2E.4FE6 earthlink.net>
 <34DFD6A4.4BCA earthlink.net>
 <34E086C2.5227 earthlink.net>
 <34E27F36.156 earthlink.net>
 <34E5922F.370A earthlink.net>
 <34E8CD5D.7940 earthlink.net>
 <34E915C4.3864 earthlink.net>
 <34EA1D9E.2872 earthlink.net>
 <34EADEA7.1CF3 earthlink.net>
 <34ED1648.168C earthlink.net>
 <34EDE6E0.5C23 earthlink.net>
 <34EE024C.3E82 earthlink.net>
 <34F1946E.4897 earthlink.net>
 <34F237E4.7DF5 earthlink.net>
 <34F36D92.7482 earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"swj_73.0.VU5.JXC1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16449
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  A few comments on some of the matters discussed
in the ongoing debate:

     At 11:21 AM 2/27/98 -0600, DIck BLue wrote:
>Subject:  Re: JONES/SCIENTIFIC DISTORTIONS
>Subject:  Re: Miles: scientific distortions
>  Date:   Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:39:14 -0500 (EST)
>  From:   "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>    To:   rmforall earthlink.net
>
>Dr. Miles criticism of the Jones and Hansen paper is, I would
>suggest, a rather flawed document itself with a number of
>rather questionable assertions that may, perhaps, be instructive
>to examine.
>>
>> False Statement #1 (Abstract)
>> "Claims of excess heat ---- are largely based on use of ----
>> calorimeters with single-point temperature sensors."
>>
>> Jones and Hansen heard my seminar, asked many questions, and published a
>> detailed critic of my work, hence they obviously know that I used two
>> thermistors in my calorimeter.  Is it then not dishonest of Jones and
>> Hansen to make this statement concerning single-point temperature
>> sensors?  I have also worked with Fleischmann / Pons cells here at NHE.
>> Their calorimeters also use two thermistors in each cell.  These two
>> thermistors are located at completely different positions, yet they give
>> almost identical results.
>
>Is not the use of the modifier "almost" in the last sentence a clear
>admission that Jones and Hansen are correct to point out that the
>placement of the temperature sensor (or sensors) is problematic.  I
>have seen Miles data with two temperature sensors indicating clear
>differences in heat output so just what is his point?
>>


  Unsubstantiated distortions in the complaints of TB-skeptics are wrong.

  Dr. Miles is correct about this.   Have seen them from one of
the individuals after speaking with a presenter at ICCF4.

  Nonetheless multiple point measurements, and secondary means
of measurement (we sometimes mix thermocouples and
thermistors), are preferable.

 ===========================================================


>> False Statement #2 (Abstract)
>> "Improper or incomplete calibration is a probable cause for many claims
>> of 'excess heat'----."
>>
>> There are no better calibrations than the many electrolysis experiments
>> that produce no excess heat.  The chemical and electrical heating
>> calibration by Jones and Hansen do not reproduce the effect of the
>> electrolysis gases leaving the cell or the change with time of the
>> electrolyte volume during actual electrolysis.  These effects must be
>> considered in the calorimetric equations.
>>
>Miles falls back to the position that any null result can serve as
>a "calibration".  That cannot possibly be true unless all significant
>variables that influence the calorimetry constant are unchanged. 


    Dick Blue is correct.  The differences may be insignificant
functionally, but Dick is right.


 ===========================================================


 That
>is something that is, I believe, no more than an assertion.  Miles,
>himself, made up to 6 different forms of calibration runs which produced
>six different results.  Still he treated them, statistically, as if
>they were six measurements of the same constant and reduced his
>estimated
>sigma by a factor of reciprocal of root six.  I would say he measured
>six different quantities, none of which were more than an estimate of
>the
>constant applicable to the measurements for effect.
>

    Dr. Miles demonstrated INCREMENTAL He4 production linked
with the excess heat.


 ===========================================================


>> False Statement #3 (Introduction)
>> "Claims of nuclear products ---- have largely been discredited."
>>
>> The citing of their own two publications along with the notorious ERAB
>> report in 1989 does not justify Jones/Hansen to make this statement.
>> The ERAB report was published before I reported any evidence for
>> helium-4.  In fact, this report uses my early work to support arguments
>> for no cold fusion effects.
>
>I am not sure what makes the ERAB report "notorious" other than the fact
>that it pointed out some ugly truths about cold fusion research at the
>time.  To suggest that the ERAB report is in error because it did not
>anticipate Miles's claims is, of course, absurd. 


    Suggest you read Dr. Mallove's book, Dick.

 ===========================================================


Moving on to >subsequent
>developements, what Miles fails to note is that his results have not
>been confirmed but, rather, have been contradicted by the Arata-Zhang
>claims, for example.  


    This is NOT necessarily true.  THey are different expts
in certain ways.


 ===========================================================


If there is a single, consistant view of just
>precisely are the nuclear products of cold fusion I have yet to hear
>about it so for Miles to say that Jones and Hansen have made a false
>statement is on rather weak ground.  Certainly there have been plenty
>of discredited claims, including Miles initial 4He claims.
>

    Dr. Miles claims, and the others have NOT been discredited.
The TB-skeptics have been discredited, although I will give 
Dr. Blue credit, he is the best of them.  His criticisms are
often quite reasonable, dimensionally correct, and often
insightful.



 ===========================================================

>> False Statement #4 (Introduction)
>> "Many claims of 'excess heat' ---- were the results of assuming 100%
>> Faradaic efficiency---."
>>
>> The studies by Jones et. al were done at very low current densities (0.5
>> to 4 mA/cm2) where recombination effects are much more likely.  Why not
>> toss in platinum or palladium powder to show ever larger recombination
>> effects?  However, these are not the conditions for cold fusion
>> experiments that require high current densities of 100mA/cm2 or larger.
>> Fleischmann, Pons et. al made it very clear in their 1990 publication
>> (J. Electroanal. Chem., Vol. 287, pp. 293-348, 1990) that a threshold
>> current density of 100 mA/cm2 is required for the excess heat effect.
>> Is it not dishonest of Jones to perform experiments in the wrong
>> ballpark (low current densities) and then extrapolate these results to
>> cold fusion experiments?
>>
>> F. G. Will has clearly shown the errors of Jones et. al with respect to
>> low Faradaic efficiencies (recombination) when they extrapolate their
>> low current results to the high currents of cold fusion experiments.
>> This is found in J. Electroanal. Chem., Vol. 426, pp. 177-184, 1997.
>>
>> Cold fusion scientists are not stupid.  Recombination is the first thing
>> we check before reporting excess heat.  I keep a complete record of D2O
>> additions in every experiment, and always find that the D2O consumption
>> is in accord with Faraday's Law under normal conditions. (solid
>> palladium rods are used that are kept completely submerged in the D2O.
>> All lead wires are covered with shrink Teflon).  In fact, there is
>> always a slightly larger loss of D2O than calculated by Faraday's Law
>> due to the evaporative loss of heavy water.  Low Faradaic efficiencies
>> (recombination) would result in less heavy water consumption than
>> expected.
>>
>If Miles is to strictly apply the notion that there is a "threshold"
>at 100 mA/cm^2 there are a number of CF claims that go on the trash
>heap. 


    Dr. Blue is jumping from recombination, through Faradaic
efficiency, through current density.   Dr. Blue thereby ignores
what Dr. Miles correctly states.

   Furthermore, if the electrical input is taken as V*I, the
gas loss represents a lower limit to enthalpic production.


 ===========================================================


>> False Statement #5 (Introduction)
>> "EPRI withheld further support after being informed of the results of
>> the work done at low power."
>>
>> Mike McKubre has recently commented on this false statement.
>>
>> I find this to be a strange statement to place in a scientific paper.  I
>> really don't know any details but let me guess.
>>
>> Jones et. al were working at very low current densities (low power)
>> where recombination is much more likely despite the fact that cold
>> fusion studies require high currents.  EPRI then realized that Jones et.
>> al were designing experiments to support their own agenda that excess
>> heat is due to errors - rather than doing real research with an open
>> mind.  I would have also withheld further support under those
>> conditions.
>
>Trying to guess what determines EPRI funding for CF research is rather
>pointless.  However, I should think that "success" of a given approach
>would lead to a continuation of a program while "failure" generally
>leads to termination of a project or a switch to a different approach.


  Interpretation.


 ===========================================================


>> False Statement #6 (Introduction)
>> "Fig. 1 A. Schematic of Typical 'Cold Fusion' Calorimeter."
>>
>> Jones et. al depict a short, fat cell design with a single thermometer.
>> This design is not used by anybody in cold fusion that I know.  This
>> short and fat "typical" cell is ridiculous and makes cold fusion
>> experimenters appear incompetent.  Mixing would certainly be a serious
>> problem with such a design.  My calorimeter design looks nothing like
>> this, neither does the design of Fleischmann and Pons.  Is it not
>> dishonest of Jones to call this a "typical cold fusion calorimeter"?
>>
>> I could go on but Fig. 1 A alone proves my point.
>>
>> Who were the reviewers of this paper?  Why didn't they do their job and
>> check the facts?  It is really a scientific shame that the anti-cold
>> fusion papers by Jones et. al are so readily accepted by J. Phys. Chem.
>> and Thermochimica Acta.
>>
>Obviously, there is no universal calorimeter design for CF research.
>So what is Miles's point? 


   That the Jones criticism was arbitrary and irrelevant.

Some of it does appear to be.

 ===========================================================



> Is he claiming that the mere use of the
>word "typical" makes the entire contents of this paper false? 


   Several statements in the paper are not accurate.


 ===========================================================


> Does he suggest further that "anti-cold fusion papers" should be
>automatically rejected by J. Phys. Chem and Thermochimica Acta.  

   Dr. Miles does NOT seem to suggest this.

In fact, it is his own response which has been rudely 
rebuffed, Dr. Blue. 

    Best wishes.

          Dr. Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 21:11:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25277;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:07:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:07:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980310000033.006c69e8 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:00:33 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Murray to Swartz: why not answer Blue?
Cc: rmforall earthlink.net, dg@cco.caltech.edu, collis@netcity.it,
        ell lanl.gov, Flavio.Fontana@pirelli.com, sphkoji@sci.shizuoka.ac.jp,
        knuke aa.net, jdunn@ctc.org, bakealamos@juno.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com,
        76570.2270 compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mikec@snip.net,
        mica world.std.com, little@eden.com, puthoff@aol.com,
        peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jchampion@transmutation.com,
        aki. ix.netcom.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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        shellied sage.dri.edu, droege@fnal.gov, tchubb@aol.com,
        chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim@physics.purdue.edu,
        jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil,
        jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, norm.olson@pnl.gov,
        miles nhelab.iae.or.jp, shkedi@bose.com, z@ccyber.com,
        ldhansen chemdept.byu.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, wolfy2@erols.com,
        rwall ix.netcom.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov,
        blue pilot.msu.edu, sejones@physics1.byu.edu, terry4@llnl.gov,
        wireless amigo.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <35048733.2BD4 earthlink.net>
References: <34AA67B2.3230 earthlink.net>
 <34AC64F1.20B9 earthlink.net>
 <34AC6C86.6EA6 earthlink.net>
 <34AEFCFB.39E1 earthlink.net>
 <34B0F513.24A8 earthlink.net>
 <34B1C4B2.72F0 earthlink.net>
 <34B5A2F4.6506 earthlink.net>
 <34B65404.6276 earthlink.net>
 <34BC2AB6.77F7 earthlink.net>
 <34BC36BC.CB5 earthlink.net>
 <34BCDCAF.A1B earthlink.net>
 <34BD9AC3.31D4 earthlink.net>
 <34BEAB94.73FC earthlink.net>
 <34C04660.47AF earthlink.net>
 <34C04DA2.16AC earthlink.net>
 <34C439DD.75C8 earthlink.net>
 <34C578C0.1C32 earthlink.net>
 <34C6779A.369C earthlink.net>
 <34C7EAEC.AC6 earthlink.net>
 <34C822AB.5B9B earthlink.net>
 <34C8B094.6977 earthlink.net>
 <34CD670D.1E0C earthlink.net>
 <34CDFF1B.34D4 earthlink.net>
 <34CF224E.1014 earthlink.net>
 <34D01AC2.216A earthlink.net>
 <34D3163E.3C13 earthlink.net>
 <34D400B8.260 earthlink.net>
 <34D51CDA.4E43 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E39A.4B46 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E553.29FA earthlink.net>
 <34D6A346.5E02 earthlink.net>
 <34D88B9E.1BAD earthlink.net>
 <34D8995A.78A4 earthl! ink.net>
 <34D8F09C.6BDA earthlink.net>
 <34D9D680.4B88 earthlink.net>
 <34D9DF18.5206 earthlink.net>
 <34DA96D5.49DA earthlink.net>
 <34DFC098.4EB3 earthlink.net>
 <34DFCF2E.4FE6 earthlink.net>
 <34DFD6A4.4BCA earthlink.net>
 <34E086C2.5227 earthlink.net>
 <34E27F36.156 earthlink.net>
 <34E5922F.370A earthlink.net>
 <34E8CD5D.7940 earthlink.net>
 <34E915C4.3864 earthlink.net>
 <34EA1D9E.2872 earthlink.net>
 <34EADEA7.1CF3 earthlink.net>
 <34ED1648.168C earthlink.net>
 <34EDE6E0.5C23 earthlink.net>
 <34EE024C.3E82 earthlink.net>
 <34F1946E.4897 earthlink.net>
 <34F237E4.7DF5 earthlink.net>
 <34F36D92.7482 earthlink.net>
 <34F6F61E.7D86 earthlink.net>
 <34F6F8AA.1837 earthlink.net>
 <34F73CC1.437D earthlink.net>
 <34F73E74.655 earthlink.net>
 <34F8C76A.74D0 earthlink.net>
 <34FEFD1A.5D33 earthlink.net>
 <3501CB77.7E3 earthlink.net>
 <3501CC8C.1074 earthlink.net>
 <350200D5.F6E earthlink.net>
 <3504077A.4714 earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mYLD2.0.tA6.pfC1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16452
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


  At 06:20 PM 3/9/98 -0600, Rich Murray wrote:

>However, as Dieter Britz remarks this week, Claytor's glow discharge
>experiment at Los Alamos, producing tritium, if only another lab would
>and could replicate it, could well establish a viable field of research.
>So is it time to retire electrolysis? 

   No.  Transistors did not retire vacuum tubes,either.

            --------------------------------

>I got a number of papers by Szpak today at Los Alamos, to check out his
>years and years of work on Pd/D codeposition. 

    Good work. 
    Read them, and his other papers which I cited on spf,
and are referenced therein.  Best wishes.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 21:15:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA08146;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980309235936.006f59c4 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:59:36 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: QUANTITIVE CHALLENGE TO DICK BLUE
Cc: rmforall earthlink.net, dg@cco.caltech.edu, collis@netcity.it,
        ell lanl.gov, Flavio.Fontana@pirelli.com, sphkoji@sci.shizuoka.ac.jp,
        knuke aa.net, jdunn@ctc.org, bakealamos@juno.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com,
        76570.2270 compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mikec@snip.net,
        mica world.std.com, little@eden.com, puthoff@aol.com,
        peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jchampion@transmutation.com,
        aki. ix.netcom.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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        shellied sage.dri.edu, droege@fnal.gov, tchubb@aol.com,
        chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim@physics.purdue.edu,
        jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil,
        jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, norm.olson@pnl.gov,
        miles nhelab.iae.or.jp, shkedi@bose.com, z@ccyber.com,
        ldhansen chemdept.byu.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, wolfy2@erols.com,
        rwall ix.netcom.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov,
        blue pilot.msu.edu, sejones@physics1.byu.edu, terry4@llnl.gov,
        wireless amigo.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3504077A.4714 earthlink.net>
References: <34AA67B2.3230 earthlink.net>
 <34AC64F1.20B9 earthlink.net>
 <34AC6C86.6EA6 earthlink.net>
 <34AEFCFB.39E1 earthlink.net>
 <34B0F513.24A8 earthlink.net>
 <34B1C4B2.72F0 earthlink.net>
 <34B5A2F4.6506 earthlink.net>
 <34B65404.6276 earthlink.net>
 <34BC2AB6.77F7 earthlink.net>
 <34BC36BC.CB5 earthlink.net>
 <34BCDCAF.A1B earthlink.net>
 <34BD9AC3.31D4 earthlink.net>
 <34BEAB94.73FC earthlink.net>
 <34C04660.47AF earthlink.net>
 <34C04DA2.16AC earthlink.net>
 <34C439DD.75C8 earthlink.net>
 <34C578C0.1C32 earthlink.net>
 <34C6779A.369C earthlink.net>
 <34C7EAEC.AC6 earthlink.net>
 <34C822AB.5B9B earthlink.net>
 <34C8B094.6977 earthlink.net>
 <34CD670D.1E0C earthlink.net>
 <34CDFF1B.34D4 earthlink.net>
 <34CF224E.1014 earthlink.net>
 <34D01AC2.216A earthlink.net>
 <34D3163E.3C13 earthlink.net>
 <34D400B8.260 earthlink.net>
 <34D51CDA.4E43 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E39A.4B46 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E553.29FA earthlink.net>
 <34D6A346.5E02 earthlink.net>
 <34D88B9E.1BAD earthlink.net>
 <34D8995A.78A4 earthl! ink.net>
 <34D8F09C.6BDA earthlink.net>
 <34D9D680.4B88 earthlink.net>
 <34D9DF18.5206 earthlink.net>
 <34DA96D5.49DA earthlink.net>
 <34DFC098.4EB3 earthlink.net>
 <34DFCF2E.4FE6 earthlink.net>
 <34DFD6A4.4BCA earthlink.net>
 <34E086C2.5227 earthlink.net>
 <34E27F36.156 earthlink.net>
 <34E5922F.370A earthlink.net>
 <34E8CD5D.7940 earthlink.net>
 <34E915C4.3864 earthlink.net>
 <34EA1D9E.2872 earthlink.net>
 <34EADEA7.1CF3 earthlink.net>
 <34ED1648.168C earthlink.net>
 <34EDE6E0.5C23 earthlink.net>
 <34EE024C.3E82 earthlink.net>
 <34F1946E.4897 earthlink.net>
 <34F237E4.7DF5 earthlink.net>
 <34F36D92.7482 earthlink.net>
 <34F6F61E.7D86 earthlink.net>
 <34F6F8AA.1837 earthlink.net>
 <34F73CC1.437D earthlink.net>
 <34F73E74.655 earthlink.net>
 <34F8C76A.74D0 earthlink.net>
 <34FEFD1A.5D33 earthlink.net>
 <3501CB77.7E3 earthlink.net>
 <3501CC8C.1074 earthlink.net>
 <350200D5.F6E earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"X-BSe.0.8_1.obC1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16451
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:15 AM 3/9/98 -0600, Dick Blue wrote:
>  Date:  Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:37:12 -0500 (EST)
>  From:  "Richard A Blue" <blue pilot.msu.edu>
>    To:  rmforall earthlink.net
>
>I have one question for Mr. Swartz. 


   One question, eh?
  This first statement of Dick Blue is inaccurate, 
as five (5) questions follow, with scores more implied.

  And those five are in a swamp of more inaccuracy,
high precision but not correct statements.

  Dick should seriously get the papers.  Get them ALL. 
And then apply the same standards he does espouse to 
hot fusion too.       OK?


 
  Nonetheless, because Dick asks some of the best questions
in this field, here are some initial thoughts on several
of his comments, which do not relate to material
which is already answered in the papers to which Dick
does refer.

  Specifically, four of Dick's inaccurate statements are 
challenged. If anyone can support them quantitatively it 
will he.   OK, Dick Blue?    Thanks in advance.

  -----------------------------------------

  (Dick)
>Generally speaking the "excess heat" which is thought to
>be the true signature of CF is a signal that is only
>rather poorly characterized such that it is difficult to
>tell whether it is actually present during a specific
>time period. 
 

  1.  No.  A signature.  There are others, and IMO
coupled signatures are the best unambiguous indicator.
Why should an extremely low output indicator be better?

  2.  Why is heat necessarily 'rather poorly characterized'?
Please explain in detail quantitatively, in comparison
to noise energy, or other factor(s).

 3. Why is difficult to tell whether it is 'actually present 
during a specific time period'?    Please discuss
quantitatively, because it would depend upon the thermal
relaxation time and time of the experiment.

   

  -----------------------------------------

  (Dick)
>   Since there is also always an input source
>for the heat signal that is perhaps 10 or 100 times larger
>the "excess heat" is intrinsically difficult to recognize.

 
 4.  ? Numbers are incorrect.   Please defend
and also explain why there is no mention of noise energy.
This was explicitly discussed in the papers under
discussion.  Hint: consider power as well as energy.

  -----------------------------------------

  (Dick)
>Truly what we have witnessed for nine years are demonstrations
>of the degree to which anyone can screw up the calorimetry
>if they are determined to see "excess heat."  Isn't it
>time we accept that as a fact and turn the investigations to
>more definitive types of measurements that are not so
>easily confused by artifacts?

  5. Is hot fusion immune from such artifacts?  Do you 
think hot fusion will get all its use from neutrons?
Do you think the low neutron output, high enthalpic
output of cold fusion is "bad"?  why?


  -----------------------------------------

  (Dick)
>Ultimately if there is ever to be a practical application of
>the new energy source we will need to know more precisely
>what the source reaction is so now seems to be a good time
>to begin the sorts of investigations that could possibly
>identify and quantify the source reaction, should there
>actually be one.
>Dick Blue

  Dick probably means 'accurately' instead of 'precisely' but
he is correct, except that increasing amounts of data have
been available for a while.  
   It is in the literature.     The truth is out there. 

   Dr. Mitchell Swartz





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 21:23:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA07969;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:01:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:01:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980309235820.006f59c4 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:58:20 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Jones: Miles BYU seminar
Cc: rmforall earthlink.net, dg@cco.caltech.edu, collis@netcity.it,
        ell lanl.gov, Flavio.Fontana@pirelli.com, sphkoji@sci.shizuoka.ac.jp,
        knuke aa.net, jdunn@ctc.org, bakealamos@juno.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com,
        76570.2270 compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mikec@snip.net,
        mica world.std.com, little@eden.com, puthoff@aol.com,
        peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jchampion@transmutation.com,
        aki. ix.netcom.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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        shellied sage.dri.edu, droege@fnal.gov, tchubb@aol.com,
        chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim@physics.purdue.edu,
        jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil,
        jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, norm.olson@pnl.gov,
        miles nhelab.iae.or.jp, shkedi@bose.com, z@ccyber.com,
        ldhansen chemdept.byu.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, wolfy2@erols.com,
        rwall ix.netcom.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov,
        blue pilot.msu.edu, sejones@physics1.byu.edu, terry4@llnl.gov,
        wireless amigo.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <34F73E74.655 earthlink.net>
References: <34AA67B2.3230 earthlink.net>
 <34AC64F1.20B9 earthlink.net>
 <34AC6C86.6EA6 earthlink.net>
 <34AEFCFB.39E1 earthlink.net>
 <34B0F513.24A8 earthlink.net>
 <34B1C4B2.72F0 earthlink.net>
 <34B5A2F4.6506 earthlink.net>
 <34B65404.6276 earthlink.net>
 <34BC2AB6.77F7 earthlink.net>
 <34BC36BC.CB5 earthlink.net>
 <34BCDCAF.A1B earthlink.net>
 <34BD9AC3.31D4 earthlink.net>
 <34BEAB94.73FC earthlink.net>
 <34C04660.47AF earthlink.net>
 <34C04DA2.16AC earthlink.net>
 <34C439DD.75C8 earthlink.net>
 <34C578C0.1C32 earthlink.net>
 <34C6779A.369C earthlink.net>
 <34C7EAEC.AC6 earthlink.net>
 <34C822AB.5B9B earthlink.net>
 <34C8B094.6977 earthlink.net>
 <34CD670D.1E0C earthlink.net>
 <34CDFF1B.34D4 earthlink.net>
 <34CF224E.1014 earthlink.net>
 <34D01AC2.216A earthlink.net>
 <34D3163E.3C13 earthlink.net>
 <34D400B8.260 earthlink.net>
 <34D51CDA.4E43 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E39A.4B46 earthlink.net>
 <34D5E553.29FA earthlink.net>
 <34D6A346.5E02 earthlink.net>
 <34D88B9E.1BAD earthlink.net>
 <34D8995A.78A4 earthl! ink.net>
 <34D8F09C.6BDA earthlink.net>
 <34D9D680.4B88 earthlink.net>
 <34D9DF18.5206 earthlink.net>
 <34DA96D5.49DA earthlink.net>
 <34DFC098.4EB3 earthlink.net>
 <34DFCF2E.4FE6 earthlink.net>
 <34DFD6A4.4BCA earthlink.net>
 <34E086C2.5227 earthlink.net>
 <34E27F36.156 earthlink.net>
 <34E5922F.370A earthlink.net>
 <34E8CD5D.7940 earthlink.net>
 <34E915C4.3864 earthlink.net>
 <34EA1D9E.2872 earthlink.net>
 <34EADEA7.1CF3 earthlink.net>
 <34ED1648.168C earthlink.net>
 <34EDE6E0.5C23 earthlink.net>
 <34EE024C.3E82 earthlink.net>
 <34F1946E.4897 earthlink.net>
 <34F237E4.7DF5 earthlink.net>
 <34F36D92.7482 earthlink.net>
 <34F6F61E.7D86 earthlink.net>
 <34F6F8AA.1837 earthlink.net>
 <34F73CC1.437D earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_NqAY1.0.Ry1.yaC1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16450
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:30 PM 2/27/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Subject: Re: Miles: BYU seminar
>       Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:44:41 MST7MDT
>       From: "STEVE JONES" <SEJONES PHYSICS1.BYU.EDU>
>Organization: BYU Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
>         To:  rmforall earthlink.net
>
>Mel continues to claim that his seminar at BYU, which took place 
>about 6 years ago ;-), lasted for three hours.  So I spoke to people 
>who were there -- everyone remembers that the seminar was much less 
>than that, probably around 1.5 hours.  Dr. E. Paul Palmer was there 
>and recalls the seminar.  He notes that the only way he can figure 
>that Miles comes up with a three hour figure is that perhaps Mel is 
>counting the time after the seminar in which people stood around 
>asking him questions.  Even then, he feels 3 hours is stretching it!
>
>Prof. Hansen recalls asking Mel about his calorimeter, concerned in 
>particular about the light-water control runs and the use of 
>vermiculite in the insulation.  I recall those concerns as well.  He 
>puts the seminar at about 1.5 hrs, as I do.
>
>--Steven Jones
>
>By the way, Mel, I've done my homework on this (why is this so 
>important to you, anyway?)  -- have you?  Can you name any witnesses 
>that back up your claim of a 3 hour seminar???  Surprise me!


    What does 1.5 vs. 3 hours have to do with anything?

The issue is that your comments have done to Dr. Miles, 
and to Dr. Fleischmann, Dr. Pons,  Natoya, and others.

  Character attack is NO substitute for science.



>MILES:  I could readily use the published critic of my work by Jones and
>Hansen
>(J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 99, pp. 6966-72, 1995) for examples that document
>my claims of their scientific distortions and outright dishonesty, but I
>still hope to have my reply published by that Journal. 
>
>JONES:  That reply, and our response, will soon be published, I 
>believe.  Our response indicates where we disagree with Miles.  I
>maintain there are no scientific distortions nor outright 
>dishonesty (on our part).

 
   It is unfair that improper procedure was used by Jones and the 
editor to effective deny Dr. Miles a timely response.
   The issue is covered in the archives of Prof. Britz.  Hopefully
the situation will change.

   Dr. Mitchell Swartz



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 21:30:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA09410;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980310000044.006c69e8 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:00:44 -0500
To: rmforall earthlink.net
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Reference challenge to Murray
Cc: rmforall earthlink.net, dg@cco.caltech.edu, collis@netcity.it,
        ell lanl.gov, Flavio.Fontana@pirelli.com, sphkoji@sci.shizuoka.ac.jp,
        knuke aa.net, jdunn@ctc.org, bakealamos@juno.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com,
        76570.2270 compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mikec@snip.net,
        mica world.std.com, little@eden.com, puthoff@aol.com,
        peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jchampion@transmutation.com,
        aki. ix.netcom.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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        shellied sage.dri.edu, droege@fnal.gov, tchubb@aol.com,
        chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim@physics.purdue.edu,
        jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil,
        jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, norm.olson@pnl.gov,
        miles nhelab.iae.or.jp, shkedi@bose.com, z@ccyber.com,
        ldhansen chemdept.byu.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, wolfy2@erols.com,
        rwall ix.netcom.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov,
        blue pilot.msu.edu, sejones@physics1.byu.edu, terry4@llnl.gov,
        wireless amigo.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"B_iaU3.0.vI2.0iC1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16453
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


    Congratulations to Rich Murray for continuing his reviews of this
field, albeit with some uncorrected repeats of his past posts.

 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.

  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 some of the
not-fully-baked brick-toss low wattage, and
sometimes disinformational (though improving slowly), "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  Mon Mar  9 22:10:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA19248;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:54:57 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: rmforall earthlink.net, dg@cco.caltech.edu, collis@netcity.it,
        ell lanl.gov, Flavio.Fontana@pirelli.com, sphkoji@sci.shizuoka.ac.jp,
        knuke aa.net, jdunn@ctc.org, bakealamos@juno.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com,
        76570.2270 compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mikec@snip.net,
        mica world.std.com, little@eden.com, puthoff@aol.com,
        peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jchampion@transmutation.com,
        aki. ix.netcom.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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        shellied sage.dri.edu, droege@fnal.gov, tchubb@aol.com,
        chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim@physics.purdue.edu,
        jaeger eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil,
        jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, norm.olson@pnl.gov,
        miles nhelab.iae.or.jp, shkedi@bose.com, z@ccyber.com,
        ldhansen chemdept.byu.edu, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, wolfy2@erols.com,
        rwall ix.netcom.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov,
        blue pilot.msu.edu, sejones@physics1.byu.edu, terry4@llnl.gov,
        wireless amigo.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: QUANTITIVE CHALLENGE TO DICK BLUE
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980309235936.006f59c4 world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980310005243.22181C-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"NowsT1.0.bi4.7UD1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16454
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	As to Dick Blue's last point:

	Many people use practical device they do not understand.  
Understanding may help others or even the users improve the devices, but 
lack of understanding does not negate the utility.

	This is the key in automobile analog.... many drive automobiles 
but do not understand all of their workings.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar  9 22:21:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27314;
	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 20:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:02:22 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: The biochemistry .. VS .. non biochemistry  An Urine Battery
In-Reply-To: <8eff51a1.35018c13 aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980309183200.5590C-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"gk5Y71.0.ig6.hqB1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16443
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	An examination of biochemistry will tell you that there is not a 
great deal of ATP, AMP or cAMP in urine.  It is a great idea.... but it 
is a better idea to have a background in more than one area of science.

	Whenever I see such a description I examine it, and I teach 
myself, or research the key points.   The oxygen contribution of the 
adenosine nucleotides and nucleosides to the electrochemical reaction, in 
this case, are small becasue the amount is small.  If the amount were 
large it would be not very efficient.

					JHS


On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, JNaudin509 wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> You will find all informations about the URINE BATTERY from Nelson Camus at:
> 
> http://members.aol.com/overunity2/nelson/urbat.htm
> 
> These documents has been demonstrated by Nelson Camus during the latest
> Conference on freeNRG technologies in Zuerich ( Dec 6, 1997).
> 
> Ps: This is not a joke.....  :-)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jean-Louis Naudin
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 01:15:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA05633;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:09:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:09:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:09:39 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: torsion fields references
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980310010654.9385C-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ScfBX.0.xN1.ODG1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16455
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



V. Petrov kindly translated the titles of the Russian papers.  See below.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L


http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/tors/

Literature

1. A.E.Akimov 'Eurestic discussion of the problem of new interactions,
   EGS-conceptions' CISE VENT, 1991, preprint # 7A, p.63  (Russian lang.)

2. Tetrode H. Uber den Wirkungszusammenhang der Welt. Ein Erweiterung der
   Classischen Dynamik. Ziet. fur Physic, 1922, Bd. 10, s.317.

3. Fokker A. D. Ein invarianter Variationssatz fur die Bewegung mehrerer
   electricher Massenteilchen. Zeit. fur Physic, 1922, Bd. 10, s. 317

4. Wheeler J. A, Feynman R. P., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1945, 17, N 1, p157

5. Wheeler J. A., Feynman R. P., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1949, 21, N3, p425

6. Hehl F. W., Spin and Torsion in General Relativity. I:Foudations. GRG,
   1973, N 4, p333

7. Hehl F. W. , Heyde P., Kerlick G.D., Nester J. M., General relativity
   with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects.  Rev. Mod. Phys.,
   1976, N3, p393

8. F. W. Hehl, On the Kinematics of the Torsion Space-Time.  Found. Phys.,
   1985, v15, N4, p451

9. T. W. B. Kibble., Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field. J.
   Math. Phys, 1961, N 2, p212

10. D. W. Sciama.  The Physical Structure of General Relativity.  Rev.
    Mod. Phys., 1964, n36, p463

11. A.P.Efremov 'Space-time rotation and torsion field's effects.
    Analytical review' CISE VENT, Moscow, 1991, p.76   (Russian lang.)

12. V.G.Bagrov, A.A.Evseevich, A.V.Shapovalov 'Symmetry, division of
    variables and exact solutions for Dirac equation in the Riemann-Cartan
    space', Tomsk, Tomsky NTs SO AN SSSR, 1989, preprint #51, p.31
    (Russian lang.)

13. G.I.Shipov 'Physical vacuum theory', NT-Center, Moscow, 1993, p.362
    (Russian lang.)

14. A.A.Grib, E.V.Damansky, V.M.Maksimov 'The problem of the vacuum
    symmetry and invariance breaking in the quantum field theory', in the
    Uspehi Fizicheskih Nauk, 1970, vol.102, issue 4, p.587   (Russian
    lang.)

15. H.Oganyan 'What is spin?', in '88 Fizika za rubezhom, Mir, Moscow,
    1988, p.68   (Russian lang.)

17. A.E.Akimov, V.V.Boichuk, V.Ya.Tarasenko 'Long-range spinor fields.
    Physical models', Ukraine academy of sciences, Institut problem
    materialovedeniya, Kiev, 1989, preprint #4, p.23  (Russian lang.)

18. Alan D.Krish 'The collision of the spinning protons', V mire nauki,
    1987, #10, p.12   (Russian lang.)

21. J.D.Bjorken, S.D.Drell 'Relativistic quantum theory', Nauka, Moscow,
    1978, p.295  (Russian lang.)

23. Ya.B.Zeldovich 'The interpretation of electrodynamics as consequence
    of quantum theory' in Pisma v Zh.ETF, 1967, vol.6, issue 10, 
    p.922 (Russian lang.)

24. L.A.Rivlin , ? , in the Uspehi fizicheskih nauk, 1991, #3, 
    p.143 (Russian lang.)

25. A.D.Saharov 'Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the
    gravitation theory' in Doklady Akademii Nauk, 1967, #1, p.70 (Russian
    lang.)

26. L.D.Landau, E.M.Lifshits 'Theoretical physics', vol.4, Nauka, Moscow,
    1968, part 1, p.480   (Russian lang.)

27. E.V.Shpolsky 'Atomic physics', Moscow, GITGL, 1949, vol.1, p.523,
    1950, vol.2, p.718   (Russian lang.)

28. A.D.Dolgov, Ya.B.Zeldovich, M.V.Sazhin 'The cosmology of the early
    universe', Moscow State University, 1988, p.200   (Russian lang.)

29. V.A.Bunin 'Newest problems of gravitation in classical physics',
    Leningrad, 1962, p.88   (Russian lang.)

30. V.A.Dubrovsky 'Elastic model of the physical vacuum', in Dokl.AN SSSR,
    vol.282, 1985,#1,p.83    (Russian lang.)

32. A.D.Saharov, TMF, 1975, vol.9, #22, p.157   (Russian lang.)

33. G.T.Butorin 'On the question of the quantum-mechanical origin of
    gravitation', VINITI, Moscow, 1987, dep.#5135-B87, p.49 (Russian
    lang.)

34. G.T.Butorin 'On the possible origin of magnetism of spinning masses',
    VINITI, 1989, dep.#2139-B89, p.49    (Russian lang.)

35. B.R.Bershadsky, A.A.Mehedkin 'Structural discretization of the main
    types of compositional connection of matter types', VINITI, Moscow,
    1990, dep.#40-B90, p.11    (Russian lang.)

36. A.E.Akimov,B.R.Bershadsky,A.A.Mehedkin 'The frequency spectrum of
    physical fields in general conception', VINITI, Moscow, 1990,
    dep.#2826-B90, p.6    (Russian lang.)

37. the same as 11

39. J.A.Willer 'Einstein's foresight', Mir, Moscow, 1970, p.112
    (Russian lang.)

40. I.D.Novikov, V.P.Frolov 'Physics of black holes', Nauka, Moscow, 1986,
    p.327   (Russian lang.)

41. V.P.Mayboroda, A.E.Akimov, G.A.Maksimova, V.Ya.Tarasenko 'Torsion
    fields' influence on the melt of tin', CISE VENT, preprint #49,
    Moscow,  1994, p.13  (Russian lang.)

42. V.P.Mayboroda, A.E.Akimov, G.A.Maksimova, V.Ya.Tarasenko, V.K.Shkolny,
    N.G.Palaguta, G.M.Molchanovskaya 'The structure and properties of
    copper taken from the melt after influencing it with torsion
    radiation', CISE VENT, preprint #50, Moscow, 1994, p.11   (Russian
    lang.)

43. A.E.Akimov 'Torsion communications of the third millenium', The
    proceedings of the international conference 'Modern telecommunication
    technologies', Moscow, 15-19 of may, 1995  (Russian lang.)
    
44. A.E.Akimov, F.A.Ohatrin, A.F.Ohatrin, V.P.Finogeev, M.N.Lomonosov,
    A.V.Loginov 'The capture and treatment of torsion information from the
    cosmic images carriers', Allrussian conference 'The perspective
    informational technologies', Uljaynovsk, 27-29 of august, 1995
     (Russian lang.)

45. N.A.Kozyrev, V.V.Nasonov 'On some properties of time, discovered by
    astronomical observations', in Problemy issledovaniya vselennoi,
    1980, issue 9, p.76    (Russian lang.)

46. M.M.Lavrentjev, I.A.Eganova, M.K.Lutset, S.F.Foninyh 'The distance
    influence of stars on the resistor', in Doklady AN SSSR, 1990,
    vol.314, issue 2, p.352   (Russian lang.)

47. A.E.Akimov, G.U.Kovalchuk, V.G.Medvedev, V.K.Oleinik, A.F.Pugach 'The
    preliminary results of astronomical observations of the sky with
    N.A.Kozyrev's method', Chief astronomical observatory of Ukraine
    Acad.of Sciences, Kiev, 1992, preprint #GAO-92-5P, p.16   (Russian
    lang.)

48. V.I.Tolchin 'Inertioid, inertia forces as the source of motion', 
    Perm, 1977  (Russian lang.)

49. the same as 28

52. A.A.Grib, S.G.Mamaev, V.M.Mostepanenko 'Vacuum quantum effects in the
    strong fields' Energoatomizdat, Moscow, 1988, p.288  (Russian lang.)

53. L.I.Matveenko 'Visible overlight velocities of components' scattering
    in extragalactic objects', in Uspehi fizicheskih nauk, 1989, vol.140,
    issue 3, p.469  (Russian lang.)


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 02:42:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA13479;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:39:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:39:51 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:38:07 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350b25d2.127520764 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <00e501bd4b7c$dd17e300$418cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <00e501bd4b7c$dd17e300$418cbfa8 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: <"iAd-B2.0.SI3.oXH1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16458
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:59:54 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

>Robin,
>
>What I am seeing (and saying) regardless of
>whose model is correct, is that the Mills Theory of fractional orbits
>implies that
>you are increasing the mass of the bound
>proton-deuteron-electron system if the electron could fall to fractional
>orbits. Relativistic
>increase in the electron velocity (slight though it may be)demands it.
[snip]
You appear to have forgotten that there is a compensating loss of
potential energy, and along with it, a decrease in mass. So despite
the (granted) modest increase in mass of the electron, there is an
overall decrease in mass of the atom. The decrease in potential
energy, is not only enough to compensate for the increase in potential
energy of the electron, there is about as much again "left over" which
appears as extricable and useable energy. This "extra" is what the
Mills process is all about.
(If indeed true).


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 10 02:42:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA13459;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:39:50 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:38:09 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350c25de.127533042 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 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: <"zy2Ah3.0.9I3.lXH1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16456
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 11:14:20 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
[snip]
>the gammas.  Not very likely.   There is another model which I hesitate to
>propose:  if the crowding of deuterium in the palladium is high enough,
>then when a deuterium atom decides to act like two neutrons, d --> n + n -
>energy, a different deuterium atom can "take it's place" in the lattice.
>The heisenberg godfather has to be paid back, but that is easy, d + n --> t
>+ energy.  The difference from the "standard" d + d --> t + p is obvious.

Yes, but the t is actually t*. If it doesn't lose energy through a
gamma ray, then how?

>Less energy, and a thermal neutron floating around.  That neutron can be
>absorbed by the palladium though, and we are back to the "where are the
>gammas?" question.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 10 02:47:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA13505;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:39:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:39:57 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrinos-Deutrinos and K Electron Capture
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:38:03 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350a250c.127323250 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <00ba01bd4b73$217e75e0$418cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <00ba01bd4b73$217e75e0$418cbfa8 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: <"cQctu.0.CI3.lXH1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16457
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:50:04 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>>In which case, and I believe according to the standard model, there
>>are 2 ups and a down in a proton,
>
>Agreed.
>
> and 2 downs and an up in a neutron.
>
>I Disagree. 2 downs, 2 up plus a neutrino,. How in the Hell can it decay to
>a Proton, e-, and a neutrino, otherwise?   :-)

You seem to think that neutrinos are conserved. I thought the general
consensus was that they are created or destroyed on the spot like
photons.
To use your own argument, how then do you explain beta+ decay where a
proton turns into a neutron and a positron, with emission of a
neutrino? I.e. where did the neutrino come from, and where does the
other (anti?)-neutrino come from, that you think is now hiding in the
newly formed neutron?
[snip]
>>Here you seem to be saying that there are as many neutrinos as
>>neutrons. What is this based on?
>
>Logic?
>>
[snip]
>>So assuming that the "neutrino count" is valid (actually, I believe
>>that according to the standard model, there aren't any at all),
>
>You won't get a net spin 1/2 neutron without one.

True, but the question is, is that because there is one inside the
neutron, or because one was created during the creation of the
neutron, that carried away a half unit of spin (when the electron and
proton were combined). Or perhaps a neutron just intrinsically has
spin 1/2?
IOW how do we know that these reactions just rearrange the pieces, and
don't create or destroy subatomic particles as required?
[snip table etc.]
>>Now here you first assume (in the table) that z = 0 for a hydrino,
>>then proceed to proffer this as proof that the electron has been
>>"captured".
>
>Mills' argument not mine.

No, there is a big difference between shrinking, and being captured
(see below). (By Mills, z=1 for a hydrino, just as it is for a
hydrogen atom).

>>I can't speak for your hydrinos, but Mills' certainly don't look like
>>this. They look just like ordinary hydrogen atoms (with intact proton
>>as nucleus), but with the electron "orbiting" at less than the normal
>>distance from the nucleus. There is initially no nuclear reaction
>>involved, and certainly no reaction involving the weak force
>>(conversion of proton to neutron, or vice versa).
>
>Why should Mills' (K Capture) stop at EUV levels? Only partial violation of

Where does Mills even mention K capture?
(K capture is a term specifically used to refer to a weak force
reaction in which a proton from the nucleus combines with a "captured"
K shell electron to form a neutron in the nucleus, thus changing z
while maintaining A).

>Conservation of Energy Law?   :-)

Play fair. Mills doesn't violate conservation of energy anywhere.

[snip]
>>he does about conservation of momentum is a mystery to me. Perhaps he
>>just expects the production of He3 & T as in normal D + D fusion.
>>(I think there is something about this in his Australian patent as
>>recently published in IE).
>
>Ok. That makes it Valid, doesn't it?

Not at all. Only experiment will tell, even Mills himself knows this.
(It's just that he thinks that there have been enough experiments
already to prove it ;). I just included the patent mention so that
others could cross check my opinions.
[snip]

PS Could you possibly see your way clear to leaving the reply-to field
in your emails blank? (So that replies automatically go back to the
list).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 10 03:17:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA17915;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:16:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:16:17 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:16:00 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350e2dad.129532549 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980310152516.20181E-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980310152516.20181E-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.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: <"oERl.0.pN4._3I1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16459
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:26:44 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior wrote:
[snip]
>> small rock. Small rock and amphibian passenger pass top ledge moments later,
>> frog makes leap of a few meters on the way back down, (optional).
>> 
> Cute! The trick is to make it happen 10^12 times per second :-)!
[snip]
Ok, small rock creates avalanche on way down again, which frightens
remaining frogs in canyon into also hitching a ride out o' there. He
man..if he can do it, so can I !


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 10 04:06:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA22603;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:04:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:04:39 -0800
Message-ID: <35052AD4.3924 skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:58:12 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net> <35049C56.5571@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"j-81u3.0.5X5.LnI1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16460
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:

> If you make me do the integration, I'll be real mad - so there!
> If I'm wrong, so what else is new?

The Lorentz force has a constant magnitude and is always inward.
I around the loop gives a value of zero. It can not account for
the change of linear momentum.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 06:33:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA13714;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 06:29:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 06:29:33 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:24:23 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803100928_MC2-3637-E4B9 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"zffdg1.0.CM3.BvK1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16461
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; "Robert F. Heeter" >INTERNET:Bob.Heeter jet.uk; 
Martin Sevior >INTERNET:msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU

A number of people posted helpful comments in response to my question about
the Coulomb barrier. I gather the problem is not the point-source
agglomeration of 46 protons versus only 1. The real problem is this QM
tunneling business, which Sevior said makes heavy element fusion many orders
of magnitude more difficult.

I confess the discussion is over my head. It is still not clear to me just how
much more difficult (or unlikely) fusion becomes. Some people seem to agree
with my original estimate. I sent that message to Robert Heeter, and he
responded:

     So for a proton-palladium reaction you would need (roughly) energies of
     20 keV * 1 * 46, which is approximately 1 MeV.

Whereas Martin Sevior estimated:

     So while the d-Pd Coulomb Barrier is "only" 46 times higher than the D-D
     barrier, the probability for barrier penetration is well over 10^-20
     times smaller. So a trillion-trillion times smaller.


Please note I am thinking only of the energetic "problem" -- the physics. I
realize there are host of "technical" or "theoretical" problems as well,
starting with the fact that when you hammer palladium with hydrogen atoms, it
creates a great deal of radiation, which we do not see with CF, in what Sevior
calls the "undetected Excess radioactivity" problem.  As Heeter explained:

     Even if you had a magical mini-accelerator that could shoot protons at
     Pd nuclei with 1 MeV worth of energy, you have the problem that even if
     the proton is shot *directly* at the Pd, it's unlikely to fuse.  It's
     far more likely that it will simply glance off or do something else, and
     again, that should emit lots of radiation.

And, he summarizes the mainstream objection to many CF theories:

     That means that your nuclear energy can't be emitted as lattice
     vibrations (which have to do with the interactions of the electrons at
     the edge of the nucleus).  It has to come out in the form of energetic
     particles:  gamma rays, neutrons, positrons, etc.  All of these are easy
     to detect.  In fusion research we started to get worried about the
     radiation when the machines were producing only milliwatts of fusion
     power, and we were measuring the fusion power output long before that.

I'd like to put aside these objections for a moment, because I believe the
theories devised by people like Hagelstein and Chubb address them. I'd like to
get back to the physical barrier that people talk about so much, which
supposedly keeps atoms from fusing left and right in daily life. In response
to my question people have made widely varying estimates of the strength of
this barrier. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I wonder if you could reach a
consensus. I realize that science is not done by consensus, but in this case,
I just need a few paragraphs. At this point I would have to write:

     . . . there appears to be disagreement about the strength of this
     barrier. I asked various experts how much less likely palladium fusion
     is, and they estimated between 46 times and 10^20 times . . . because of
     the "Quantum Mechanical barrier penetration problem." In any case, this
     is the original reason why many scientists felt more inclined to take
     D-D and other light element fusion seriously, but they balk at the idea
     of heavy elements taking part in the reaction.

That isn't very satisfactory. I do not want to beat this subject to death, but
I would appreciate another short note from Heeter and/or Sevior.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 06:44:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA07187;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 06:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 06:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35055019.17DB interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:37:13 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net> <35049C56.5571@interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"_wZ9d.0.9m1.W1L1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16462
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 

> The Lorentz force has a constant magnitude and is always inward.

Sounds right.

> I around the loop gives a value of zero.

Again, sounds right.

 It can not account for
> the change of linear momentum.
> 

Around the loop (360 degree arc) the change in linear momentum is
zero. (The electron is back to its original trajectory.)  Robert, the
SPEED of the electron is not changed by the Lorentz force, but its
velocity vector is - when you tally up the momentum changes, you need
to look at the NET momentum change.  I still don't see the problem.

To me, this seems like an easy problem compared to accelerating a rock
in a sling, where we keep changing the center of rotation.  Which gives
me an idea for a "fun" thing to try with my grandson - if I board up
all my windows first!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 06:50:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17725;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 06:47:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 06:47:44 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:49:27 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: test
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980310124825.24006A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"4vO301.0.tK4.EAL1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16463
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This should echo.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 07:14:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA23210;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:10:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:10:43 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:12:04 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <350c25de.127533042 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"BHypF1.0.Sg5.oVL1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16464
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:38 AM 3/10/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>Yes, but the t is actually t*. If it doesn't lose energy through a
>gamma ray, then how?

    Heisenberg was here, remember?  We borrowed energy to convert deuterium
into two neutrons:

         d+ + e- --> n + n - energy

    When the tritium is formed, Werner shows up to collect what he is owed:

         d+ + n  --> t + energy {- repayment}

    The net leftover energy (2+ MeV) is distributed between the two
particles (the neutron and the tritium nucleus), some as kinetic energy,
the rest to be distributed as low level gammas.  Since the probability of
the reaction depends (exponentially) on the time between the two steps, the
most favored cases are those where the two neutrons are flying apart (one
towards the other deuterium nucleus) with exactly the velocity necessary to
distribute all the energy kinetically.  The closer you can get the two
deuterons, the more likely the reaction, and the more energy, on average,
emitted as photons.

    I can come up with convincing ways to dispose of all those ~1 MeV
neutrons, but it is hard.  However some of them will be captured by the
palladium, and those gammas should be unmistakable.   So we are back to the
dead grad student problem.  Any explanation for cold fusion that involves
high energy gammas or energetic neutrons just doesn't match the real world.

    I'm not trying to explain cold fusion, or convince anyone that it
exists.  I'm staying that there is a different potential energy source here
that may be interesting (not for base load, but for portable power generation).

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 11:27:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA29958;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:23:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:23:35 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980310142241.00b47e40 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:22:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Cc: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
In-Reply-To: <199803100928_MC2-3637-E4B9 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pw4gA3.0.cJ7.mCP1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16465
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:24 AM 3/10/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>I confess the discussion is over my head. It is still not clear to me just
how
>much more difficult (or unlikely) fusion becomes. Some people seem to agree
>with my original estimate. I sent that message to Robert Heeter, and he
>responded:
>
>     So for a proton-palladium reaction you would need (roughly) energies of
>     20 keV * 1 * 46, which is approximately 1 MeV.

    Robert Heeter is assuming that you boost the temperature to get the
same reaction rate, while Martin Sevior told you how much more unlikely a
high-Z reaction is than a low-Z reaction at the same temperature.  No real
conflict between the numbers.

    HOWEVER, note that 1 MeV average energy above.  At that temperature
many atomic nucleii are unstable.  Protons of course are safe, as are the
"magic number nucleii such as He4 and O16.  There are also many even-even
species such as C12 that are safe.  But get to any higher energy and the
number of nucleii that survive for long periods gets depressingly small.
The problem is not that these species fuse into the more stable
isotopes--that is a goal devoutly to be wished.  The problem is that the
nucleii start absorbing energy in the quest for stability.  Deuterium is a
very special case--it is not stable at these temperatures, but that is
usually not considered a drawback.  Whatever the neutron does (other than
decay to a proton) provides useful energy--or another deuterium atom.
Neutrons have a half-life of over eight minutes, remarkably long for the
energy of decay, so in any reasonable plasma, that decay is not a problem.

    The problem is called spalling.  A collision between two high-Z
species, or even a high-Z nucleon and a proton can result in weakly head
nucleons getting knocked loose.  Unlike the deuterium case, the energy
recovered from a freed neutron is going to be less than the cost of
producing it.


                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 12:27:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01133;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35059D48.2BDD skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:06:32 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net> <35049C56.5571@interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net> <35055019.17DB@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rx-Wy2.0.cH.nzP1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16466
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> Around the loop (360 degree arc) the change in linear momentum is
> zero. (The electron is back to its original trajectory.)  Robert, the
> SPEED of the electron is not changed by the Lorentz force, but its
> velocity vector is - when you tally up the momentum changes, you need
> to look at the NET momentum change.  I still don't see the problem.

The problem is, what became of the average linear momentum which 
the electron had as it entered the magnetic field? Once into 
circular motion the average linear momentum is zero. 
How has the incoming momentum been transferred? Any force which 
underlies a momentum transfer of linear momentum is by nature 
non-conservative (i.e longitudinally oriented). 

Furthermore from a symmetry basis, an electron circulating in a 
constant magnetic field, no longer contains any information about 
the direction from which it entered the field. There has been a loss 
of information in the electron-field system -- an increase in entropy. 
This occur soley under the action of a conservative force. The Lorentz 
force acting alone is insufficient to describe the physical situation.
 
Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 12:34:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01950;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:20:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:20:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35059E81.360D skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:11:45 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net> <35049C56.5571@interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net> <35055019.17DB@interlaced.net> <35059D48.2BDD@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZD4k7.0.LU.H2Q1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16467
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry folks, this is nearly the same as the last one. 
Unfortunately, I left some key words out of the last one.

> Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> Around the loop (360 degree arc) the change in linear momentum is
> zero. (The electron is back to its original trajectory.)  Robert, the
> SPEED of the electron is not changed by the Lorentz force, but its
> velocity vector is - when you tally up the momentum changes, you need
> to look at the NET momentum change.  I still don't see the problem. 
The problem is, what became of the average linear momentum which
the electron had as it entered the magnetic field? Once into
circular motion the average linear momentum is zero.
How has the incoming momentum been transferred? Any force which
underlies a transfer of linear momentum is by nature
non-conservative (i.e longitudinally oriented).
 
Furthermore from a symmetry basis, an electron circulating in a
constant magnetic field, no longer contains any information about
the direction from which it entered the field. There has been a loss
of information in the electron-field system -- an increase in entropy.
This can not occur soley under the action of a conservative force. The Lorentz
force acting alone is insufficient to describe the physical situation.


Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 13:07:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08989;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:59:13 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:55:02 GMT
Message-ID: <3509a1df.411975 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803080605.WAA09583 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803080605.WAA09583 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: <"qa6n73.0.JC2.ScQ1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16468
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:

>Greetings Ray, and welcome to Vortex, didn't know you were monitoring this
>list.
Hi Ross, Thanks, I just joined very recently.

>That said, I think Ray still thinks aether is more of a rigid sort with
>attraction repulsion capability, whereas I obviously believe only in a
>fluidic aether with compression, and no tension.

Yes, I favour a tensile ether because it more easily explains the
transverse nature of e/m waves.  Also, the recent cosmological evidence
leads them to conclude that on the largest scale the universe has
negative pressure... which is of course tension.

In my opinion Maxwell's equations (or something very like them) with GR
are a complete description of the universe and all of QM can probably be
deduced from them.  This deduction requires a new apprecaition of the
role of harmonically related waves in forming the complete structure of
the universe.  Maxwell's equations may be interpreted as the equations
of distortion and motion of a tensile ether with the magnetic field
being local rotation and the electric field being movement.  All of this
was correctly worked out about 100 years ago except for the correct
structure of matter as standing waves.

As Ross says, we otherwise have considerable overlap in our ideas in
agreeing that the ether is the only thing in existence and that matter
is some form of standing waves while e/m waves are travelling waves etc.
There is still lots of room for debate about the form of the standing
waves.  The best model for the electron is, I believe, the structure
known as "spherical rotation" (as distinct from cylindrical rotation).

>However, there is a fundamental frequency at the Planck scale which I think
>is the drummer driving all of our observations, and that frequency is the
>frequency of spacetime itself.  All other **organized** frequencies of
>oscillation are lower frequency harmonics of that one frequency.

OK Ross, that clarifies for me what you believe concerning the whole
spectrum of oscillations.  We agree except that I think the fundamental
driving frequency is the very slow universal wave and that in our
vicinity the highest frequencies (and therefore smallest waves) normally
only go to just below the nucleon scale.  Higher energy concentrations
are required to produce finer details.

My reason for believing this is entirely based on the successes of the
Harmonics theory which calculates a unique pattern of energy in the
universe by frequency and that pattern agrees very well with
observations at many scales and convinces me that all structure in the
universe comes from the top down and not the bottom up as you (and all
of establishment physics) believes.  I will post a detailed argument at
another time.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 13:52:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16020;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3505B2F4.4D26 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:39:00 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net> <35049C56.5571@interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net> <35055019.17DB@interlaced.net> <35059D48.2BDD@skylink.net> <35059E
81.360D skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ed4I91.0.9w3.1ER1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16469
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 

> The problem is, what became of the average linear momentum which
> the electron had as it entered the magnetic field? Once into
> circular motion the average linear momentum is zero.
> How has the incoming momentum been transferred? Any force which
> underlies a transfer of linear momentum is by nature
> non-conservative (i.e longitudinally oriented).
> 
> Furthermore from a symmetry basis, an electron circulating in a
> constant magnetic field, no longer contains any information about
> the direction from which it entered the field. There has been a loss
> of information in the electron-field system -- an increase in entropy.
> This can not occur soley under the action of a conservative force. The Lorentz
> force acting alone is insufficient to describe the physical situation.
>
 
Gee, Robert, aren't we getting too fundamental here?  I was under the
impression that a FREE electron, away from other matter, could be
treated as a simple balistic particle.  Is this right?  I tend to
compare the problem with that of a bullet in a vacuum tank being
captured on the end of a weightless string (by a glob of magic goo?).
Before the capture, you could argue that the bullet has an "average
momentum".  And after capture, by your argument, it would have none.
I think we get into trouble using "average" here.  Momentum is really
an instant thing, is it not?  We can't divorce the bullet from the
reference frame we used to set up the problem.  If we include the
vacuum tank AND the bullet accelerator in the "system", then let's
say that at time zero, the system has zero "average" linear momentum.
Then, we fire the bullet and it acquires linear momentum in one
direction and the tank (and everything else) gets the same in the
opposite direction.  The average linear momentum of the system is zero.
After the bullet is captured by the string, it rotates around and its
linear momentum becomes a periodic function, as does the linear
momentum of the tank (it vibrates).  The sum of their momentums at any
instant is always zero.
Isn't it similar with the electron.  The electron had to acquire its
linear momentum by reacting on something, didn't it?  I still think
we must consider the INSTANT momentum exchanges here for a clear
picture.  If we let the electron exit the magnetic field after a 180
degree arc, we clearly would have the equivalent of a perfectly elastic
rebound, wouldn't we?  Then, the electron and the magnet would each
have gone through a momentum change of twice the electron's original,
right?

I think I'll quit while I'm behind!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 14:00:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17398;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:54:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:54:23 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Some general thoughts on anomalous devices
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:04:22 GMT
Message-ID: <350aa9db.2455890 kcbbs.gen.nz>
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: <"q81JU3.0.fF4.CQR1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16470
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi All, I'm new to the Vortex list and thought that I might introduce
myself.  My name is Ray Tomes and I live in New Zealand and though I'm
not really into building devices I am interested in what happens when
other people do.  I am more of a theoretician and have developed the
Harmonics theory which you can read about on my web pages if you are
interested.  My major interest is cycles in everything and the Harmonics
theory is concerned with oscillations in the universe on all scales from
subatomic particles to galactic super clusters - and how they are
related.

Obviously when something happens in an experiment that is unexpected we
need to rethink the theory or try to work out how that could happen
under present theory.  That is where I think that I can make some
contributions.  First a brief outline of my ideas...

I believe that everything that exists is some aspect of a single field
(or medium) that pervades everywhere and in which oscillations are very
important.  I regard this view as very largely consistent with standard
theory except that it has not generally been recognised that GR +
Maxwell's equations are non-linear and that this non-linearity
necessarily leads to harmonic generation from all waves, although at a
very gradual rate (the Hubble rate).  This may sound as if it would be
of little consequence, however from this assumption I am able to predict
the structure of the universe by calculating the distance scales of
everything from the universe, galaxies, stars, planets and moons down to
atoms and particles.  All of these are harmonics of the universal wave
and the frequencies, wavelengths etc of all waves are predictable.  Each
of the above scales is linked by a ratio of 34560 or something similar
according to the harmonics theory.  That means that there are three more
steps between moons and atoms and I have found that several anomolous
devices are related to these steps.

So coming back to anomolous experiments I think that the reason that
some experiments work sometimes and not others is often due to aspects
of the experiment that are not recognised as important.  This includes
such things as the physical dimensions of the aparatus and the exact
frequencies present in relation to the temperature and size of
apparatus.  All these things determine the effect of resonances, some of
which will not be obvious because the wave lengths, frequencies and
speeds will not be guessed.  I suggest that any "free" energy devive
must tap the natural waves of the universe which means accurate tuning
if you want lots of energy.

I think that some cold fusion devices suddenly explode because (due to
evaporation or whatever) their tuning drifts into one of the strong
natural universal frequencies.  This is a bit like building a radio,
having a really powerful amplifier with the volume turned to full...
and then slowly turning the tuning dial... when you get to a station you
are going to get a real BLAST!

To give you an example of the applications of the theory, consider the
solar system.  There are two main oscillation families in the sun.  One
is the 160 minute oscillation and the other is a group of oscillations
mostly between 5 and 6 minutes.  I believe that there are standing waves
centred on the sun with these periods and therefore with wavelengths of
160 and say 160/28 = 5.7 light minutes.  Such waves will have internodal
distances of 1/2 that much or 80 and 2.9 light minutes or about 9.6 and
0.34 astronomical units (earth-sun distance = 1 a.u).

If we look at the planetary distances from the sun we find that the 4
outer planets are at very near multiples of 9.8 a.u from the sun and the
inner ones are near multiples of 0.35 a.u. so the agreement is pretty
good.  The inner planets are less accurate than the outer ones but that
is expected because there are many modes to the solar 5 minute
oscillations and so that wave is heavily modulated.  Also, Jupiter is at
only half a wave so it could be better to use 80/2=40 and a ratio of 14
ratherthan 28 above.  Phycisists tell me that I have discovered a
"coincidence" by which they mean that the above has no causal
connection.  However I will give you a further "coincidence"...

The outer planets and the sun are made of H and He and the sun uses the
process H1 --> D2 -->He4 (and later --> C12) which we may note are mass
doublings.  In the harmonics theory frequency doublings are very common
and we know that mass-energy-frequency are all the same thing really.
However let us look at the inner planets; the earth has an atmosphere of
mostly N14, a crust of mostly O16 & Si28 and a core of mainly Fe56.
Notice that we again have layers going 14-28-56 or successive doubling.
This makes no sense in standard theory, but the Harmonics theory expects
that planetary orbits that are 28 or 14 times smaller will have
frequencies that much higher all the way down to atomic scales.

In other words, the 5-6 minute waves are responsible for the isotopes in
the earth being as they are.  This is a radical idea as far as standard
ideas go, but do you think that all of the above are coincidences?

That means that it is easier on earth to convert N14-->Si28-->Fe56 than
to use H1-->D2--He4 because the earth is doing it already (probably only
near the core).  To achieve this requires accurate tuning to a number of
levels of the frequencies between the 5-6 minute waves and the atomic
frequencies and setting up the conditions for resonance.  There are 6
such levels at ratios near 34560.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 14:02:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18123;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:56:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:56:32 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD674 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:55:26 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"ekiMw3.0.qQ4.BSR1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16471
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert
	I don't understand the use of "average" in this context. Are you
not talking about a single electron interacting with a magnetic field? 
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Robert Stirniman[SMTP:robert skylink.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Tuesday, March 10, 1998 12:11 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
> 
> Sorry folks, this is nearly the same as the last one. 
> Unfortunately, I left some key words out of the last one.
> 
> > Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> > Around the loop (360 degree arc) the change in linear momentum is
> > zero. (The electron is back to its original trajectory.)  Robert,
> the
> > SPEED of the electron is not changed by the Lorentz force, but its
> > velocity vector is - when you tally up the momentum changes, you
> need
> > to look at the NET momentum change.  I still don't see the problem. 
> The problem is, what became of the average linear momentum which
> the electron had as it entered the magnetic field? Once into
> circular motion the average linear momentum is zero.
> How has the incoming momentum been transferred? Any force which
> underlies a transfer of linear momentum is by nature
> non-conservative (i.e longitudinally oriented).
>  
> Furthermore from a symmetry basis, an electron circulating in a
> constant magnetic field, no longer contains any information about
> the direction from which it entered the field. There has been a loss
> of information in the electron-field system -- an increase in entropy.
> This can not occur soley under the action of a conservative force. The
> Lorentz
> force acting alone is insufficient to describe the physical situation.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Robert Stirniman
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 15:07:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27496;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:50:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007808b12b706d5f47 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <35059D48.2BDD skylink.net>
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
 <v03020900b129cb43c019 [128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net>
 <35049C56.5571 interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net>
 <35055019.17DB interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:48:36 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"euYJi3.0.Pj6.gES1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16472
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman is confused about the trajectories of charged particles in
a magnetic field.

To summarize:  If a charged particle is accelerated in field-free space and
directed at a region of magnetic field, there are two outcomes.  1) If the
particle energy is low, the particle curves about and emerges from the
field back into field-free space. The magnetic field acts much like a
mirror.  2) If the particle energy is high, the particle penetrates the
magnetic flux and emerges out "the other side" and back into field-free
space. The parameter that determines reflection or traversal is the ratio
between the  particle's momentum per unit charge and the magnetic flux. A
charged particle from outside the flux can never be trapped in a magnetic
field unless some _additional_ means is provided to change either the
particle's momentum or else to change the magnetic flux while the particle
is in the process of traversing it. Otherwise, a particle trapped in the
field must have been "created" (eg. freed from an bound atomic state)
within the field.

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 Mar 10 15:33:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02514;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3505C710.282F skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:04:48 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <v03020900b129cb43c019@[128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net> <35049C56.5571@interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net> <35055019.17DB@interlaced.net> <35059D48.2BDD@skylink.net> <35059E
81.360D skylink.net> <3505B2F4.4D26@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"o88hW3.0.8d.hbS1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16473
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> Gee, Robert, aren't we getting too fundamental here?  

Too fundamental? One can only hope so.

> I tend to
> compare the problem with that of a bullet in a vacuum tank being
> captured on the end of a weightless string (by a glob of magic goo?).
> Before the capture, you could argue that the bullet has an "average
> momentum".  And after capture, by your argument, it would have none.

After capture, your combination of bullet and goo, must have the same 
linear momentum that the bullet once had alone. Similarly, after an 
incoming electron is captured by a constant magnetic field, the combination 
of electron and the apparatus which generates the magnetic field, must 
have the same linear momentum which the electron once had. The captured 
electron has no average linear momentum -- all of it must have been 
transferred to the apparatus. This requires a non-conservative, longitudinal
force. 

> Isn't it similar with the electron.  The electron had to acquire its
> linear momentum by reacting on something, didn't it?  

For sure the electron acquired linear momentum by reacting
with something prior to entering the magnetic field. Once captured
in circular motion in the field the average linear momentum is gone. 
During capture there must have been a reaction force in which the
incoming linear momentum was given up.

Whether the incoming linear momentum is lost instantly, or more likely 
is lost temporaneously during capture, in either case -- when 
it came in it had an average linear momentum, and after capture it 
has none. 

Also, once the electron is captured in circular motion, all information 
about the direction of entry is LOST. Here, Nature is telling us 
something fundamental has happened, which can not be explained soley 
under the action of a conservative (Lorentz) force.

> If we let the electron exit the magnetic field after a 180
> degree arc, we clearly would have the equivalent of a perfectly 
> elastic rebound, wouldn't we?  

Once captured by a CONSTANT magnetic field, the electron can never 
exit. The only way you can "let" it exit, is by generation of a 
non-constant magnetic field, or by addition of an electric field.
You can "let" it exit in any direction you want. It no longer has
any memory of how it once came in. However you contrive to let it 
exit, the appartus must give up linear momentum, and a longitudinal 
force must be generated in the direction of exiting velocity.   

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 15:50:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07323;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3505CF05.7448 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:38:45 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
	 <v03020900b129cb43c019 [128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net>
	 <35049C56.5571 interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net>
	 <35055019.17DB interlaced.net> <v03007808b12b706d5f47@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"p_xLL3.0.Io1.FzS1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16474
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
> 
 A
> charged particle from outside the flux can never be trapped in a magnetic
> field unless some _additional_ means is provided to change either the
> particle's momentum or else to change the magnetic flux while the particle
> is in the process of traversing it. 

Thanks for clearing this up, Michael!  I wasn't sure it was a general
principle.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 15:52:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01816;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:48:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:48:01 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:47:51 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803102347.PAA03235 slave1.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Announcement
Resent-Message-ID: <"PjPhH.0.GS.l4T1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16475
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Barry Merriman wrote:
>What ever happened to your claim that you could
>make overunity devices a 'la Griggs for ~ $150 each.
>Never heard much about that since the initial claims.
>I take it that means you found the devices are not
>"over unity"?

Hi Barry,

        You can still make my device for ~$150 in parts.  That's about all I
spend to make them.  If you'll check out the Cavitation College Homepage
over the next few weeks, you'll find the schematics, cost sheet, and
instructions.  It takes more patience than skill, but I've seen photos of
some of your work, and I think you could do it without any problem.  A
replication of the device that Griggs is selling would be even simpler and
cheaper.  Minus the pump, a Potapov replication should cost less than $50 in
parts.   A replication of the Putterman patent would be more difficult and
expensive, but it might be more appropriate if your research demanded that a
smaller number of materials be in contact with the working fluid.  You can
do alot of good science on the cheap, if you build your own stuff.  

        I just started that Cavitation College page about a week ago, and
I've got a ton of stuff on my harddrive that I've got to "webbize" and post.
Eventually, I'll be posting all my test results, instructions on how to make
your own, that sort of thing, along with all of the web accessable stuff
that I've collected over the past three years relating to cavitation.  I
think what I've posted to date is around 1 megabyte in size, and I've got
probably 300 megs of stuff to convert and post, so it might take a while.
Keep checking back if you're interested.

        I haven't made any retractions of any claims. -Knuke
     

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 16:02:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10459;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:45:13 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
In-Reply-To: <199803100928_MC2-3637-E4B9 compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311102226.25030A-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"fgF1b1.0.LZ2.j9T1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16476
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I just need a few paragraphs. At this point I would have to write:
> 
>      . . . there appears to be disagreement about the strength of this
>      barrier. I asked various experts how much less likely palladium fusion
>      is, and they estimated between 46 times and 10^20 times . . . because of
>      the "Quantum Mechanical barrier penetration problem." In any case, this
>      is the original reason why many scientists felt more inclined to take
>      D-D and other light element fusion seriously, but they balk at the idea
>      of heavy elements taking part in the reaction.
> 
> That isn't very satisfactory. I do not want to beat this subject to death, but
> I would appreciate another short note from Heeter and/or Sevior.

Jed, I think the reason you got two answers is that Robert Heeter and I
were answering slightly different questions. If the proton is kept at 
ordinary thermal temperatures then the probability of of p Pd interaction 
is 10^20 times smaller. Robert Heeter was answering the question "How 
much more energy do you need to drive the reaction".

His numbers are correct. I did my Ph.D. firing protons at elements like Pd.
You can get measurable cross sections at 1 MeV.

I also agree with Robert that my main problem with CF is the lack of 
energetic signature radiation if the reaction is nuclear in nature.

By the way, the 10^20 was a ballpark estimate, it might off by a few 
orders of magnitude, not that anyone will ever do an experiment to prove 
me wrong :-)!

Gee how would you do the experiment? Take a bottle of Hydrogen, open the
nozzle and blow it a piece a Pd. Measure the number of gamma rays with
the hose running and with it off :-).

I can do a more accurate calculation if you like. I teach this stuff in a 
Nuclear Physics course here at Melbourne Uni.

Quantum Mechanical tunnelling is a real phenomen. As I said, without it 
Stars would burn far differently, Alpha-particle decay could not occur and
semi-conductor device dimensions could shrink a couple of orders of 
magnitude smaller than the 0.1 microns thought to be the current minimum
for CMOS technology. After that, well people are exploring the possibilies of
exploiting tunnelling in fundamentally Quantum Mechanical devices. 

Cheers

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 16:34:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12496;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:26:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:26:59 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007809b12b7602af05 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <199803091214_MC2-360D-D14 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:27:36 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Question about Coulomb barrier
Resent-Message-ID: <"qtBuW3.0.833.GfT1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16477
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

You ask lots of questions here. I was too busy to respond Monday. Maybe you
have sorted all the answers out. However, I'll answer a few questions.

[snip]
>As I understand it, the difference is not that great, corresponding to the
>number of extra protons in the heavier elements. In other words, take a proton
>and accelerate it to cause fusion by brute force with hydrogen, potassium and
>palladium. The difficulty levels are 1, 19 and 46.

Nuclear forces are very short range, acting for only about 1 fermi = 1
femto meter = 10^-15 meter, and they drop off much faster than inverse
square of distance. Nucleii are only a couple of fm in diameter at most. In
order to make a nuclear reaction, two particles close enough for the
nuclear forces to act. Since nucleii are positive, two nucleii repel. The
energy to bring two protons (or two of any other hydrogen isotope) to a
distance of 1 fm is about 1.4 MeV. The deuterium-deuterium reaction cross
section reaches its peak at about 2 MeV, consistent with this argument. The
energy required increases with the product of the atomic numbers (numbers
of protons), as you said. This is the "Coulomb energy barrier". It's the
nuclear equivalant of chemical energy barriers, eg. you need a match to
heat reactants to start most reactions, even exothermal ones.

Note that "room temperature" of 300 K is only about 0.026 eV. The energy
barrier to overcome to get two nucleii close is about 50 million times
greater than the average thermal energy at room temperature. Not much will
react.

However, there are two effects that ease this dismal situation. One is the
Maxwellian energy distribution; an exponentially decreasing fraction of
particles in a thermal distribution have higher energies than average. This
helps us in hot fusion, allowing us to get useful fusion reaction rates at
the order of 100 keV _temperatures_ (my first paragraph dealt with single
particle energies). The other big effect is quantum mechanical tunneling,
as Martin Sevior pointed out. Tunneling is especially useful if the
reactant particles can spend a long time somewhat close to each other, as
is hypothesized to occur in cold fusion. The classic case in this context
is muon-catalyzed fusion. If a muon, which is like an electron, but about
200 times heavier, replaces an electron in a deuterium atom, the resulting
atom forms a chemical bond with another deuteron that is about 200 times
shorter than normal. This greatly increases the probablity that the two
nucleii will tunnel through the coulomb energy barrier and get close enough
to react. Note that this happens slowly on a nuclear time scale. (The
problem with muon catalized fusion is not that it doesn't happen, but that
it takes too much energy to create the muons, which have a half life of
about 2 microsec.) The probability of tunneling  decreases exponentially
with the height of the energy barrier and the separation of the particles.
So while tunneling helps, the exponential attenuation is so large (see
Sevior's reply) that fusion cannot occur at detectable rates at room
temperatures. Deuterium molecules are not observed to fuse spontaneously.


> [snip]
>Question 1: How much hotter is that than a regular tokamak? An extra 1,000
>degrees?

There is not a unique temperature for "hot" fusion, since the optimum
temperature is the result of trade offs among many requirements. DT fusion
in tokamaks is done between 20 kev and 40 keV temperatures (about 200 - 400
million kelvin).


>When CF was announced back in 1989, many mainstream scientists took it
>seriously because there is a precedent for low temperature fusion with muon
>catalyzed fusion. Later, when it was suggested that other elements may be
>participating in the reaction, particularly the host metal (usually
>palladium), or other metals in the electrolyte like potassium in nickel cells,
>some of these mainstream physicists were incensed with that idea, rejecting it
>categorically. This is the transmutation problem. They could imagine deuteron
>or even protium fusion, but they could not imagine why the heavy elements
>might be participating by fusion, and sometimes fissioning when this
>transmuted into heavier unstable elements.
>
>Okay . . . here is my question. Why? What bothers these people?

First, it is that increased Coulomb energy barrier. It is a BIG stretch to
try to imagine how a metal lattice loaded with D can lower it enough and
get the D nucleii close enough that the tunneling will become observably
fast. The obvious calculations from theory say it falls way short (the D
nuclei are still too far apart in PdD lattice, and the Coulomb repulsion is
not reduced nearly enough by the negative charge of the Pd electrons). The
Chubb and other theories attempt to overcome these objections, but they do
not convince most physicists. So, it is an even bigger strain to jump to
belief that reactions will tunnel through the much larger energy barriers,
which push the tunneling rate down by many, many orders of magnitude. It is
not a matter of
  >"they could not imagine why the heavy elements
  >might be participating by fusion, and sometimes fissioning when this
  >transmuted into heavier unstable elements.

Second reason has to do with products. Heavy elements have more nuetron
relative to protons than do light elements. Pd isotopes have about 1.3 n
per p. Iron has about 1.15 n per p. When a heavy isotope fissions, the
neutrons either have to appear or turn into protons and electrons (beta
particles). Neutrons are not seen in cf experiments. Neutrons are
uncharged, and energetic product neutrons should escape freely from
cf-sized experiments. Energetic betas would not escape (their range is too
small) but they make energetic x-rays that would be detectable. I guess the
cf experimental community is not agreed yet about the presence or absence
of x-rays.

Third, fission normally leaves the two product nucleii in high energy
excited states. Such nucleii have a high probability of emitting energetic
gammas, which would excape cf-sized systems and are easy to detect. None
are seen.

[snip]
> To take one hypothesis, Mizuno thinks CF is caused by
>extremely high pressure around defects on the metal surface, in which
>recombination overpotential increases. He says that over a tiny area, at 0.5 V
>this would cause pressure equivalent to the center of the sun, 10^11 atm. If
>you change conditions a little, increasing recombination overpotential up to
>0.7 volts, pressure increases to 10^23 atm, roughly equivalent to the center
>of a neutron star.

I don't know all about it, but overpotential does not necessarily translate
into pressure.  0.5 volt overpotential can only add 0.5 eV of energy to a
deuteron, no more.

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 Mar 10 18:14:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA12031;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:10:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:10:34 -0800
Message-ID: <003601bd4c92$57c36000$6f8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:05:58 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"-B39p1.0.gx2.KAV1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16478
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com <Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!


Martin wrote:


>
>I also agree with Robert that my main problem with CF is the lack of
>energetic signature radiation if the reaction is nuclear in nature.
>
I think the CF "handle" for the heat effect is
unfortunate except for reactions at femtobarn levels.

On the other hand thermal or mechanical agitation even from Kev particle
bombardment of a low Z target should allow for Virtual Photon
production an subsequent pair production close to a proton or deuteron in
accordance with:
dE = hbar/dt and dx = c*dt, and this is what
"quantum mechanical tunneling" is about.

Given that a negative particle with a few ev rest mass (more or less)can
fall into a close
"orbit" radius, R = kq^2/Eo[(qV/Eo)+1] where
V = kq/R.

For particles of a few ev rest mass R can be on the order of 1.5E-13 meters
or 150 Fermi. Not enough for high level QM tunneling, but enough to give off
appreciable heat.

No reason that this shouldn't allow coupling to electrons and create neutral
particles a few kev heavier than the electron too.

I would think that in kev temperature machines like the Tokamak these could
participate in HF reactions.

>
>Quantum Mechanical tunnelling is a real phenomen.

Sure is, but what happens when those little neutral particles diffuse into a
heavy nucleus? and add a few "quarks to it?    :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>Cheers
>
>Martin
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 18:24:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA16926;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:22:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:22:28 -0800
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:21:57 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
In-Reply-To: <003601bd4c92$57c36000$6f8cbfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311132009.9773B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Xk1xZ1.0.N84.YLV1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16479
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
> >
> >Quantum Mechanical tunnelling is a real phenomen.
> 
> Sure is, but what happens when those little neutral particles diffuse into a
> heavy nucleus? and add a few "quarks to it?    :-)
> 

These little neutral particles would be NEW PHYSICS and as such extremely 
interesting. I haven't given up hope that something might come out of all 
this CF stuff.

Cheers

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 20:24:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00878;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:20:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:20:07 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:17:04 GMT
Message-ID: <35150cdf.27641775 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311132009.9773B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311132009.9773B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.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: <"9je6Q1.0.cD.o3X1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16480
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:21:57 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior
<msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>> ... what happens when those little neutral particles diffuse into a
>> heavy nucleus? and add a few "quarks to it?    :-)

>These little neutral particles would be NEW PHYSICS and as such extremely 
>interesting. I haven't given up hope that something might come out of all 
>this CF stuff.

I haven't been following this and so I am not sure what the "little
neutral particles" that you refer to are.  If you are looking for new
little neutral particles then this may be of interest to you.

In 1995 scientists at KARMEN reported the discovery of new particles
which were neutral WIMPs.  The report that I saw was in New Scientist in
Feb 1995 and said the mass was about 70 times an electron (ie about 36
Mev) and that the particles went through 6 m of steel (which was
supposed to stop everything except the neutrinos that they were making).
There was a later article (in Phys Rev???) which said the mass was
around 33.9 Mev I think.

These were of interest to me because in 1994 I predicted a particle of
mass ~34.76 Mev based on the Harmonics theory and some other clues.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 21:41:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA29387;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:38:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:38:58 -0800
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:38:45 -0800
Message-Id: <199803110538.VAA13068 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pz9Aw.0.pA7.lDY1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16481
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote;
>Ray Tomes wrote;
>>On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:
>
>>That said, I think Ray still thinks aether is more of a rigid sort with
>>attraction repulsion capability, whereas I obviously believe only in a
>>fluidic aether with compression, and no tension.
>
>Yes, I favour a tensile ether because it more easily explains the
>transverse nature of e/m waves.  Also, the recent cosmological evidence
>leads them to conclude that on the largest scale the universe has
>negative pressure... which is of course tension.

I don't think that it more easily explains anything, but it is easier to
think in these terms for most people.  Specifically, people think of EM as a
transverse wave, but they think of "spacetime" as being just some
fundamental property of the universe, and not simply some structure of wave
energy in an ocean of aether.

When you work with spacetime as a structure of organized waves, as I do,
then the distribution of the nodal locations in those waves can become
transversely distorted by the passage of some other wave form.  I work with
smoke ring like vortices for photons, and so those lead to a transverse
distortion to the spacetime node distribution, and you get the same effect,
no tensile forces needed.  

All I need are density waves interfering with other density waves.  That we
name  them photons, or EM waves, or spacetime, or particles is irrelevant to
me.  They are all just different geometries of waveforms, period.

>In my opinion Maxwell's equations (or something very like them) with GR
>are a complete description of the universe and all of QM can probably be
>deduced from them.  

Here is where I disagree with you.  With the above, I agree that you will
succeed at describing things in the laboratory.  But you will not explain QM
"wierdness" phenomena unless you allow there to be waves of all sorts,
though you can do that with a tensile aether too.  The problem arises when
you attempt to explain exothermy and in particular, mass to energy conversion.

To me, the property "mass" is a measure of simply how much aether is
associated with a given waveform.  It is that simple.  Different waveforms
are different sizes of vortices and can confine different quantities of
aether.  But when you change the geometry of the waves by combining them
into new composite structures, ie soliton to soliton bonding as is known to
occur in nature BTW, then you must account for the aether emitted and it's
interaction on matter.

Without this you will not apply a tensile aether to bulk flow, logically,
IMO.  And without it, you will not explain jets shooting out of new born
stars.  

If you truly think about it, there is only one place we have ever truly
observed a tensile interaction.  That place is in our minds.  

This deduction requires a new apprecaition of the
>role of harmonically related waves in forming the complete structure of
>the universe.  Maxwell's equations may be interpreted as the equations
>of distortion and motion of a tensile ether with the magnetic field
>being local rotation and the electric field being movement.  All of this
>was correctly worked out about 100 years ago except for the correct
>structure of matter as standing waves.

I totally agree with all of the Harmonic requirements and many are being
found.  But don't forget that Thomson, (Kelvin) worked out a fluidic aether
using pulsating spheres just as I am, and he also worked out one version of
spacetime which he called a vortex sponge.  That structure agreed with
Maxwell's equations too, and did not require any attraction tensile
mechanisms to do it.

So, IMO, one day Ray will change, and in his opinion, one day I will change.
But I think I have the leg up on the astrophysical research ;-) as I have
bought over 60 books on how stars, BH's, galaxies and cosmology all work and
seem to find that the fluidic notion works really well.  

>
>As Ross says, we otherwise have considerable overlap in our ideas in
>agreeing that the ether is the only thing in existence and that matter
>is some form of standing waves while e/m waves are travelling waves etc.
>There is still lots of room for debate about the form of the standing
>waves.  The best model for the electron is, I believe, the structure
>known as "spherical rotation" (as distinct from cylindrical rotation).

And I say the best model is the pulsating sphere, which on my side again
there is Maxwell, Bjerknes, and others who worked this model out and found
that it agreed with Maxwell's equations, and that it also led to neutral
resonances at 90 and 270 degrees.  They, however, didn't work much with
those resonances because they didn't know about Neutrinos or neutrons or
other neutral sub atomic particles.

>
>>However, there is a fundamental frequency at the Planck scale which I think
>>is the drummer driving all of our observations, and that frequency is the
>>frequency of spacetime itself.  All other **organized** frequencies of
>>oscillation are lower frequency harmonics of that one frequency.
>
>OK Ross, that clarifies for me what you believe concerning the whole
>spectrum of oscillations.  We agree except that I think the fundamental
>driving frequency is the very slow universal wave and that in our
>vicinity the highest frequencies (and therefore smallest waves) normally
>only go to just below the nucleon scale.  Higher energy concentrations
>are required to produce finer details.

I have no problem with this.  To me, to say that it is driven top down or
bottom up is identical if it is symmetrical.  Also, I know that you know
that it isn't perfectly symmetrical, so it also doesn't bother me that the
universe was driven from long waves down to smaller ones as it boiled into
smaller and smaller fragments.  But that does not mean that there was not
some all permeating fine wave structure to begin with, which cleaved off the
larger waves!


I do agree too that the entire thing began when a huge black hole burst and
began to boil, thus the aether condesnate began as a huge ball and began to
blast apart into smaller and smaller waves.  But that does not mean that at
the BH interior, those waves were not already there, and the reason for the
aether's ability to condense in the first place.  ie, in my model, I have
the ability to form structure in a core inside of the event horizon.  And
that structure could persist and help lead to the manifestation of it's
presence as the core boils, and the universe is inflated in the first stages
of the big bang.


Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 10 21:48:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA31168;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:46:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:46:07 -0800
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:45:45 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
In-Reply-To: <35150cdf.27641775 kcbbs.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311164132.4421B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dwu4_1.0.sc7.UKY1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16482
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ray Tomes wrote:

> 
> I haven't been following this and so I am not sure what the "little
> neutral particles" that you refer to are.  If you are looking for new
> little neutral particles then this may be of interest to you.
> 
Any generic new neutral particles. A Mills type hydrino for example with
an electron in an orbital below the usual ground state would qualify.


> In 1995 scientists at KARMEN reported the discovery of new particles
> which were neutral WIMPs.  The report that I saw was in New Scientist in
> Feb 1995 and said the mass was about 70 times an electron (ie about 36
> Mev) and that the particles went through 6 m of steel (which was
> supposed to stop everything except the neutrinos that they were making).
> There was a later article (in Phys Rev???) which said the mass was
> around 33.9 Mev I think.
> 

This "discovery" is extremely controversial. Not many people believe that 
Karmen has really discovered a new particle. It is more likely to be an 
experimental artifact. Another experiment would have to confirm this before
it will be accepted.

Cheers

Martin

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 01:23:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA06183;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:21:11 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:18:14 GMT
Message-ID: <35084750.11032847 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803110538.VAA13068 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803110538.VAA13068 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: <"KPoa-3.0.XW1.6Ub1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16483
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:

>... Specifically, people think of EM as a
>transverse wave, but they think of "spacetime" as being just some
>fundamental property of the universe, and not simply some structure of wave
>energy in an ocean of aether.

How can you explain the polarisation of light without transverse waves?
How can you have transverse waves without tension? [see note below]
These are questions that you must answer if your model is to work.

>All I need are density waves interfering with other density waves.  That we
>name  them photons, or EM waves, or spacetime, or particles is irrelevant to
>me.  They are all just different geometries of waveforms, period.

Agreed.

>>In my opinion Maxwell's equations (or something very like them) with GR
>>are a complete description of the universe and all of QM can probably be
>>deduced from them.  

>Here is where I disagree with you.  With the above, I agree that you will
>succeed at describing things in the laboratory.  But you will not explain QM
>"wierdness" phenomena unless you allow there to be waves of all sorts,
>though you can do that with a tensile aether too.  The problem arises when
>you attempt to explain exothermy and in particular, mass to energy conversion.

There is no quantum weirdness - it all results from the mistaken
assumption that light travels in quanta.  It doesn't, it only emits and
absorbs in quanta.  See the drip model of light -
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/drip-ml.htm

As regards exothermy and mass/energy conversion, here is my version of
the explanation.  When you have any spherical standing wave you have
concentric shells of aether rotating in opposite directions like the old
washing mashines, one way then the other.  There is energy in this wave
which excahnges between kinetic and potential (the distortion)
coninuously.  There is also a centrifugal effect, especially very near
the centre - this increases the central tension and causes the frequency
variations that we know as GR gravitational redshift.

When atomic (or chemical) reactions release energy then some of the
standing wave becomes a moving wave and the central tension is slightly
reduced, so you are right that there is a general movement of aether.

However in my model there is a low aether density (high tension) in the
sun say and release of energy increases the density; everything is back
to front to your model; so there is an outward propagating wave of
inward rushing aether.

I cannot understand how your aether condenses - does it have little
hooks (like Dalton's) so that it can stick on?  You say there are no
attractive forces so it seems to me that it should bounce off.  In
Newton's balls, every one in causes one to bounce out.

Although we are discussing the differences, we will often get the same
answers.

>Without this you will not apply a tensile aether to bulk flow, logically,
>IMO.  And without it, you will not explain jets shooting out of new born
>stars.  

In the tensile situation there is still a line of least resistance at
the poles and the movement is, as stated above, a density and tension
variation which propagates as a wave.

>If you truly think about it, there is only one place we have ever truly
>observed a tensile interaction.  That place is in our minds.  

That is the only place we ever observe anything Ross!

>I totally agree with all of the Harmonic requirements and many are being
>found.  But don't forget that Thomson, (Kelvin) worked out a fluidic aether
>using pulsating spheres just as I am, and he also worked out one version of
>spacetime which he called a vortex sponge.  That structure agreed with
>Maxwell's equations too, and did not require any attraction tensile
>mechanisms to do it.

I don't follow all of that, but accept that this was done.  I consider
however that the tensile model is better because it doesn't have some
smallest sized particles.  It is continuous and is therefore simpler as
a model.

Do you believe in continuous or little particles of aether?
It looks to me like you have a dollar each way.

>... I have
>bought over 60 books on how stars, BH's, galaxies and cosmology all work and
>seem to find that the fluidic notion works really well.  

As mentioned, many of your results agree with my own deductions.
However I can also calculate many things to precisely quantitatively
(redshift quanta, geological cycle periods, predict correctly a new
subatomic particle etc etc).

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 01:26:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA29627;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:24:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:24:50 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:18:17 GMT
Message-ID: <35094c2d.12277466 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311164132.4421B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980311164132.4421B-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.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: <"tLx2P.0.mE7.WXb1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16484
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:45:45 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior
<msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ray Tomes wrote:
>> In 1995 scientists at KARMEN reported the discovery of new particles
>> which were neutral WIMPs.  The report that I saw was in New Scientist in
>> Feb 1995 and said the mass was about 70 times an electron (ie about 36
>> Mev) and that the particles went through 6 m of steel (which was
>> supposed to stop everything except the neutrinos that they were making).
>> There was a later article (in Phys Rev???) which said the mass was
>> around 33.9 Mev I think.

>This "discovery" is extremely controversial.

Why?  Because present theory did not expect it?
I found three theoretical ways to arrive at the existence of this
particle so I was pretty sure that it would exist (and so predicted it)
before its discovery.

>Not many people believe that 
>Karmen has really discovered a new particle. It is more likely to be an 
>experimental artifact. Another experiment would have to confirm this before
>it will be accepted.

Another experiment would have to not find it before I will doubt it.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 03:30:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA06687;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:27:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:27:22 -0800
Message-ID: <35067527.80C15936 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:27:36 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
References: <199803110538.VAA13068 Au.oro.net> <35084750.11032847@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"euHR2.0.Pe1.OKd1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16485
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

How can your tensile steel like aether rotate.

John Berry

Ray Tomes wrote:

> As regards exothermy and mass/energy conversion, here is my version of
> the explanation.  When you have any spherical standing wave you have
> concentric shells of aether rotating in opposite directions like the old
> washing mashines, one way then the other.  There is energy in this wave
> which excahnges between kinetic and potential (the distortion)
> coninuously.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 03:35:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA13011;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <009c01bd4ce0$d96370c0$6f8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:28:00 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"OiP2-1.0.CB3.DQd1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16486
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Tomes <rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!


>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:21:57 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior
><msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>>> ... what happens when those little neutral particles diffuse into a
>>> heavy nucleus? and add a few "quarks to it?    :-)
>
>>These little neutral particles would be NEW PHYSICS and as such extremely
>>interesting. I haven't given up hope that something might come out of all
>>this CF stuff.
>
>I haven't been following this and so I am not sure what the "little
>neutral particles" that you refer to are.  If you are looking for new
>little neutral particles then this may be of interest to you.
>
>In 1995 scientists at KARMEN reported the discovery of new particles
>which were neutral WIMPs.  The report that I saw was in New Scientist in
>Feb 1995 and said the mass was about 70 times an electron (ie about 36
>Mev) and that the particles went through 6 m of steel (which was
>supposed to stop everything except the neutrinos that they were making).
>There was a later article (in Phys Rev???) which said the mass was
>around 33.9 Mev I think.

According to a natural relationship for particle mass-energy dictated by the
fine structure constant "alpha" (0.00729729):
E = n*1.02E6/(2*alpha^n') (n= 0,1,2,3...) there should be a particle with a
rest mass of
about 70.0 Mev. These occur across the spectrum
of particles found in High Energy Physics experiments.
There may also be particles with a rest mass-energy of n*1.02E6*alpha^n'/2.

Regards,    Frederick
>
>These were of interest to me because in 1994 I predicted a particle of
>mass ~34.76 Mev based on the Harmonics theory and some other clues.
>
>-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
>   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 03:47:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA14411;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:45:52 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:42:29 GMT
Message-ID: <350a7589.4708947 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803110538.VAA13068 Au.oro.net> <35084750.11032847@kcbbs.gen.nz> <35067527.80C15936@ihug.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <35067527.80C15936 ihug.co.nz>
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: <"MW5e-.0.4X3.kbd1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16487
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>How can your tensile steel like aether rotate.

>Ray Tomes wrote:
>> ... When you have any spherical standing wave you have
>> concentric shells of aether rotating in opposite directions like the old
>> washing mashines, one way then the other.  There is energy in this wave
>> which exchanges between kinetic and potential (the distortion)
>> continuously.

Rather than try and describe it in words (which is very difficult) have
a look at http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-conso.htm and in
particular the graphic (on that page) at
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/conson1.gif

In essence the equation looks something like:

tangential displ. = k * sin(2*pi*t/period) * sin(2*pi*r/wavelength)/r

Actually there is a better model for the electron which is described as
spherical rotation and also involves movement in the 3rd dimension.
What is more it has continuous deformation (spin 1/2) in one direction
without the aether ever getting tied up in knots.  This model should be
published soon by Milo Wolff with a proof for the electron.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 04:28:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA11607;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:26:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:26:32 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: BLP O/U BLIP?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:25:53 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <35098d1e.8073988 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <003101bd4bc0$540a3100$6a8cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <003101bd4bc0$540a3100$6a8cbfa8 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: <"lrtH12.0.Hr2.tBe1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16489
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:02:41 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

>I'm pondering an approach, Robin.
>
>The Bohr radius R of a hydrogen atom can be derived by: R = kq/(Ee*Alpha^2)=

Shouldn't that be kq^2.., and isn't the formula based on the
assumption that v=Alpha*c, which wouldn't be true for relativistic
particles (i.e. LL-)? Also I'm not even sure that a treatment
involving special relativity would be satisfactory, because the
particle is accelerated, hence I think you would need to use general
relativity. And by now, I'm way out of my depth, and floundering badly
:].

>1.44E-9/ev, where the energy (relativistic or otherwise) determines the
>orbit radius.

Not sure where you get the 1.44E-9 from, or what the dimensions are.
It does bear some resemblance to the formula above, but the energy in
the denominator started off being the relativistic mass-energy of the
particle, whereas .....
>
>>From this, a Light Lepton (LL-) with a rest mass-energy of 1.5 ev or less
>can be traveling very close to c and the orbit will be:
>1.44E-9/relativistic mass-energy.
>
>For instance, 1.44E-9/27.2 = 5.29E-11 meters, the Bohr radius. Half of this
>is the 13.6 ev

here we suddenly find that this magical numerator, when divided by the
potential energy (negative then) of the electron in the ground state,
yields the Bohr radius. Now I grant you that one number divided by the
other gives the correct radius, but I don't understand where numerator
and denominator suddenly came from.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 11 04:29:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA18042;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:27:29 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:25:51 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <35077ce1.3915913 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0@spectre.mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 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: <"Tk6Cm.0.mP4.kCe1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16488
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:12:04 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>At 11:38 AM 3/10/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>Yes, but the t is actually t*. If it doesn't lose energy through a
>>gamma ray, then how?
>
>    Heisenberg was here, remember?  We borrowed energy to convert deuterium
>into two neutrons:
>
>         d+ + e- --> n + n - energy
>
>    When the tritium is formed, Werner shows up to collect what he is owed:
>
>         d+ + n  --> t + energy {- repayment}
>
>    The net leftover energy (2+ MeV) is distributed between the two
>particles (the neutron and the tritium nucleus), some as kinetic energy,
>the rest to be distributed as low level gammas.  Since the probability of
>the reaction depends (exponentially) on the time between the two steps, the
>most favored cases are those where the two neutrons are flying apart (one
>towards the other deuterium nucleus) with exactly the velocity necessary to
>distribute all the energy kinetically.  The closer you can get the two

Ok, I didn't initially realise that more energy may have been borrowed
from Werner than was actually needed to convert the proton-electron
into a neutron.
BTW isn't the weak force conversion going to considerably reduce the
likelihood of this happening?

>deuterons, the more likely the reaction, and the more energy, on average,
>emitted as photons.
>
>    I can come up with convincing ways to dispose of all those ~1 MeV
>neutrons, but it is hard.  However some of them will be captured by the
>palladium, and those gammas should be unmistakable.   So we are back to the
>dead grad student problem.  Any explanation for cold fusion that involves
>high energy gammas or energetic neutrons just doesn't match the real world.

Or in that case, even thermal neutrons.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 11 04:40:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA18960;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350683C5.26B2 skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:29:57 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD674 xch-cpc-02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Sh9Io3.0.6e4.TMe1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16490
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scudder, Henry J wrote:
> Robert
> I don't understand the use of "average" in this context. Are you
> not talking about a single electron interacting with a magnetic field?

I am trying to differentiate, in my awkward fashion, the incoming 
linear momentum vector of the electron, from the momentum which 
exists after the electron is captured in circular motion in the 
constant magnetic field. Use of the word "average" is probably
innapropriate. After capture in circular motion, there is something 
fundamentally bizarre about the momentum of the electron-field system. 
Once the electron is captured, it is zero. No momentum exists in the 
electron-field system after capture in circular motion. 

Try working with the momentum equation of an electron in a constant 
B field, (circular A field). Take the simplest case where after 
capture, the electron follows the path of one of the circular lines 
of the A field. Other more complicated cases of the A field are 
possible, but not necessary to demonstrate that the Lorentz force 
is insufficient.   

         p = mv - qA      p, v, and A are vectors. 

After capture, the magnitude of A and the magnitude of v are constant, 
but the direction of each changes -- instantaneously, in and an 
equal and opposite fashion. Once circular motion is achieved,
we will always find that mv = qA. There is no net linear momentum.
Yet there is angular momentum -- in a fashion, macroscopic spin.
 
Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 05:25:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23989;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980311081747.00719e90 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:17:47 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
In-Reply-To: <35077ce1.3915913 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"MPzaf2.0.ls5.nze1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16491
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


At 01:25 PM 3/11/98 GMT, Robin wrote:
>>    I can come up with convincing ways to dispose of all those ~1 MeV
>>neutrons, but it is hard.  However some of them will be captured by the
>>palladium, and those gammas should be unmistakable.   So we are back to the
>>dead grad student problem.  Any explanation for cold fusion that involves
>>high energy gammas or energetic neutrons just doesn't match the real world.

>Or in that case, even thermal neutrons.


   No.
   Examination of the energies involved, and the
physics, indicates neutrons are generally forbidden from
being a product of the reaction in the 'classic' Pd/LiOD,D2O/Pt
system [Swartz, M., "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids",
Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997)].

   Furthermore, our actual calculations indicate that
high energy gammas (xrays mainly) are NOT expected for 
cold fusion.

    Therefore, the unsupported TB-skeptic statements:
 'I can come up with convincing ways to dispose of all those ~1 MeV
  neutrons, but it is hard.'
and 'those gammas should be unmistakable'
   ought be proven with numbers, equations, and logic
rather than only purported. Otherwise, the claims for such
neutrons and xrays in cold fusion systems being needed
to 'prove' the existence of the systems are simply unsupported
and wrong.

   Mitchell Swartz


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 05:54:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20667;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:50:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:50:33 -0800
Message-ID: <35069523.898 skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:44:03 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
	 <v03020900b129cb43c019 [128.183.200.195]> <35046ECF.1E5F@skylink.net>
	 <35049C56.5571 interlaced.net> <35052AD4.3924@skylink.net>
	 <35055019.17DB interlaced.net> <v03007808b12b706d5f47@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"NDAdc2.0.k25.eQf1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16492
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
> Robert Stirniman is confused about the trajectories of charged particles in
> a magnetic field.

I very well know there is much truth in the above. If you don't enjoy 
mental confusion, physics is probably not a good hobby. 

> 1) If the
> particle energy is low, the particle curves about and emerges from the
> field back into field-free space. The magnetic field acts much like a
> mirror.  

It is for sure possible to reflect a slow moving electron, having a relatively
high radius of curvature in the B field. In this case, one might ask:
How can it be that the electron has undergone a complete reversal of
linear momentum? This can not be accomplished solely under the actions
of a conservative force (Lorentz force). 

> 2) If the particle energy is high, the particle penetrates the
> magnetic flux and emerges out "the other side" and back into field-free
> space. 

Yes, the above is possible and done routinely in devices such as electron
tubes and CRTs. There may be no practical reason to want to capture an
electron, but what if we did want design a B field to capture an electron? 

Now that you mention it, it seems to me that you are correct. 
I am not able to devise any way to capture an electron which is moving 
from outside into a magnetic field. 

> Otherwise, a particle trapped in the field must have been "created" 
> (eg. freed from a bound atomic state) within the field.

Well then, with no practical purpose whatsoever, let's put an electron 
gun within the magnetic field. The electron gun spits out electrons with
velocity v and linear momentum p. Electrons exiting the gun will immediately 
be trapped into circular motion by the field. 

The problem of the longitudinal force does not go away. 
Still my opinion is -- Ampere got it right.
 
Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 08:05:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18424;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:57:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:57:37 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: new torsion fields papers
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980311075024.16415B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"qBo3o1.0.nV4.lHh1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16493
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Is anyone here interested in obtaining english translations of any of the
Russian Akimov/Shipov papers on experimental work with "torsion fields" 
("spin fields of the vacuum"?)  If so, contact V. Petrov
sobolev1 online.ru, and say who you are (amateur, physicist at
institution, engineer at company, etc.) 

Mr. Petrov is in telephone contact with Akimov, who seems to be probing
for American professional interest in his preprints. 

"Torsion fields" are claimed to be used in submarine communications.  They
are not conventional EM, and they are claimed to be FTL.

Shipov may be placing these papers on www in the future, depending on how
much interest we exhibit.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 08:43:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA24285;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:35:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:35:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v0300780cb12c685b9f81 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:34:43 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"sGHOy2.0.6x5.Zrh1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16494
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I submit that the claim that recent Marinov motor experiments by Kooistra
and by George Holz prove that there is an electromagnetic force parallel to
the direction of electron motion face a serious conceptual challange. This
is because it appears to be no way to predict what will be the direction
(or sign) of the torque from the direction of electron flow in the
experiments as described and illustrated in Infinite Energy (IE) by
Kooistra and via Vortex by Holz.

Consider that current enters a circular conducting ring stator via a wire
and exits via another wire 180 deg opposite around the ring. Half of the
current flows clockwise around one half of the ring, the other half flows
counterclockwise around the other half of the ring. The experiment
demonstrates torque on a rotor, about an axis concentric with the axis of
the circular stator. The rotor is a magnetized torus whose equatorial plane
contains the previously defined axis. It is reported that maximum torque is
produced when the rotor torus equatorial plane also contains the current
feed points. Now, how can this geometry define a direction for the torque?
Both halves of the stator "see" exactly the same geometry and experience
exactly the same magentic field leaking from the rotor. Does the torque
"decide" to go with the clockwise-moving electrons, or does it decide to go
with the equal number of counterclockwise moving ones? The symmetry of the
problem precludes the preference of one direction over the other.
Therefore, at least in this particular experiment, it is logically
impossible that the torque be associated with a force in the direction of
the electron flow.

On the other hand, I described in an earlier post how the reported
observations are consistent with a conventional electromagnetic origin in
the form of the current in the feed wires crossing the leakage magnetic
field from the rotor. The feed wires get close to the rotor and are a
non-negligible part of the system. They cannot be ignored. It should be
possible to see the force in the feed wires by making them of very flexible
wire and allowing the wires to droop some between supports along the radial
runs in and out.

With respect to rotation of the conducting ring when it is allowed to
rotate in Kooistra's experiment, I still think that it rotates because of
the short _radial_ component of current in the flat ring. This is just the
same as the radial current cross vertical leakage magnetic field from the
torus I discussed above. If the current feeds were bent to allow the
current to enter the flat ring from its inner circumference, the sign of
this short radial current would change and, by my hypothesis, so would the
direction of rotation of the ring. Furthermore, I predict that the
cylindrical ring acting as a rotor would have a still much shorter radial
current path, and the torque on such a ring would probably be too small to
observe with the experiments described. However, all these cases would
still produce a torque on the magnetized torus, because most of the torque
originates from the radial feed conductors.

Flexible braided Cu wire might make a better brush than Al foil. Copper to
copper usually makes a low resistance contact at low pressure. Al rarely
does.

Finally, for the theoretically inclined who take Ampere's form of the force
between two current elements as evidence for a _physical_ parallel force
component, I suggest reading "The Electromagnetic Field" by M. Mason and W.
Weaver. It is copyrighted 1929. I have a Dover reprint, Dover number S185.
I don't know if it is still available from Dover. This book dedicates all
of Secton 38 to "the Fundamental Law of Magnetostatics: The Researches of
Ampere". It is noteworthy that Ampere's third law (out of four) deduced
from his experiments is, "The action of a closed circuit on a current
element is always normal to the latter," that is, at right angles. (The
Graneau's statements contradict this  Amperean result.) Mason and Weaver go
on to develop Ampere's mathematical expression for the force between two
elements. All the details are given, so it can be followed by someone with
only ordinary background in vector calculus. I will point out that it is
impossible to derive a unique law for the force between elments from the
force between two current elements, because all DC measurements necessarily
involve circuits, and it is impossible to isolate "the rest of the circuit"
from a small element within it.  It is noteworthy that, in order to get
Ampere's force expression between two elements that gives a parallel force
component, it is necessary to make an additional _assumption_, that there
_should_ be a parallel force! Perhaps this assumption appeared resonable in
the light Newton's law of gravitation and the recently codified Coulomb
force law of electrostatics. Anyway, one can _assume_ that the force must
be perpendicular, and then Ampere's four experimental laws yield the usual
familiar form in common use today. The usual justification is the force
acting on a single charged particle in a magnetic field, but this is
logically flawed, because the magnetic field is implicitely generated by a
closed-circuit electromagnet, not by another isolated current element.
However, no difference in motion is observed between a magnetic field
generated by an electromagnetic and another made by a permanent magnet. The
only way I can think of physically testing the force between two current
elements is to measure the trajectories of two charged particles moving in
an otherwise field-free space. Each particle generates an electromagnetic
field by virtue of its motion. The field is described by the
Lienard-Wiechert potentials, a relativistic generalization of the familiar
electrostatic and vector potentials. In general the particles experience
transverse and parallel forces. I myself am not familiar with any
experiments of this sort. Martin Sevior ought to know, though, because this
is just the situation that is set up when energetic particles are collided.
Since no physicist has jumped up to claim a Nobel prize for discovering a
violation of quantum electrodynamics, I believe that QED is still
experimentally sound.

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 Mar 11 09:26:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01842;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980311122116.00c03d20 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:21:16 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3505CF05.7448 interlaced.net>
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
 <v03020900b129cb43c019 [128.183.200.195]>
 <35046ECF.1E5F skylink.net>
 <35049C56.5571 interlaced.net>
 <35052AD4.3924 skylink.net>
 <35055019.17DB interlaced.net>
 <v03007808b12b706d5f47 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lQMjG.0.dS.VWi1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16495
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:38 PM 3/10/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
>> 
> A
>> charged particle from outside the flux can never be trapped in a magnetic
>> field unless some _additional_ means is provided to change either the
>> particle's momentum or else to change the magnetic flux while the particle
>> is in the process of traversing it. 
>
>Thanks for clearing this up, Michael!  I wasn't sure it was a general
>principle.
 
    As stated this is misleading, but I understand what Michael Schaffer
was trying to say.  A non-radiating charged particle in a magnetic field
will follow a closed course which will eventually return it to the point of
origin--perhaps after millions of loops.  However, bremstrallung radiation
will occur as the particle is accelerated (constantly in a circle) by the
magnetic field.  (This is one _additional_ means above, but it is inherent
in the system.) If a static magnetic trap is correctly designed, it will
catch and hold a beam with no change in magnetic flux required.  In fact,
in a storage ring, the beam is constantly accelerated to make up for
bremstrallung losses.

    Now back to the beginning.  With radiation losses factored in, it is
easy to trap and manipulate a beam, but even if you eliminate the
bremstrallung radiation--you can do this by keeping the beam in a waveguide
where the bremstrallung wavelength is too large to fit--it is possible to
design systems where focusing magnets ensure that the beam never returns to
the injection site.  In particle accelerators, the bremstrallung wavelength
is way to short to prevent radiation so constant acceleration is necessary,
but some accelerators and storage ring designs do have unswitched
injectors.  Most use switching to dump the contents of the accelerator into
the storage ring, but while the accelerator beam is being dumped, the
currently stored beam is still circulating and the goal is to combine them.

    In tokamaks there is no beam and the primary means for particles to
escape is through collision with other particles.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 09:51:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA14993;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:47:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:47:09 -0800
Message-ID: <000601bd4d15$32e8a000$1e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:42:45 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"lr6Ko.0.Bg3.Rui1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16496
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com <Schaffer@gav.gat.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1


Michael Schaffer wrote:

>

>I will point out that it is
>impossible to derive a unique law for the force between elments from the
>force between two current elements, because all DC measurements necessarily
>involve circuits, and it is impossible to isolate "the rest of the circuit"
>from a small element within it.  It is noteworthy that, in order to get
>Ampere's force expression between two elements that gives a parallel force
>component, it is necessary to make an additional _assumption_, that there
>_should_ be a parallel force! Perhaps this assumption appeared resonable in
>the light Newton's law of gravitation and the recently codified Coulomb
>force law of electrostatics. Anyway, one can _assume_ that the force must
>be perpendicular, and then Ampere's four experimental laws yield the usual
>familiar form in common use today. The usual justification is the force
>acting on a single charged particle in a magnetic field, but this is
>logically flawed, because the magnetic field is implicitely generated by a
>closed-circuit electromagnet, not by another isolated current element.
>However, no difference in motion is observed between a magnetic field
>generated by an electromagnetic and another made by a permanent magnet. The
>only way I can think of physically testing the force between two current
>elements is to measure the trajectories of two charged particles moving in
>an otherwise field-free space. Each particle generates an electromagnetic
>field by virtue of its motion.

Sounds to me like the gravitation force created by the "loop current" in
Superstring Particles, Michael.

The relativistically "undilated" current in an electron is q*f (about 19.68
amperes) but the
3.5E-13 ampere-meters (of any particle) is dilated by about 19 orders of
magnitude resulting in a 0.02583 ampere-meters/kilogram
gravity force.

Thus Fg = 1.0E-7 (0.02583)^2*(9.1E-31)^2/R2 (nt)force between two electrons
(5.52E-71 nt at one meter separation).

I.O.W. "G" (6.671E-11)factors out to
1.0E-7*(0.02583)^2.

Stack up 5A - 2Z "superstrings" in a nucleus with q*f relativistically
dilated in each, and you derive the gravity force from these multi-turn
"solenoids".  :-)


> The field is described by the
>Lienard-Wiechert potentials, a relativistic generalization of the familiar
>electrostatic and vector potentials.

Magnetism = Electric charge movement + Relativity.

Regards,     Frederick

>
>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 Mar 11 10:02:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA07383;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aaa0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:53:20 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <35077ce1.3915913 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-pJ7O3.0.Bp1.T-i1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16497
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:25 PM 3/11/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

>Ok, I didn't initially realise that more energy may have been borrowed
>from Werner than was actually needed to convert the proton-electron
>into a neutron.

   One way to look at it is that you have to integrate over all possible
pathways, the other is just to notice that the "broad" paths, the ones with
large energy ranges are the only tunnelling events likely to happen.  So,
yes, the only constraints are that the final observed state conserve energy
and momentum.

>BTW isn't the weak force conversion going to considerably reduce the
>likelihood of this happening?

    My first inclination was to answer yes, but that is somewhat
misleading.  It is the fact that an electron is involved that really knocks
down the probability at low energies, since the uncertainty in the
electron's position is large.  At higher energies, the relative size of the
electron is smaller, but now the (slow) speed of the weak interaction
becomes significant.  So there will be a value for the energy of the
electron which will maximize the interaction probability.  Now if someone
can come up with a reason why the electrons in cold fusion experiments act
small...superconductivity would do.

>Or in that case, even thermal neutrons.
 
    Thermal neutrons are wierd things.  While we think of neutrons as
uncharged, that is not true.  They have no NET charge.  Where this becomes
significant is that they will bounce off of the boundary between a
non-conductor and a conductor (metal).  Net result is that you can
literally carry a bucket of neutrons around.  (Wear lead gloves, and
clothes, since there will be lots of beta decays going on, and spilling
some neutrons on yourself would likely be fatal.  Maybe you had better not
try. ;-)  But a lot of experiments with thermal neutrons literally use a
pipe stuck into a nuclear reactor. Some  neutrons fall below the limit on
energy levels and once they emerge into the pipe, they can't get out again.
 So the thermal neutrons could be trapped in the apparatus.

     But back to your assertion.  We wouldn't see the thermal neutrons.
But we know that some would be captured by nucleii, and others would decay
into protons.  In either case the X-ray signature should be obvious,
through dead people (grad students) even if no measurements were made.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 10:08:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09222;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980311130527.00c086b0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:05:27 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980311081747.00719e90 world.std.com>
References: <35077ce1.3915913 mail.eisa.net.au>
 <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WFZxW2.0.yF2.n9j1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16498
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:17 AM 3/11/98 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>   Furthermore, our actual calculations indicate that
>high energy gammas (xrays mainly) are NOT expected for 
>cold fusion.
>
>    Therefore, the unsupported TB-skeptic statements:
> 'I can come up with convincing ways to dispose of all those ~1 MeV
>  neutrons, but it is hard.'
>and 'those gammas should be unmistakable'
>   ought be proven with numbers, equations, and logic
>rather than only purported. Otherwise, the claims for such
>neutrons and xrays in cold fusion systems being needed
>to 'prove' the existence of the systems are simply unsupported
>and wrong.
 
     Read what I said again.  I ruled out this mechanism for "conventional"
cold fusion (Is there such a thing?), due to the lack of xrays and
neutrons.  But that shouldn't prevent us from trying to design experiments
which attempt to maximize this mechanism recognizing it is something else.

     So yes, I agree, that whatever cold fusion is--and I believe there is
something there--it does not involve neutrons or Xrays.  However, that
doesn't stop me from investigating power production via conventional
physics.  It may be messy and need shielding, but it looks better than a
(uranium or plutonium fueled) nuclear reactor for space propulsion.



                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 12:56:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05300;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:39:48 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Freakish particles
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980311133101.17527A-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"8tPr91.0.ZI1.tSl1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16499
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

This article was in our paper today in the world science section, does
anyone have MORE info on this? 
------
Quote
_______
"Nuclear Physics 
-Freakish particles raise issues-

  Physicists at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois believe they 
have created some freakish atomic nuclei that are shaped like footballs
and eject protons during their death throes to produce a very rare form of
radioactivity. 
  The atomic nuclei created in the experiments survived for only a few
thousandths of a second, but in those brief instants, measurments were
completed that are leading physicists to re-examine long-held ideas about
the inner structure of atoms. "

------
End Quote

-=Thanks for any updates=-
-=se=-

"Go While You're Flickering!" :)



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 13:28:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10838;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:15:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199803112115.NAA06353 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"aWQ3R.0.Ef2.azl1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16500
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>How can your tensile steel like aether rotate.
>
>John Berry

This bothers me too Ray.  I mentioned it in the other post, but it bothers
me that you have concentric spherical shells that are supposed to rotate
about an axis.  This means that there is a differential relative shearing
rate near the poles as compared to near the equator at some radius R.  In a
solid, we know we can do this, but we also know the solid is made up of
particles, and so they are moving relative to one another in differential
fashion.

But to then communicate that in a manner that tiles all of spacetime is
beyond me because the structure is itself not symmetrical in *action*.  You
would have to deform the rotating spheres into twisting cubes, and then back
down into rotating spheres again otherwise you leave unconnected regions.

Also, this model tells me nothing about what the property of "charge" is.
It further doesn't tell me to expect exactly these forces:

strong;  soliton to soliton wave interaction, phase and f coherent
weak;    soliton exchange into and out of composite solitonic group
electric;  soliton to spacetime to soliton wave interaction, (due to phase)
gravitation;  interference with frequency shifted wave energy
cosmological;  aether emission thrust due to exothermy, soliton geometry change

What properties of standing waves in solids lead to each of the above 5
forces, four known and 1 unknown but observed?

Ross Tessien

>Ray Tomes wrote:
>
>> As regards exothermy and mass/energy conversion, here is my version of
>> the explanation.  When you have any spherical standing wave you have
>> concentric shells of aether rotating in opposite directions like the old
>> washing mashines, one way then the other.  There is energy in this wave
>> which excahnges between kinetic and potential (the distortion)
>> coninuously.
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 13:28:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09838;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:16:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:16:11 -0800
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:15:39 -0800
Message-Id: <199803112115.NAA06349 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"mdm9V1.0.QP2.Nyl1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16501
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:
>
>>... Specifically, people think of EM as a
>>transverse wave, but they think of "spacetime" as being just some
>>fundamental property of the universe, and not simply some structure of wave
>>energy in an ocean of aether.
>
>How can you explain the polarisation of light without transverse waves?
>How can you have transverse waves without tension? [see note below]
>These are questions that you must answer if your model is to work.

Ray, I HAVE TRANSVERSE WAVES........ That is how spacetime distorts when a
smoke ring vortex density gradient moves through spacetime's lattice structure.

You do not need tension to induce transverse waves.  What you need, if you
work with a fluidic medium, is for there to be a lattice of constructive
interference of acoustic energy.  Then, you wind up with the nodes,
displacing, transversely.

Imagine a wind tunnel.  Imagine the walls being lined with piezo crystals,
organized in a lattice spacing, and all emitting the same fundamental
frequency.  Now, imagine the organization of acoustic nodes that will form
in that wind tunnel (air not moving).  It is possible to form a cubic
structure of acoustic standing waves in the volume of the wind tunnel, by
just selecting spacing and frequency of emission properly.  Take the
speakers out to infinity to get the analogy to spacetime, where pulsating
spheres of matter are all the emitters, and they are all located in acoustic
nodes near to their positions.

Now, back to the wind tunnel, acoustic nodes in action, set  the wind in
motion, slowly.  What happens?  Do the nodes blow away down the length of
the wind tunnel?  No.  What happens is that the nodes are displaced slightly
because the motion of the air combines with the acoustic transmission
through the air of the pressure waves.  The **locations of the nodes**
becomes shifted slightly down stream.  That is, the locations of the nodes
become shifted in line with the fluid flow.

Now, imagine that you are dealing with spacetime nodes.  The "speakers" are
resonances in and of the aether all over the place, ie particles distributed
throughout our local region of the universe, in stars, nearby galaxies etc.

So we have an acoustic manifold of oscillations all set up, and no aether
flow anywhere.  We have, IOW, a patch of "flat" spacetime.

Now we send through this region, a smoke ring aether vortex, aka a photon.
This photon is composed of a blob of extra aether that was emitted by some
electron(s).  Let's not worry about how we got the vortex started, but
rather, just consider how spacetime will distort.

The leading edge of the vortex is a high density region, just like in the
smoke ring in air.  That high density, transmits its action to the aether
ahead of the vortex, and accelerates it into motion.  The aether is caused
to accelerate outward away from what I will call the center origin, or
coordinate system of the photon for reference, and this is located along the
axis of propogation of the photonic motion, in the center of the smoke ring
vortex at the place where the density is greatest.  

The medium will be caused to accelerate out of the way of this impinging
aether fluid, and the direction normal to the pressure distribution follows
the path we think of as the smoke ring vortex, ie, the expansion is not
straight forward in the direciton of propogation.  It is a little forward,
and a lot in a direction normal to the propogation,  thus the expansion
heads out as the vortex precesses forward.  

Then, behind the vortex, the pressure is reduced, and so the aether heads
back in the direction of lower pressure, toward the axis of propogation
again, and this motion is again mostly NORMAL to the direction of
propogation.  ie, it is TRANSVERSE to the direction of propogation.

Now, from the wind tunnel, we understand that a flow of the medium will
distort the locations of the spacetime nodes in the direction of flow.  And
from the vortex description, we realize that there is flow directed normal
to the direciton of propogation.  Out, as the photon approaches, and back in
as the photon receeds.

Therefore, we now understand, I hope, how it is possible to deform one kind
of spacetime topology in a transverse manner, despite there being no tensile
forces involved whatever.  The thing that is difficult in this is learning
first how the spacetime topology will distort to any kind of flow at all.
And then, learning how it will distort due to the passage of various kinds
of vortices.  The distortion, in all cases, arises because the density
gradients cause the waves to refract in slightly different directions and so
you can cause situations where the waves actually refract all the way back
in on themselves to maintain the existence of various forms of solitons.
Photons, particles, and indeed spacetime, are simply different geometries of
these solitons.


>>>In my opinion Maxwell's equations (or something very like them) with GR
>>>are a complete description of the universe and all of QM can probably be
>>>deduced from them.  
>
>>Here is where I disagree with you.  With the above, I agree that you will
>>succeed at describing things in the laboratory.  But you will not explain QM
>>"wierdness" phenomena unless you allow there to be waves of all sorts,
>>though you can do that with a tensile aether too.  The problem arises when
>>you attempt to explain exothermy and in particular, mass to energy conversion.
>
>There is no quantum weirdness - it all results from the mistaken
>assumption that light travels in quanta.  It doesn't, it only emits and
>absorbs in quanta.  See the drip model of light -
>http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/drip-ml.htm

I understand this, and agree with you that light travels in all different
wavelengths.  

But this does not remove the quantum wierdness.  The two slit example is a
trivial version of a hologram.  How is it, that you can form a hologram
using individual photons of light.  ie, if photons are supposed to interfere
with one another, then we would expect there to need to be two different
kinds of photons present at some instant such that they could interfere.
But, this is not a requirement.  We can make a hologram such that we send
through one photon at a time, and yet some how the photons know where to go
to constructively and destructively interfere.

The simple answer of course is that the interference pattern is not being
set up by the photons of light themselves, but rather, by the matter making
up the overall apparatus.  Thus, photons headed along such and such a path,
simply follow the spacetime turbulence they encounter as they move from
laser to emulsion.

Another one is radioactivity.  Here, it is not predictable when the decay
particles will come off.  They do so at random times.  This is described as
being a quantum wierdness of another sort.  ie, QM allows that the nuclei
know to keep their emissions random and chaotic, and yet they also know how
to keep track of how many particles per second on average have been emitted
recently, and thus keep from straying from the nominal decay rate.  How can
you explain this using a tensile force to hold them in?  You need a tensile
force that magically knows how and when to let go of the decaying fragments.

If instead, you consider that the nuclei are being confined by wave energy
incident from space, then it is easy to understand what is hapening.  Now
and then you have the equivalent of spacetime "whitecaps" which FAIL to
maintain the confinement now and then.  As these waves originate from
turbulence and waves arriving from throughout the universe, it is clear that
they will follow statistically defined probabilities for decay regardless of
what has happened locally in the interim.



>
>As regards exothermy and mass/energy conversion, here is my version of
>the explanation.  When you have any spherical standing wave you have
>concentric shells of aether rotating in opposite directions like the old
>washing mashines, one way then the other.  There is energy in this wave
>which excahnges between kinetic and potential (the distortion)
>coninuously.  There is also a centrifugal effect, especially very near
>the centre - this increases the central tension and causes the frequency
>variations that we know as GR gravitational redshift.

In order to have concentric shells that rotate relatively and rigidly, you
also need some sort of bearings.  Further, it is not possible to tile all of
spacetime with these sort of geometries.  you have a sphere packing problem
and can only tile about 70 percent of the space.  Also, you need for all of
the spheres to be reaching out and pulling on all of the other spheres to
describe attraction forces.  arrgh, to have two kinds of force interaction,
tensile and compressive, just seems to me to be really ugly, when you only
need one form of force like interaction to explain everything.

>
>When atomic (or chemical) reactions release energy then some of the
>standing wave becomes a moving wave and the central tension is slightly
>reduced, so you are right that there is a general movement of aether.

But then you have a general movement of aether into sinks, out away from
sources.  And if you have a group of sources, then you have to account for
the motion of aether out of one source, as it passes by a large number of
other sources.  So you now wind up with a shearing to the flow away from
this source as it passes by a bunch of other sources.

Now, make things worse, cause the bunch of sources to all be moving around
in a circle, ie the matter of a star, or a bunch of stars in a galaxy,  or a
group of galaxies in a cluster, etc.  So you have aether moving out of one
source, and flowing past other sources out toward more distant reaches of
the universe.  As each moves around in a circular orbit, the emission from
one source at the center must make, and brake, connection as it shears and
then flows on the lee side of an obsetruction.

Well, you have to admit, that if you ARE going to allow flow, then if you
are working with solids it is much more complicated to imagine than if the
flow is due to a fluid.

>
>However in my model there is a low aether density (high tension) in the
>sun say and release of energy increases the density; everything is back
>to front to your model; so there is an outward propagating wave of
>inward rushing aether.

If I have a star that is forming, but which has not yet emitted any aether,
ie, has not yet ignited it's fusion engine inside, then, how is it that with
your model, I wind up with jets of the matter outside of the star being
thrown away from the star along the axis of rotation of the star?

ie, if you have a tensile aether solid, and you ignite the fusion reactions,
why does the flow get collimated along the axis rather than just expanding
out in all directions?  This is a fluid mechanical phenomena, and it is what
we observe.

For the fluidic model, this is easy.  The flow is fastest in directions of
lowest density because that is the direction the waves propogate fastest.  

>
>I cannot understand how your aether condenses - does it have little
>hooks (like Dalton's) so that it can stick on?  You say there are no
>attractive forces so it seems to me that it should bounce off.  In
>Newton's balls, every one in causes one to bounce out.

No, no hooks.  Hooks would imply a tensile aether ;-)  "Arms" or "hooks" are
what I specifically exclude.

It is possible to consider the aether to be composed of tiny particles, as
do Paul Stowe and Barry Mingst.  I don't think this is necessary.  But I
don't object to that model as long as the size of the aether particles are
made to be sufficiently small.  This means, far below the size of the Planck
scale, and so if you make aether particles to be on the order of say, E-70
meters in diameter, then I don't care if you choose to call them particles
as neither of us can establish otherwise.

Given that, it is easy to establish how you wind up with condensation.  It
is the same thing as radiation build up in a nuclear reactor.  The reactor
shielding creates a time delay for the propogation of the photons due to
scattering.  And so if you get so much of a time delay that the particles
crush down to a greater pressure, you can crush things down to a new state.
This is like when you lower a piston onto saturated steam over water.  You
don't build up the pressure anymore, rather, you just crush the molecules
into a new and more dense packing configuration called, "liquid".  The
molecules didn't really colesce, or become something different.  Rather,
they just changed their relative spacings due to organizing into a new
vibratory structure.

That is all I mean by aether condensate.  Not that anything magical has
happened, but rather, that the aether has simply taken on a new more
compact, more effecient geometry until such time as the rampant convergence
subsides and the aether can again expand out to a larger scale organization.


>
>Although we are discussing the differences, we will often get the same
>answers.

The only difference, which I think is still inherent in your model, is that
I don't think you get the aether flow I am talking about from fusion, ie
exothermy.  I know you release "energy" as is believed in present theories,
QM / GR.  But, I get an additional component of flow.  ie, I get the
particles to be heated, or more correctly, accelerated to a greater velocity
condition due to aether emission from the solitons.  This is the same as
interpreting mass and energy to be equivalent, as is presently believed.

But, I additionally am forced to track the effect of that aether emission as
it too flows out of the star.  ie, the energy released into particle motion
is communicated via scattering collisions.  But the aether released must
then flow right on out of the star and out of the galaxy and push the rest
of the universe away, ergo, cosmological expansive thrust as they are
learning about now.  ie, from here, I can push the rest of the universe and
beyond.  But if there is a limit to the universe, you have no anchor to
attach tensile mechanisms.  I read your response to the aether flow
collimation, but it still isn't logical to me to consider a tensile aether
when you have aether emission and bulk flow.

Thus, for our sun, the mass must be TWO solar masses!  you get double the
buoyancy if you follow the energy of the particles, plus the flow of the aether.

I don't think you are following both of these are you?  Do you expect the
sun to be twice the mass of one solar mass?


>>I totally agree with all of the Harmonic requirements and many are being
>>found.  But don't forget that Thomson, (Kelvin) worked out a fluidic aether
>>using pulsating spheres just as I am, and he also worked out one version of
>>spacetime which he called a vortex sponge.  That structure agreed with
>>Maxwell's equations too, and did not require any attraction tensile
>>mechanisms to do it.
>
>I don't follow all of that, but accept that this was done.  I consider
>however that the tensile model is better because it doesn't have some
>smallest sized particles.  It is continuous and is therefore simpler as
>a model.
>
>Do you believe in continuous or little particles of aether?
>It looks to me like you have a dollar each way.

I consider the aether to be continuous and compressible.  This isn't really
a dollar each way if you think about fractal treatments of surfaces.  But it
does require density gradients to be allowed to go to infinitely large, and
infinitely small divisions.  But as I said, this becomes an esoteric
argument and so long as the particulate size is far below the size scale of
the organization of our spacetime topology, I don't see any difference in
how we think about it.  The same problem occurs in any tensile aether if I
take you into a singularity inside of a black hole which you must deal with.

How do you have something of zero size, pulling on things outside of the
event horizon.  And then, how do you wind up with bh's being proportional to
the size of the galaxy that houses them?

With the fluid flow model, this is easy.  A black hole doesn't pull anything
in.  Rather, aether is flowing inward like in a sonoluminescent bubble.  But
inside, it condenses into a more dense form, and so you wind up with the
formation of a core.  Thus, the size of a black hole in the center of a
galaxy is a function of how much aether is flowing out of the stars, around
the BH.  The core inside is just being rammed by the inflow and has no
bearing on the gravitation of the galaxy center environmnent.  

What the core does have control over is whether or not it breaches
confinement, if the aether inflow subsides along any direction of inflow.
Thus, when you develop too much angular momentum due to a galaxy merger, and
that angular momentum gradually is communicated via stellar interactions out
around the spiral arms, it eventually manifests as a rotation of the stars
around the innermost regions of the BH.  When that happens, you form tornado
like vortices, which as we know in fluid mechanics, are rarefaction phenomena.

Thus, those poles allow a line of escape for the highly pressurized core
inside of the event horizon.  We see lot's of these jets out there.  Also,
it is preferentially the case that the galaxies that have almost become
elliptical but which are still spiral which tend to form these jets.

Also, when you look at the deep images of galaxies like Centaurus A, you
find that they have extensions of stars way out there many times the radius
of the majority of the galaxy, but in a cloud directed along the poles of
the galaxy.  In brief, for some reason, stars manage to get shot out of the
galaxy along the axis of rotation.  

So, how can you account for that kind of a jet emission with a tensile
aether, and how can you account for the interior structure of a BH such that
you have a resevoir of momentum with which to shoot everything outward along
the axis of rotation.  For that matter, can a tensile aether make any sense
at all with  the existence of a BH?  ;-)

Later, Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 14:00:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15692;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350703F2.3518 skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:36:50 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <01bd47d4$39096dc0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
	 <v03020900b129cb43c019 [128.183.200.195]>
	 <35046ECF.1E5F skylink.net>
	 <35049C56.5571 interlaced.net>
	 <35052AD4.3924 skylink.net>
	 <35055019.17DB interlaced.net>
	 <v03007808b12b706d5f47 [198.133.146.230]> <3.0.1.32.19980311122116.00c03d20@spectre.mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8nZeU2.0.pq3.MNm1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16503
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> However, bremstrallung radiation
> will occur as the particle is accelerated (constantly in a circle) by the
> magnetic field.  (This is one _additional_ means above, but it is inherent
> in the system.) If a static magnetic trap is correctly designed, it will
> catch and hold a beam with no change in magnetic flux required.  

I will suggest that once the electron is captured in a circular orbit by
a magnetic field, there no longer exists any bremstrallung radiation.
Analogously, there is also none when the electron is captured in orbit 
around a nucleus. 

Once an electron is captured in circular orbit by a magnetic field,
the electron-field system no longer carries any net momentum. 

    p = mv - qA,  and in the condition of circular orbit, mv = qA.

Radiation forces must exist during the process of capture. The force 
of deceleration is necessarily reactionary (non-conservative). 
It must be longitudinal.  

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 13:58:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17333;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:40:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:40:33 -0800
Message-ID: <002c01bd4d35$cc8c63c0$6a8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Freakish particles
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:36:08 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"5GuRP2.0.WE4.BJm1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16502
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 5:53 AM
Subject: Freakish particles


>This article was in our paper today in the world science section, does
>anyone have MORE info on this?
>------
>Quote
>_______
>"Nuclear Physics
>-Freakish particles raise issues-
>
>  Physicists at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois believe they
>have created some freakish atomic nuclei that are shaped like footballs
>and eject protons during their death throes to produce a very rare form of
>radioactivity.
>  The atomic nuclei created in the experiments survived for only a few
>thousandths of a second, but in those brief instants, measurements were
>completed that are leading physicists to re-examine long-held ideas about
>the inner structure of atoms. "
>
>------
>End Quote
>
>-=Thanks for any updates=-

That is good to hear,Steve. It falls into place that the nucleus is made up
of 5A - 2Z "Superstring" circles lined up side-by-side. The gravity-magnetic
"solenoid" field should be right down the middle. If you hit it right with a
relativistically shrunk particle it should go right through it without
hitting anything. :-)

Also the shape should give a clue to the nuclear magnetic moment:

Beta = +/-  q*hbar/(2*M) Joule/(Weber/meter^2) where
M is any one of the Superstring circles. The less energy in one or a group
should dictate the nuclear magnetic moment.

When I cranked out the "model" a few years back with Ron Brodzinski looking
over my shoulder, we decided the only way to verify it, was to wait and let
the Science Guys do the experiments that sooner or later support it. The
basic physics was already done.   :-)

Thanks!

Regards,    Frederick


>-=se=-
>
>"Go While You're Flickering!" :)
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 14:06:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24136;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:01:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:01:45 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD677 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:01:00 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"3L6U3.0.yu5.6dm1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16504
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert
	Bremstahlung is a quantum mechanical effect, produced when
charged particles impinge on a solid surface, such as an anode in an
X-ray tube. It depends on the presence of a nucleus to absorb the
momentum of the charged partical, it is essentially the inverse problem
of Compton scattering. 
	In classical EM theory, a charged partical, when accelerated,
radiates, and practically any EM theory text has a derivation (I don't
have one here at work). I think this is what you are refering to here.
Hank Scudder

> ----------
> From: 	Robert I. Eachus[SMTP:eachus mitre.org]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:21 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
> 
> At 06:38 PM 3/10/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> >Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
> >> 
> > A
> >> charged particle from outside the flux can never be trapped in a
> magnetic
> >> field unless some _additional_ means is provided to change either
> the
> >> particle's momentum or else to change the magnetic flux while the
> particle
> >> is in the process of traversing it. 
> >
> >Thanks for clearing this up, Michael!  I wasn't sure it was a general
> >principle.
>  
>     As stated this is misleading, but I understand what Michael
> Schaffer
> was trying to say.  A non-radiating charged particle in a magnetic
> field
> will follow a closed course which will eventually return it to the
> point of
> origin--perhaps after millions of loops.  However, bremstrallung
> radiation
> will occur as the particle is accelerated (constantly in a circle) by
> the
> magnetic field.  (This is one _additional_ means above, but it is
> inherent
> in the system.) If a static magnetic trap is correctly designed, it
> will
> catch and hold a beam with no change in magnetic flux required.  In
> fact,
> in a storage ring, the beam is constantly accelerated to make up for
> bremstrallung losses.
> 
>     Now back to the beginning.  With radiation losses factored in, it
> is
> easy to trap and manipulate a beam, but even if you eliminate the
> bremstrallung radiation--you can do this by keeping the beam in a
> waveguide
> where the bremstrallung wavelength is too large to fit--it is possible
> to
> design systems where focusing magnets ensure that the beam never
> returns to
> the injection site.  In particle accelerators, the bremstrallung
> wavelength
> is way to short to prevent radiation so constant acceleration is
> necessary,
> but some accelerators and storage ring designs do have unswitched
> injectors.  Most use switching to dump the contents of the accelerator
> into
> the storage ring, but while the accelerator beam is being dumped, the
> currently stored beam is still circulating and the goal is to combine
> them.
> 
>     In tokamaks there is no beam and the primary means for particles
> to
> escape is through collision with other particles.
> 
>                                         Robert I. Eachus
> 
> with Standard_Disclaimer;
> use  Standard_Disclaimer;
> function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 14:56:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06613;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:49:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:49:10 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:48:29 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
In-Reply-To: <35094c2d.12277466 kcbbs.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980312094234.9663A-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lwVY02.0.2d1.UJn1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16505
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ray Tomes wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:45:45 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior
> <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> wrote:
> 
> 
> >This "discovery" is extremely controversial.
> 
> Why?  Because present theory did not expect it?
> I found three theoretical ways to arrive at the existence of this
> particle so I was pretty sure that it would exist (and so predicted it)
> before its discovery.

No offense meant but there is ALWAYS someone who expects a new particle. The
evidence is a 4 sigma increase over a large background in the timing 
distribution. It's not like a set of beautiful reconstructed events in
a bubble chamber. There have already been new experiments to look for the 
"particle" in different ways. The results are all negative. 

> 
> >Not many people believe that 
> >Karmen has really discovered a new particle. It is more likely to be an 
> >experimental artifact. Another experiment would have to confirm this before
> >it will be accepted.
> 
> Another experiment would have to not find it before I will doubt it.
> 

Chris Tinsley would have derided the logical fallacy of statement with a
stinging rebuke. 

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 15:02:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27643;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:55:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199803112255.OAA04539 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: Freakish particles
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qk6xs.0.ql6.sQn1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16506
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>This article was in our paper today in the world science section, does
>anyone have MORE info on this? 
>------
>Quote
>_______
>"Nuclear Physics 
>-Freakish particles raise issues-
>
>  Physicists at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois believe they 
>have created some freakish atomic nuclei that are shaped like footballs
>and eject protons 

I read it, and chuckled.  But I haven't researched it further.  All they are
learning is that there is a certain force that is compressing nuclei and
forcing the nucleons to pack inward toward one another.  It is in a fairly
real sense, a matter of sphere packing like oranges at the grocery store
stacked into a pile.
If the pile deviates too much from a "sphere" in the case of nucleons, then
you have a sort of "landslide", but in this case what is going on is that
the nucleons are being smashed toward each other by wave energy incident
from space, and they are repulsing each other due to internal interference.
So they don't want to be together, intrinsically.

When you get too much of a wave passing through that region of spacetime,
the confinement forcing the nucleons is diminished, while the internal
repulsion is not.  So some of the nucleons can be blown away from the group
if they are weakly confined due to the football stacking job.

Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 15:31:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18333;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:27:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:27:07 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:25:28 GMT
Message-ID: <35091207.4761279 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803112115.NAA06353 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803112115.NAA06353 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: <"5Zv3Q3.0.EU4.8tn1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16507
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:

>>How can your tensile steel like aether rotate.
>John Berry

Rotation is a local phenomena measured by the function ROT in vector
analysis.  However the medium is always connected and distortions do NOT
build up over time.

>This bothers me too Ray.  I mentioned it in the other post, but it bothers
>me that you have concentric spherical shells that are supposed to rotate
>about an axis.

See also my reply to John Berry, but I will have a shot at describing
spherical rotation here.  This is not my idea (it is mentioned in some
physics texts as a possible spin half model) but I believe that it is
correct.  Milo Wolff has a paper in for publishing that shows that it
leads to the Dirac equation for the electron.

In my conson model (which BTW is a valid solution to Maxwell's
equations) all the action is in a plane and it is not obvious why it
should be spherical rather than cylindrical.  I recognised this as a
problem for explaining particles a long time ago, but it is still valid
physics in terms of accepted theory (if you treat it as fields not
aether).

The spherical rotation model is so named to distinguish it from the
cylindrical rotation model as I described.

Anyway the spherical rotation model description goes like this...
Imagine all space filled with jello or some other tensile medium.
Imagine the hand of God reaching in (magically not touching anything on
the way) and rotating a spherical section through 180 degrees about a
horizontal axis.  All the rest of the medium will have to distort to
allow this but it will all stay connected.  Next, God gives this
speherical volume a rapid spin about a vertical axis and lets go.
It turns out that this inner sphere can rotate indefinitely without any
rupture or wrapping up of the medium.  Don't worry if you cannot
visualise this as it is almost impossible.  Anyway, the medium around
the equator of the inner sphere passes alternately over and under the
sphere on each rotation giving the spin half characteristic.  At a
distance from the centre the medium does either figure eight loops (near
the equator) or circles (near the poles) or something in between.

Ross, you have the proceedings of our conference.  Look on page 168 and
you will see the pictures of this.  Pay attention to this because within
a couple of years this may be the accepted explanation for an electron.


-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 15:32:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18484;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:27:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:27:23 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:25:25 GMT
Message-ID: <350808c6.2392297 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803112115.NAA06349 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803112115.NAA06349 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: <"vgtwH.0.dW4.Otn1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16508
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:

>Ray, I HAVE TRANSVERSE WAVES........ That is how spacetime distorts when a
>smoke ring vortex density gradient moves through spacetime's lattice structure.

OK Ross, but the proof of that model is based on a particulate medium
whereas I understand that you believe in a continuous medium.  It is
probably still going to happen (I am not overly concerned) but there is
a weak link in the proof there.

>>There is no quantum weirdness - it all results from the mistaken
>>assumption that light travels in quanta.  It doesn't, it only emits and
>>absorbs in quanta.  See the drip model of light -
>>http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/drip-ml.htm

>I understand this, and agree with you that light travels in all different
>wavelengths.  

>But this does not remove the quantum wierdness.  The two slit example is a
>trivial version of a hologram.  How is it, that you can form a hologram
>using individual photons of light.  ie, if photons are supposed to interfere
>with one another, then we would expect there to need to be two different
>kinds of photons present at some instant such that they could interfere.
>But, this is not a requirement.  We can make a hologram such that we send
>through one photon at a time, and yet some how the photons know where to go
>to constructively and destructively interfere.

You didn't read the above link did you?   :-)
Imagine some water with two slits and let a drip fall in the water on
one side.  The waves from that drip will interfere on the other side of
the slits.

All of the pattern in the 2 slit experiment is due to single photons
interfering with themselves.  Any other 2 photons only cause a continuum
because there is no phase matching.  That said, you need a high photon
count to get that to happen.

>Another one is radioactivity.  Here, it is not predictable when the decay
>particles will come off.  They do so at random times.  This is described as
>being a quantum wierdness of another sort.

There is no problem with this.  It is all due to the background e/m
waves (the ZPE) that are present everywhere.  Imagine lots of similar
boats in the sea in a particularly nasty storm.  They will have half
lives for sinking because there is some probability that a sufficient
combination of waves will come together to fill the boat.  Different
isotopes are different types of boats and so have different difficulties
of flooding.

Anyway, radioactie decay is NOT random it is 100% determined by the ZPE
even though we may not know when the exact moment will be because we
don't have all the information.

We can however have some information.  I predicted and then found 3 and
6 minute waves in the rate of decay of Plutonium in Russian records
which are continuous over 11 years.  If such slow waves can be found
then there will also be many faster frequencies present in the ZPE.


>How can you explain this using a tensile force to hold them in?  You need a tensile
>force that magically knows how and when to let go of the decaying fragments.

The tensile force doesn't hold particles in it holds aether in.  The
particle forces are a second order effect due to resonance and phase
effects as you well know.

>In order to have concentric shells that rotate relatively and rigidly, you
>also need some sort of bearings.  Further, it is not possible to tile all of
>spacetime with these sort of geometries.  you have a sphere packing problem
>and can only tile about 70 percent of the space.

So could you explain to me what is the pattern that the 5 minute
oscillations make on the sun?  Does it leave spaces?  Of course not.
The wave equations of a tensile medium are the same wave equations as in
Maxwell's equations and in all wave equations you can "tile" 3D space
with many shapes including cubes which have near spherical waves near
their centres.

If you doubt this I suggest that you get a big gong (like in the Rank
Xerox movies) and suspend it from a chord and hit it with a big hammer.
Do you doubt that it will have many oscillation modes in the tensile
medium?  This is what the universe does except that the medium is
continuous at all scales.  I call it the big bong theory :-)

>>When atomic (or chemical) reactions release energy then some of the
>>standing wave becomes a moving wave and the central tension is slightly
>>reduced, so you are right that there is a general movement of aether.

>But then you have a general movement of aether into sinks, out away from
>sources.

Yes.  That is how you get charge and gravity.  But the movement is
extremely small as gravity is due to a flow at the Hubble rate or 1 part
in 10^10 per year of distortion.

>Now, make things worse, cause the bunch of sources to all be moving around
>in a circle, ie the matter of a star, or a bunch of stars in a galaxy,  or a
>group of galaxies in a cluster, etc.  So you have aether moving out of one
>source, and flowing past other sources out toward more distant reaches of
>the universe.  As each moves around in a circular orbit, the emission from
>one source at the center must make, and brake, connection as it shears and
>then flows on the lee side of an obsetruction.

No.  There are never any breaks.  You are confusing the motion of waves
in the aether with the motion of the aether.  All waves are free to move
through the aether just like the river flows past a wave near a rock.

>ie, if you have a tensile aether solid, and you ignite the fusion reactions,
>why does the flow get collimated along the axis rather than just expanding
>out in all directions?  This is a fluid mechanical phenomena, and it is what
>we observe.

The tension in the aether is not symmetrical for a body with an axis of
rotation.  It is easy to get fluid effects in a tensile aether because
the particles (which are standing waves in the aether) interact in a way
that is a fluid medium.  However this is a second order effect.

>Thus, for our sun, the mass must be TWO solar masses!  you get double the
>buoyancy if you follow the energy of the particles, plus the flow of the aether.

>I don't think you are following both of these are you?  Do you expect the
>sun to be twice the mass of one solar mass?

Well the mass of the sun is 1 solar mass BY DEFINITION.

In the tensile aether there is an effect which is a doubling which is
due to the tension.  The tension in the radial and tangential directions
is different and this leads to the GR situation where gravity has twice
the effect on horizontal light that it has on vertical light.  I am not
sure whether this is the same effect that you mean.

>I consider the aether to be continuous and compressible.  This isn't really
>a dollar each way if you think about fractal treatments of surfaces.  But it
>does require density gradients to be allowed to go to infinitely large, and
>infinitely small divisions.

You will suffer from the ultraviolet catastrophe (of Planck etc) with
this model if you believe in the big bang because all the energy goes to
very short wavelengths.  That is why they introduced quantisation into
physics in the first place.  This totally undermines your theory.

In the Harmonics theory I start all the energy at the longest
wavelengths and everything that happens is due to the flow to smaller
wavelengths (the production of harmonics).

>The same problem occurs in any tensile aether if I
>take you into a singularity inside of a black hole which you must deal with.

Black holes work.  They are a condition where the tension gets so high
that waves refract back inwards.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 15:41:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03389;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:28:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199803112328.PAA08808 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: Aether goes inna's and goes outa's, clarification 
Resent-Message-ID: <"T0xKW2.0.nq.hvn1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16509
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ray brought up a point dealing with how I could have anything like aether
condensation make sense, and stated that you had to have the same number of
spheres going into and out of a given region, under reasonable circumstances.

I mentioned that if you crush a saturated vapor water, you don't get hotter
steam, rather, you get water.  ie, the molecules could have just heated up
and increased their internal pressure as one possibility.  But instead, they
condense into a liquid, which is still a bunch of water molecules all
bashing about, independently, but confined into a more dense packing.  

As for aether, rule #1 is, "Aether is conserved in all interactions"

Thus, you cannot accumulate aether in a region without accounting for it's
inflow.  Thus, what goes in, must eventually come out.  A black hole simply
places a delay on that goes outa, requirement.  But we see thousands of the
jets formed when the aether confinement breaks down and the aether comes
blasting back out again.

So all "condensation" really means, is that you caused the aether to sort of
bunch up into a more dense configuration.  But with no tensile means of
holding that system together, it is going to fly apart again unless you
maintain confinement via inertial means.  ie, you need for aether to be
ramming the condensed aether in order that it remain confined.  If you
reduce the ramming pressure, you risk breaching confinement.

That, is why black holes can be observed to blast out of places where you
had two galaxies merge.  ie, QSO ejection from galaxies.  

Ross Tessien






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 16:19:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06076;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:07:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:07:05 -0800
Message-ID: <3507273A.33B08C4A ihug.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:07:22 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: What is Time?
References: <199803112115.NAA06353 Au.oro.net> <35091207.4761279@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kWsPK3.0.sU1.dSo1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16510
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Why don't you have an alternating rotation?
It should work if all electrons are in phase, but your model does not give such
an obvious view of the electric field as ross's gives.


John Berry


Ray Tomes wrote:

> Imagine all space filled with jello or some other tensile medium.
> Imagine the hand of God reaching in (magically not touching anything on
> the way) and rotating a spherical section through 180 degrees about a
> horizontal axis.  All the rest of the medium will have to distort to
> allow this but it will all stay connected.  Next, God gives this
> speherical volume a rapid spin about a vertical axis and lets go.
> It turns out that this inner sphere can rotate indefinitely without any
> rupture or wrapping up of the medium.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 16:43:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19347;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:39:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:39:10 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:37:24 GMT
Message-ID: <35101dde.7792952 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980312094234.9663A-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980312094234.9663A-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.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: <"ND8OK1.0.6k4.gwo1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16511
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 12 Mar 1998, Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> wrote:

>No offense meant but there is ALWAYS someone who expects a new particle.

That is a spurious argument.  I only predicted the one and stated so in
a public lecture and in usenet posts before the discovery.

>The evidence is a 4 sigma increase over a large background in the timing 
>distribution. It's not like a set of beautiful reconstructed events in
>a bubble chamber. There have already been new experiments to look for the 
>"particle" in different ways. The results are all negative. 

>From what I remember there was a sharp peak in the otherwise exponential
curve of detections and this was consistent over multiple runs.  That
sounds like more than 4 sigma to me.
 
-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 18:03:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29190;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:53:17 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Wave speed (was Re: Some general thoughts on anomalous devices)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:49:59 GMT
Message-ID: <35153848.14556298 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <350aa9db.2455890 kcbbs.gen.nz>
In-Reply-To: <350aa9db.2455890 kcbbs.gen.nz>
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: <"pI6Gu3.0.n77.30q1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16512
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

One more aspect of structure that I would like to mention is that of
wave velocity.  Again wave velocity shows the structure that the
Harmonics theory predicts, i.e. major ratios of ~34560 with details at
ratios of 2, 3, 4, 3/2, 4/3 etc (musical ratios).

If we look at the speed of light in various substances then we find that
not all values are equally common.  For example the speed in water is
3/4 of what it is in vacuum, i.e the refractive index (RI) of water is
1.3333 which is not a random number.  Many substances hae RI near 1.5,
2, 3, etc and so we can see that something special is going on here and
that it does accord with what the Harmonics theory predicts concerning
ratios of distance and time.  Of course speed is distance/time so this
is to be expected.

If we look at the speed of sound in different solid materials we find
again that certain speeds are favoured.  These speeds are multiples and
fractions of 0.535, 3.22 and 6.42 km/s.  These are experimental values
not theory.

We can observe that this is about one level of 34560 below the speed of
light because c/34560 = 8.67 km/s and the other speeds of light in other
mediums will give lesser values e.g c_water/34560 = 6.50 km/s etc.

Why is this so?  First a little interlude ...

Well in the Harmonics theory there are waves for atoms and waves for
nucleons etc.  The reason that there exists binding energy is that
sometimes we have 4 nucleons in a single atom wave or sometimes 1
nucleon with a single atom wave.  Actually the situation is more
complicated than this but I am just making the point.  So when 4 H1
nucleii combine (over several steps of course) to make one He4 nuclei we
have 3 atom waves left over to radiate away.

Now back to the speed of waves.  If two nuclei hit each other then the
wave processes happen at c or thereabouts.  However if two atoms hit
each other then we have a situation where the momentum comes from the
nuclei while the resistance force comes from the atom wave which is
larger and so bumps against theother much sooner.  Because the nucleus
is of the order of 34560 times more massive the bounce rate is 1/34560
times as fast or of the order of 1/34560 of c.  I say "of the order of"
because some atoms will have different waves to others and some nuclei
have different masses.  All this is exactly quantifiably testable.

You may note that in studying the frequencies of light emitted and
absorbed by atoms that there are things called fine structure and
hyperfine structure.  These occur at levels based on the fine structure
constant, alpha = 1/137.036 and in general they happen at ratios of
alpha^2/2 or 1/37558 which is a similar sized number to my 34560.  This
difference is due to modulations and I will explain it another time.

Anyway, emitted spectral lines show details at scales of around 1/37558
and 1/37558^2 of the spectral line frequencies themselves.  These are
consistent with motions of c/37558 and c/37558^2 or of larger waves than
atoms modulating the light waves.

The level of velocity that comes below sound is heat.  Textbooks do not
list "velocity of heat" but it can be calculated from other things.  I
have done that and found that the speed of heat also shows a tendency to
quantisation and is a further level of speed below sound or ~c/34560^2.
This same speed is also found in nerve impulses and the brain's
operations and in trees (Wagner calls them W waves and points out that
the 11 year sunspot cycle would travel between the surface and core of
the sun at this speed).

So we see that space, time and velocity are all broken up into major
levels at ratios of ~34560 with sublevels at ratios of ~12/24 etc and
finer details based on integer ratios and also musical scales especially
3/2 and 4/3.  For more information about the theory itself see 
Harmonics theory - http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/st201.htm

When building devices it is helpful to consider the speed of waves in
the various substances as well as the sizes of any possible standing
waves.  The dominant speeds will be those of e/m, sound and heat but
there will be other more subtle ones too.  Co-ordinating all of these at
once will get results many orders of magnitude more effective.
Stimulation of devices with sounds that have chords of many notes that
all relate to som special frequency required will also be effective (as
Keely understood).

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 18:08:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29271;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:53:30 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some general thoughts on anomalous devices
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:49:57 GMT
Message-ID: <351437d4.14439989 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <350aa9db.2455890 kcbbs.gen.nz>
In-Reply-To: <350aa9db.2455890 kcbbs.gen.nz>
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: <"Er7rd1.0.497.C0q1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16513
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

My main objective here is to draw experimenters attention to the
existence of certain favoured wavelengths and frequencies for all
structures and phenomena in the universe.  Any free energy device, 
IMO, must tap energy from these naturally occurring frequencies and so
understanding them improves the chances of success by a very large
factor.

I mentioned that the Harmonics theory
(for details see - http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/st201.htm )
predicts that the strongest structure in the universe occurs at ratios
of 34560 (or near to this) with secondary levels often at a ratio of 12
or 24 or suchlike number to this and other quanta at ratios of 2, 3, 3/2
etc.  Below is a table showing scales at a ratio of 34560 from the size
of the universe which is assumed to be 10^28 cm or about 10 billion
light years.  The Harmonics theory says that structure should favour
these scales (although it actually expects some of the ratios to vary
from 34560).

Table of predicted sizes of strong waves at ratios of 34560

N   10^28 cm        Feature     Common Units
   / 34560^N

0   1*10^28 cm      Universe    10 billion light years
1   2.9*10^23 cm    Galaxies    300,000 light years
2   8.8*10^18 cm    Stars       8.9 light years
3   2.4*10^14 cm    Planets     16 a. u.
4   7.0*10^9 cm     Moons       70,000 km
5   2.0*10^5 cm     X           2 km
6   5.9 cm          Y           5.9 cm
7   1.7*10^-4 cm    Z           1.7 microns
8   4.9*10^-9 cm    Atoms       0.49 Angstrom
9   1.4*10^-13 cm   Nucleons    1.4 fm
10  4.0*10^-18 cm   Quarks      4*10^-18 cm

It is clear that galaxies, stars, planets and moons form at close to
these predicted distance scales.  The atom and nucleon scales are quite
accurate as the Bohr radius is 0.53 A (compare 0.49 A) while the nucleon
radius is 1.3 fm (compare 1.4 fm).  The stellar distance quanta found
include 8.9 and 4.45 light years so this one is also a very good fit.

But what about the X, Y and Z scales above?  There is no obvious
structure at these scales.  Well actually cells and interstellar dust
favour the Z scale.  But let us look at some anomalous experimental
results.  I will mention 3 different anomalous (to standard physics)
experiments that I know about and show that they relate to these scales.

1. The electron clustering phenomenon.  To quote:

http://www.padrak.com/ine/FB97_1.html
HIGH-DENSITY CHARGE CLUSTERS AND ENERGY CONVERSION RESULTS
By: Hal Fox and Patrick Bailey
"High-density charge clusters, as taught by Kenneth Shoulders (K.
Shoulders, 1991), can be formed in a near vacuum by a short pulse of
negative potential applied to a specially-designed cathode. A typical
charge cluster will impact a witness plate (a thin metal foil placed
near the anode) and leave various-sized holes or blisters in the metal
foil. Single clusters, as produced in the lab, may vary in size from
less than a micron to several microns."

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS10.html
Info. About The Plasmoids And Cold Fusion Info. Web Site, Book On
Scientific Revolutions, And Periodic Economic Depressions, By Edward
Lewis.
... "I was able to find copious micrometer size plasmoid markings like
those produced by Matsumoto, Shoulders, and Bostick and Nardi."

These reports clearly indicate something special about a scale that is
close to the predicted 1.7 micron scale for Z.

2. When I presented my theory at the Russian Academy of Sciences they
mentioned to me that there is a chemistry experiment that has been
discovered that gets a different result depending on the size of the
flask, with a peak variation with a flask radius of 5 cm.  I am sorry
that I do not have a reference to give you on this.  Anyway it fits with
the Y prediction above.

3. A few years ago there was the MRA device which created lots of
discussion as claims of excess energy and wrong calculations flew
around.  Whatever the facts on that, I noticed that all the frequencies
at which the MRA guys got the greatest effects were very close to
fractions of 172,500 Hz (e.g near 57,500 Hz, 34,500 Hz etc).  Later I
found that Tesla's big machine was supposed to operate at 180,000 Hz so
that also connects to this.  Anyway, 172,500 Hz waves have a wavelength
of 1.74 km which is in good agreement with the X level above.

The observed values are all a bit smaller than the table.
We may note also that 1.74 km / 5 cm is very close to my 34560 number.
Also, 5 cm / 34560 = 1.45 um so I would expect the Z quantum to be near
to 1.5 um.

I also have good evidence from natural rock structures that the old
british imperial distance units do fit with natural sizes.  These
include the fathom, yard, cubit, span, foot, hand, palm, inch, line
which all fit together in a pattern of ratios of 2 and 3.  In this
pattern you will find 5.08 cm (2 inches) or according to my measurements
perhaps 1% less than the standard values.  Note that Keely also used
british units, his sphere was based on 1 foot.  Note also that british
units favour ratios of 2, 3 and 12 as in the harmonics theory with
1 foot = 12 inches and 1 inch = 12 lines.

There are actually good reasons why the X and Y (and Z) scales are a bit
weaker than the other ones but understanding that depends on first
understanding the Harmonics theory in detail.

I would be very interested to receive information about frequencies used
or observed, sizes of apparatus (radius of flasks etc) in experiments
that are successful (and unsuccessful also).  If the results of all of
these are collated I am very confident that I can give excellent
feedback on getting better results.  But be warned that when you tune
your apparatus up you will need to be at a safe distance!

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 18:15:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01321;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:04:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007802b12cf130c567 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:03:54 -0800
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"V14ed2.0.SK.uAq1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16514
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> However, bremstrallung radiation
> will occur as the particle is accelerated (constantly in a circle) by the
> magnetic field.

This is _synchrotron_ radiation, not bremsstrahlung.
There are now several dedicated synchrotron radiation sources around the
world operating as bright UV and x-ray facilities around the world. It is
true that, they do not circulate the electons in uniform curcular orbits.
Instead, in order to enhance the brightnesss of the radiation, just before
each of the many outlet ports leading to user experiments they give the
electrons a strong transverse "kick" with a locally strong magnetic field.

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 Mar 11 18:19:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA02728;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <01BD4DA6.6DA54720 miles.nhelab.iae.or.jp>
From: Melvin Miles <miles nhelab.iae.or.jp>
To: "'Vortex'" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: BYU SEMINAR/ J PHYS CHEM REPLY
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:03:02 +-900
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 SAA02693
Resent-Message-ID: <"pUMwV.0.Vg.KJq1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16515
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

E-mail 03/12/98	

To Vortex:

There is only one important point about the time period of my BYU seminar in July 1991.  That point is that Steve Jones will distort any facts to support his side of an issue, hence he cannot be trusted to present the truth.  Why can't he honestly simply 
state that he doesn't remember?  I know that my seminar started shortly after lunch and lasted nearly three hours.  This was due to the numerous probing questions designed to find errors with my results.  My daughter remembers these facts also.  Jones sta
tes that this seminar started at 5 p.m. and lasted only until about 6:30.  That is simply not true.  The number of BYU professors with faulty memories that Jones consults does not change the facts.  Perhaps somebody could check the flight records at the P
rovo, Utah airport for July 22 or 23, 1991 to show that Doug Bennion left around 5:00 p.m. to take me back to St. George, Utah.  This will prove who is telling the truth and who is distorting the facts.

I have presented similar seminars on cold fusion at the University of Utah (twice), University of California San Diego, Cal Poly Pomona, Portland State University, Vanderbilt University and at several other universities.  I was never faced with a lengthy 
inquisition anywhere else except at BYU.  At all other universities, my seminars lasted about one hour, were received in a professional manner, and I was treated with respect despite the controversial topic. 

My BYU seminar, in contrast, was a baited trap designed by Jones and his cohorts to find or invent errors for my results.  The seminar process for the free exchange of scientific information, will not work if it is used as the basis for detailed published
 criticisms.  

Steve Jones soaked up the publicity for cold fusion in 1989 and even tried to claim credit for a prior discovery.  He changed like the wind however, when the public opinion turned against cold fusion.  It sounds like he is now seeking for fame and publici
ty via his solar cooker.

Unlike Jones, I see no reason to retract any of my scientific results on cold fusion despite how unpopular this topic may become.  I will readily retract if I become convinced that errors exist that explain my results.  I will certainly not retract anythi
ng - excess heat, helium-4 production, or even radiation measurements - based on the published distortions by Jones and Hansen.  I have been informed that my reply to Jones and Hansen will soon be published by the Journal of Physical Chemistry.  I hope sc
ientists will read my reply carefully and then judge who is really honest in this dispute.  I should have been directly informed about the Jones attack of my work, and then allowed to reply back-to-back in the same issue.  It has taken me two years of bat
tle to get my reply published.

The referees forced me to delete half of my reply, hence I could not respond to every point.  Please read my reply with an open mind.

Let me now briefly return to the dispute concerning the length of my BYU seminar.  Steven Jones writes »Prof. Hansen recalls asking Mel about his calorimeter -----.  He puts the seminar at about 1.5 hours as I do.«

Steve Jones then adds »By the way Mel, I've done by homework on this --- have you?  Can you name any witnesses that back up your claim of a 3 hour seminar???  Surprise me!« 

Well, O.K.  Yes!  YOU.  STEVEN JONES HIMSELF.  You are my witness!!  In Surface and Coating Technology, Vol. 51, p. 284 (1992) in an article by Steven Jones, the following statement appears: "Dr. Miles was kind enough to answer probing questions; his pres
entation lasted nearly three hours".  Steve, when were you distorting the facts about my seminar: then or now?  (The correct answer is NOW).

Based on my experience with Steve Jones, I cannot trust his words or his actions.  Therefore, any future discussions with him are pointless.

Dr. Melvin H. Miles



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 19:31:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26472;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:28:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:28:04 -0800
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:26:55 -0800
Message-Id: <199803120326.TAA02627 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"2s2Fi1.0.NT6.TOr1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16516
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Why don't you have an alternating rotation?
>It should work if all electrons are in phase, but your model does not give such
>an obvious view of the electric field as ross's gives.
>
>

Also, for them to all be in phase, requires some form of underlying wave
structure to which all resonances are coupled, ergo spacetime.  You need a
grid work to which the solitons (rigid or fluidic) can couple so that they
remain in phase synchrony.

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 19:32:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26505;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:28:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:28:05 -0800
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:26:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199803120326.TAA02630 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: What is Time?
Resent-Message-ID: <"o30_K1.0.oT6.bOr1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16517
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



>You didn't read the above link did you?   :-)
Nope ;-)

>Imagine some water with two slits and let a drip fall in the water on
>one side.  The waves from that drip will interfere on the other side of
>the slits.

Fine.  but the majority of the energy of the original drip wave is reflected
off of the barrier, and not transmitted.  This is not what happens with photons.

>
>All of the pattern in the 2 slit experiment is due to single photons
>interfering with themselves.  Any other 2 photons only cause a continuum
>because there is no phase matching.  That said, you need a high photon
>count to get that to happen.

But in a laser interferogram, (hologram), you indeed use the reference beam,
and the object beam to induce an interference pattern.  So you don't have
just drips and slits!  You have a wide open system.  The interferogram has
to be in the topology of spacetime, that is refracting the waves, and not
the waves themselves interferring.  

But according to QM, the photons know where to go based on where previous
and future photons have and will, go.  The hologram is simple when you
understand that spacetime is itself, turbulent.

This works fine too for a solid aether though, I agree.

>
>>Another one is radioactivity.  Here, it is not predictable when the decay
>>particles will come off.  They do so at random times.  This is described as
>>being a quantum wierdness of another sort.
>
>There is no problem with this.  It is all due to the background e/m
>waves (the ZPE) that are present everywhere.  

Are you saying that em waves are stronger than the nuclear strong force?  Or
are you saying that they are one and the same forces?  If the latter, how is
it that neutral particles attract neutral particles, and how is it that
positive particles suddenly attract other positive particles.

For the fluidic model, you have soliton to soliton interactions such that
wave energy from deep space pushes the solitons toward one another strongly.
Whereas for electric fields, you are dealing with one soliton at some phase
angle relative to spacetime, and a different particle at some other phase
angle relative to spacetime.  Thus, the wave energy exchange must go from
soliton to spacetime and back into soliton again, leading to a reduction in
the coherency of the communicated wave energy, when compared to the
coherency involved in the direct soliton to soliton interaction.

At that point, radioactivity is simple.  It is simply too much wave energy
"rocking the boat", as you put it.  But I don't get how you use em energy to
interact with nuclear strength, such that positive attracts positive.

>Anyway, radioactie decay is NOT random it is 100% determined by the ZPE
>even though we may not know when the exact moment will be because we
>don't have all the information.

Agreed.


>
>We can however have some information.  I predicted and then found 3 and
>6 minute waves in the rate of decay of Plutonium in Russian records
>which are continuous over 11 years.  If such slow waves can be found
>then there will also be many faster frequencies present in the ZPE.

Don't forget our local wave maker, El Sol, with primary energy in the 5
minute range.

>
>
>>How can you explain this using a tensile force to hold them in?  You need
a tensile
>>force that magically knows how and when to let go of the decaying fragments.
>
>The tensile force doesn't hold particles in it holds aether in.  The
>particle forces are a second order effect due to resonance and phase
>effects as you well know.

Well, yes, particles are aether though.  So aether holding aether is
synonomous to particles holding particles in any aether theory (that is any
tensile aether theory ;-)

>
>>In order to have concentric shells that rotate relatively and rigidly, you
>>also need some sort of bearings.  Further, it is not possible to tile all of
>>spacetime with these sort of geometries.  you have a sphere packing problem
>>and can only tile about 70 percent of the space.
>
>So could you explain to me what is the pattern that the 5 minute
>oscillations make on the sun?  Does it leave spaces?  Of course not.
>The wave equations of a tensile medium are the same wave equations as in
>Maxwell's equations and in all wave equations you can "tile" 3D space
>with many shapes including cubes which have near spherical waves near
>their centres.

The sun's oscillations are not of a single frequency, and thus the tiling is
not uniform and instead is broken into the granularity which is well defined
and visible in our scopes.  

However, if one uses a model of wave energy to replace the notion of
spacetime, and you use just any old tiling scheme, it will not work.  If you
were to do that, then you can couple a positive charged particle to one
phase angle of vibration, run it around the universe and back to the origin
again, and it is possible to have translated in such a manner that you
crossed n boundaries on the way out, and n + 1 boundaries on the way back.
more simply, it is possible that you have translated in such a manner that
you have not remained in the black and white checkerboard pattern and have
gone from a black square to a white one.  

In EM, using spacetime phase angles as a measure of charge, this is not
allowed because it would allow an electron to become a positron depending on
the path it follows through spacetime.  If this could happen, we should
expect entire galaxies of matter and anti matter, and the resulting
fireworks to be observed by Hubble.  



>>But then you have a general movement of aether into sinks, out away from
>>sources.
>
>Yes.  That is how you get charge and gravity.  But the movement is
>extremely small as gravity is due to a flow at the Hubble rate or 1 part
>in 10^10 per year of distortion.

So you treat gravity as a flow? and electric fields as a flow too?  How do
you distinguish the action imposed from aether flowing????   How do you get
the same flow to act on a proton and an electron with the same action for
the electric field, but with a different action for gravitation?  ie, if you
have a proton and an electron in two different experiments, then how is it
that they know the difference between "electric" aether flow, and
"gravitational" aether flow?

Also, how is it that a flow causes objects to accelerate, or is the flow
velocity changing with 1/R^2?

I am poking here because with fluidic aether, there are 2 different means of
interaction that are inertial, ie, interact with the mass of the particles
involved.  These are, cosmological, ie flow of aether into BH's or out of
stars, and, a wave filtering phenomena.

I still don't have a feeling that you have two independent gravitational
like interactions, and thus that you don't have a cosmological like force
interaction.



>>Thus, for our sun, the mass must be TWO solar masses!  you get double the
>>buoyancy if you follow the energy of the particles, plus the flow of the
aether.
>
>>I don't think you are following both of these are you?  Do you expect the
>>sun to be twice the mass of one solar mass?
>
>Well the mass of the sun is 1 solar mass BY DEFINITION.

Yes and No.  The mass of the object responsible for our planets orbiting at
the rate they do, is calculated to have a gravitational "attraction force"
equal to one solar mass, a defined measure of mass derived from, F =
GMm/R^2, and the planetary circular orbital velocities.  But note that if
there are cosmological like thrusts involved issuing outward away from the
sun, and impeeding the inward gravitational thrust, then you have two
offsetting actions to account for.  One, is due to gravitation.  The other,
is due to flow of aether.  And if both are present, then the amount of mass,
ie, the amount of particles times their mass, in the sun is very much
different than the value you would get from simply calculating the orbital
velocities and radii of the planets, and assuming Newtonian gravitation is
correct.

thus, it could be that you need 2 grams of mass in a star, in order to cause
the planets around it to gravitate with the same force interaction as 1 gram
of mass in a Cavendish balance, or for a planet and a moon, where these
other objects are not fusing mass into energy, and thus don't have aether
flowing into or out of their matter, ie solitons.

This is where I have said that my model is not in accord with present
theories or other aether theories.  So is this clear now, and if so, is this
something you expect from the solid aether or not?


>In the tensile aether there is an effect which is a doubling which is
>due to the tension.  The tension in the radial and tangential directions
>is different and this leads to the GR situation where gravity has twice
>the effect on horizontal light that it has on vertical light.  I am not
>sure whether this is the same effect that you mean.

How is gravity different around a star, than it is around a planet or other
object that is not fusing mass to energy?

>
>>I consider the aether to be continuous and compressible.  This isn't really
>>a dollar each way if you think about fractal treatments of surfaces.  But it
>>does require density gradients to be allowed to go to infinitely large, and
>>infinitely small divisions.
>
>You will suffer from the ultraviolet catastrophe (of Planck etc) with
>this model if you believe in the big bang because all the energy goes to
>very short wavelengths.  That is why they introduced quantisation into
>physics in the first place.  This totally undermines your theory.

Well, I don't think you can say that this undermines the theory at all.  In
my theory, I work with a fluid, and the pressure here must support the
entire universe, out there.  So, effectively, the pressure must approach
infinity, and so the energy density too must approach infinity, equally so
as the size of the universe approaches infinity! your turn!   ;-) 

Also, remember that the motions and geometry of the entire universe in my
model are identical to the motion and geometry of an electron.  So our
entire universe, IMO, is a tiny portion of all that there is.  So while
infinity is something our minds don't like to admit into any theory, this
does not preclude it from being a part of reality.  Otherwise, it is always
possible to ask, what is beyond the edge.  And to simply say that the
universe is closed is not very consoling because even in a highly curved
universe, if one had the knowledge of how the universe was curved, it should
be possible to travel further and further out into the universe mapping as
you go, and heeding the curvature along the way, such that you avoid the
curvature and deduce the direction that is "up", to use the analogy of an
ant on the surface of our planet.

>Black holes work.  They are a condition where the tension gets so high
>that waves refract back inwards.

 So for black holes, you have "particles" as solitonic like waves, and they
are refracting into the hole due to the tension, is this correct?  

Refraction, or precession of the wave energy is at best akin to the wave
filtering gravitational interaction I use.  But for a black hole, this
cannot be the case in my model.  A black hole has a net bulk flow of aether
into it, and that flow is what causes the curvature of spacetime to converge
into the hole.  But inside, I find that a core will form.

Do you have a core inside, or do you just have high tension and low density?

If you only have low density, then how do you form the jets that are
observed?  And how could you form just a single jet rather than a double
sided jet?

Your turn, Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 19:44:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA31126;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:39:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:39:44 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:40:44 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <v03007802b12cf130c567 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"oQHeG1.0.qb7.yZr1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16518
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:03 PM 3/11/98 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
>Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>> However, bremstrallung radiation
>> will occur as the particle is accelerated (constantly in a circle) by the
>> magnetic field.
>
>This is _synchrotron_ radiation, not bremsstrahlung.

   Young whippersnappers!  When I was young, all the radiation from
accelerating  (or decelerating) charged particles was called
bremsstrahlung.  Then someone named Lawrence invented this nifty new gadget
called a synchrotron. ;-)

  (Seriously, usage in the sixties was still to call it bremsstrahlung.  I
have noticed a tendency recently to refer to it as synchrotron radiation
even when it comes from a wiggler.)

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 22:08:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA17338;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:03:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:03:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.3.16.19980312163229.2777282e main.murray.net.au>
X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (16)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:32:29
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Geoff Egel <egel main.murray.net.au>
Subject: Re: Announcement  website location
In-Reply-To: <199803102347.PAA03235 slave1.aa.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vM0yf3.0.qE4.0ht1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16519
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:47 PM 3/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
Can someone inform me where this website mention below is
thanks Geoff




Barry Merriman wrote:
>>What ever happened to your claim that you could
>>make overunity devices a 'la Griggs for ~ $150 each.
>>Never heard much about that since the initial claims.
>>I take it that means you found the devices are not
>>"over unity"?
>
>Hi Barry,
>
>        You can still make my device for ~$150 in parts.  That's about all I
>spend to make them.  If you'll check out the Cavitation College Homepage
>over the next few weeks, you'll find the schematics, cost sheet, and
>instructions.  It takes more patience than skill, but I've seen photos of
>some of your work, and I think you could do it without any problem.  A
>replication of the device that Griggs is selling would be even simpler and
>cheaper.  Minus the pump, a Potapov replication should cost less than $50 in
>parts.   A replication of the Putterman patent would be more difficult and
>expensive, but it might be more appropriate if your research demanded that a
>smaller number of materials be in contact with the working fluid.  You can
>do alot of good science on the cheap, if you build your own stuff.  
>
>        I just started that Cavitation College page about a week ago, and
>I've got a ton of stuff on my harddrive that I've got to "webbize" and post.
>Eventually, I'll be posting all my test results, instructions on how to make
>your own, that sort of thing, along with all of the web accessable stuff
>that I've collected over the past three years relating to cavitation.  I
>think what I've posted to date is around 1 megabyte in size, and I've got
>probably 300 megs of stuff to convert and post, so it might take a while.
>Keep checking back if you're interested.
>
>        I haven't made any retractions of any claims. -Knuke
>     
>
>
>
*****************************************************************

Geoff Egel
Check out my energy page at
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135

Promoting the search for new energy sources for the 21st
Century ,like to hear from you

Snail Mail
18 Sturt Street
Loxton 5333
South Australia
Australia


*****************************************************************

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 11 23:48:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA03585;
	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:45:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:45:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980312074355.0066a8dc 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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:43:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Kurt Johmann <johmann atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: BYU SEMINAR/ J PHYS CHEM REPLY
Resent-Message-ID: <"CB0cd2.0.wt.NAv1r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16520
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dr. Melvin Miles <miles nhelab.iae.or.jp> writes:

>Well, O.K. Yes! YOU. STEVEN JONES HIMSELF. You are my witness!! In
>Surface and Coating Technology, Vol. 51, p. 284 (1992) in an article by
>Steven Jones, the following statement appears: "Dr. Miles was kind enough
>to answer probing questions; his presentation lasted nearly three hours".
>Steve, when were you distorting the facts about my seminar: then or now?
>(The correct answer is NOW).

You've caught Steve Jones red-handed.

My father, a retired attorney, says that half the population is dishonest.

Obviously, Dr. Miles falls into the honest half, and Jones into the dishonest
half.

Jones has long been an object of contempt to those sympathetic to CF. He is
the Benedict Arnold of cold fusion. My only hope is that when the Nobel prize
goes for CF in some future decade, Jones is passed over.


Kurt Johmann
--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 06:22:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18752;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:20:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:20:11 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <3507EF12.B64A0C3E ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:20:02 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Announcement  website location
References: <3.0.3.16.19980312163229.2777282e main.murray.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0j8aH1.0.ua4.Py-1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16521
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Geoff Egel wrote:
> Can someone inform me where this website mention below is

<http://members.aa.net/~knuke/>

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 06:38:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23585;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:35:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:35:40 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <3507F2B1.2FAB3FAD ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:35:29 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Some general thoughts on anomalous devices
References: <350aa9db.2455890 kcbbs.gen.nz> <351437d4.14439989@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"a5nai.0.Km5.vA_1r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16522
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ray Tomes wrote: 
> My main objective here is to draw experimenters attention to the
> existence of certain favoured wavelengths and frequencies for all
> structures and phenomena in the universe.  Any free energy device,
> IMO, must tap energy from these naturally occurring frequencies and so
> understanding them improves the chances of success by a very large
> factor.

Welcome aboard Ray!  It's interesting to see both you and RT go toe to toe on
your theories, but this last post is more to the point of why many of us
subscribe to vortex.  I am very interested in APPLICATIONS of both your and
Ross's theories.  The theory part is entertaining, but irrelevant if just
interpretational semantics.  Lets get some experimental results to chew on and
you and RT both will find more attention than either of you can handle.  8^)


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 09:05:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00582;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:01:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:01:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:00:43 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: 3 questions
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199803121659.JAA23524 smtp1.asu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"azT0J.0.09.LJ12r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16523
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

1. Has anyone reported success with the Rifex transmutation kits?

2. (For Scott Little) Has anyone ever taken you up on your long-standing
offer to test a working CF cell, report the results, and return it?

3. On the magnetics/smot subject: Are there ANY known instances of a
self-running gizmo of any type that has been described in such detail that
someone other than the original claimant has successfully built one and has
it running for all the world to see?

--Lynn

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 09:06:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00610;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:01:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:01:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:59:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199803121659.IAA02872 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: Difference between ridig vs fluid aether models
Resent-Message-ID: <"-2f_o1.0.Q9.RJ12r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16524
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In the rigid models, it can be supposed that spherical or other rotations or
wave phenomena are involved.  Tension is the rule of the day, and
compressions also occur.  They can, however, be thought of as simply tension
though because you can always place the nominal zero tension at an
arbitrarily large density of aether.  Low aether density leads to increased
aether tension.

Tensile aethers *require* the notion that aether, reaches outward, and pulls
on other aether.  Since no one things aether has trained arms, hooks, or
grapples, tensile aether theories adopt a "force" field into their notions.

Second, they must also apparently account for motion of the aether.  Thus,
they must also adopt some term in order to account for the motion of aether,
when it collides into other aether.  This factor is independent of the
tensile factor.  One has to do with density, the other has to do with KE and
motion, mv^2

Third, momentum must be conserved in physics.  So in addition to KE, we must
also conserve mv.  Thus, the aether must also allow for this conservation,
but use of kinetic theory in combination of tensile action will allow this.


**********************************

Fluid aethers can be based entirely on a kinetic theory of action
communications.  There are no tensile forces.  There are, however, the KE
and the momentum means of one packet of aether colliding and transferring
action to another packet of aether.  

As such, it seems to me, that the fluid model requires just one means of
transferring action, whereas the rigid means requires two.  Fluid wins by Occam

****************************************

To allow transverse waves into the fluidic theory, we are forced to adopt a
spacetime manifold of acoustic wave energy, where it is the manifold of
spacetime itself that distorts, and not the photon.  Thus, an EM wave, is
simply a spacetime distortion wave.

The disadvantage, is the fluid model is forced to adopt some form of wave
structure to describe spacetime.  The advantage is, the fluid model doesn't
have to adopt a fundamental property of the universe, spacetime.  ie, the
rigid model also adopts "spacetime" into it's model when it includes moving
rigid aether.

However, the rigid model then also needs to include EM fields.

For the fluid aether model, the spacetime manifold of oscillations is a
quadrature acoustic manifold (a bit difficult to describe the topology in
words, but if you don't worry about 90 and 270 resonances, the manifold is
the black and white checkerboard in dynamic 3D I have described in the past
many times).  The advantage to this is that this same manifold gives us
spacetime, and, EM fields with 4 phase angles that solitonic resonances can
couple to in an obvious manner, pulsations.  so this manifold gives you 0,
90, 180, and 270 degrees phase angle for resonances to couple to.

Since the rigid model needs to use both the intrinsic property of the
universe "spacetime" and "EM fields" with which solitons couple to display
tensile action transfer, and the rigid model needs to account for motion of
the aether and thus KE, it appears that it requires spacetime, EM, and KE to
account for action moving from this packet of aether to that one.

For the fluid model, all that is required is to set the spacetime manifold
in motion, and this doubles as your EM field reference for wave energy.  And
in so doing, all aether interactions are kinetic.  So you don't need to
include the tensile means of transferring action.

No matter how I work it out, it sure seems like the fluid aether requires
fewer working parts.  

Ray, I know you don't agree with the correctness of the model, but you at
least must agree that the fluid model which only uses the KE interactions
for action transfer remove one more "property" from our theories we use to
stipulate how the universe behaves.  And I am not certain that the
distinction of EM and spacetime in the rigid model don't involve two notions
more than the fluid model, as not only is there an em field, but that field
then becomes the property of the "particles".  You see, either you have a
spacetime lattice, AND you have an em lattice, OR, you assign the EM lattice
to the particles, and they reach out to exert their action on other
particles with like or dislike fields.  Or, you assign the EM lattice to
spacetime and restrict charged particles to remain in a given EM nodal
topology, but they can move at will through the spacetime topology.

It seems to me that the rigid model requires 2 additional fundamental
notions right off the bat.

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 09:57:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08609;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:44:17 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199803121744.SAA21612 crmsrv.crmc2.univ-mrs.fr>
X-Sender: biberian mccir3.crmc2.univ-mrs.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: biberian <biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr>
Subject: Re: 3 questions
Resent-Message-ID: <"vMBng.0.N62.vu12r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16525
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:00 12/03/98 -0700, you wrote:
>1. Has anyone reported success with the Rifex transmutation kits?
>
>2. (For Scott Little) Has anyone ever taken you up on your long-standing
>offer to test a working CF cell, report the results, and return it?
>
>3. On the magnetics/smot subject: Are there ANY known instances of a
>self-running gizmo of any type that has been described in such detail that
>someone other than the original claimant has successfully built one and has
>it running for all the world to see?
>
>--Lynn


In France at the French Atomic Energy Commission, we have a three fold program:

1- The original P&F experiment : 

We have observed small amounts of excess heat at low temperature, and in the
10% range at boiling, following at our best the P&F protocol, which not so
easy to follow, in particular regarding cleanless and purity of D2O.

2- The Patterson cell experiment :

We have direct contact with CETI, and have tested two of their cells, and
one of our own design, with basically a larger diameter, therefore we can
put more beads. We have measured XSH, in the 10% range without any problem,
using our own beads.

We will soon get data regarding transmutation. At this point we focus only
on isotopic anomalies.

3- We have also a solid state electrolyte program under way.

We will report on all this at ICCF7.

********************************
Jean-Paul Biberian
E-mail : biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr
tel  (33) 660 14 04 85
********************************

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 10:13:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15894;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:05:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:05:47 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803121806.KAA09840 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 <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"FZZa11.0.0u3.tF22r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16526
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck  wrote:
 >Welcome aboard Ray!  
 [snip]
 >...Ross's theories.  The theory part is entertaining,
 >but irrelevant if just interpretational semantics.
 >Lets get some experimental results to chew on...
 [snip]

I for one really appreciate Ross and Ray's theoretical discussions, as it is
*new* theory and seems to me directly relevant. We need alternative
theorists talking to us in order to see alternative paths for experimentation!

I think Ross is pointing quite clearly in a direction for the experimenters
to look. Think of ways to experimentally validate his theory... from those
experiments will follow the devices. IMHO we will see something important
resulting from this thread of discussions before too long.

Dan Quickert


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 10:25:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22191;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:21:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:21:03 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:21:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803121821.KAA11901 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 <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Magnetics question for Ross
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cem3m1.0.SQ5.CU22r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16527
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross, can you elaborate on your view of the nature of magnetism?

You mentioned in a previous post your concerns that a physical device that
takes advantage of your theories may need to involve atomic-scale
fabrications that are only available via high-tech, expensive setups. But
perhaps a better understanding of magnetism from the viewpoint of your
theory may be one avenue to simpler devices.

When I first joined Vortex, I was asking about ways to rotate a magnetic
field. Perhaps naively, and to the consternation of some list members, I
wasn't satisfied with the answers I got then. But I was looking for ways to
do it at very high rotational velocities, because I thought there's
something there worth checking out. Now that I've read your material, and
have a (somewhat imprecise) conceptual feel for it, I think it's time to
look at those magnetic fields more closely in this new light.

Dan Quickert

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 10:45:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19652;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35082BA2.22B9D7B1 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:38:26 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
References: <199803121806.KAA09840 pop1.ucdavis.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fEb2f1.0.vo4.6m22r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16528
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dan Quickert wrote:

> I for one really appreciate Ross and Ray's theoretical discussions, as it is
> *new* theory and seems to me directly relevant. We need alternative
> theorists talking to us in order to see alternative paths for experimentation!

I am not arguing relevance.  I fully agree with Ray's assessment of the
importance of the theories.  I enjoy the discussions too, but feel all talk and
no action is unproductive.  My post was intended only as a suggestion to both
R&R on a more effective route to draw more interest and discussion to their
theories (at least on vortex).  That's it.  Sorry if it came across any other
way.  8^)

 > I think Ross is pointing quite clearly in a direction for the experimenters
> to look. 

Yes and no.

> Think of ways to experimentally validate his theory... from those
> experiments will follow the devices. IMHO we will see something important
> resulting from this thread of discussions before too long.

That is my challenge to both R&R and to us all.  I hope productive things come
from this thread as well.  Without anything solid to go on, it is IMO nothing
more than wishful thinking.  8^)


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 12:07:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20442;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:52:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:52:15 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803121952.LAA24191 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 <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Our7q1.0.K_4.jp32r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16529
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck wrote:
>I am not arguing relevance.  I fully agree with Ray's assessment of the
>importance of the theories.  I enjoy the discussions too, but feel all talk and
>no action is unproductive.  My post was intended only as a suggestion to both
>R&R on a more effective route to draw more interest and discussion to their
>theories (at least on vortex).  That's it.  Sorry if it came across any other
>way.  8^)

I didn't really take it that way, just wanted to be sure Ross and Ray knew
that there is support for hearing more of their discussion. I imagine there
are a number of us who are soaking it in, waiting for the critical mass of
understanding that will cause that light bulb to flash on in our heads.

>That is my challenge to both R&R and to us all.  I hope productive things come
>from this thread as well.  Without anything solid to go on, it is IMO nothing
>more than wishful thinking.  8^)

I'll wishfur more thinking, after which something solid may go on ;-)

Regards,
Dan Quickert

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 13:44:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12813;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:34:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:34:11 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:32:37 GMT
Message-ID: <350a4b77.1996926 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <199803121952.LAA24191 pop1.ucdavis.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199803121952.LAA24191 pop1.ucdavis.edu>
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: <"4zNOF2.0.683.HJ52r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16530
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Dan Quickert <dequickert ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>I'll wishfur more thinking, after which something solid may go on ;-)

In the "Re: Some general thoughts on anomalous devices" thread
John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com> wrote:
>I am very interested in APPLICATIONS of both your and Ross's theories.

Thank you both for your comments.  I had already decided that it was
better to concentrate on applications rather than argue the finer
esoteric points with Ross.  So Ross, please excuse me for not answering
all your arguments but rather concentrating on what is measurable in
experiments now.  I am still happy to answer questions on tensile vs
pressure aether but I would not like that to be where most of the effort
goes.

The interesting thing is to find the common thing amoung many
experiments and I believe that this is the sizes, substances,
frequencies etc that are used and that develop.  I invite all
experimenters that have either positive or negative results (or even
better some of each) to list all the parameters of their equipment here
and I am sure that a pattern will emerge, just as it did with the MRA
frequencies.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 14:24:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28038;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:07:00 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MvX1y2.0.wr6.fv52r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16531
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

What happened to this question: How is that an electron can be reflected
by a magentic field, and undergo a complete reversal of momentum, solely
under the action of a conservative (Lorentz) force?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 14:28:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA26617;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:23:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:23:00 -0800
Message-ID: <35085EBC.5F57 skylink.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:16:28 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Junk Mail (off topic)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5D2AP3.0.jV6.2162r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16532
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Junk mail about how to send junk mail. 
However much bandwidth is installed, 
it will always be 33% less than needed.

   Subject: It Can Send 360,000 E-mails Per Hour!!! 
   Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 02:21:50 EST 
   From: 89499318 aol.com
   Reply-To: sromaster hotmail.com
   To: friend world.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 16:08:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24301;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:05:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:05:25 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:05:09 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350ab6f2.25718905 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <v0300780cb12c685b9f81 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <v0300780cb12c685b9f81 [198.133.146.230]>
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: <"tXxXp1.0.Vx5.2X72r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16534
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:34:43 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
[snip]
>With respect to rotation of the conducting ring when it is allowed to
>rotate in Kooistra's experiment, I still think that it rotates because of
>the short _radial_ component of current in the flat ring. This is just the
>same as the radial current cross vertical leakage magnetic field from the
>torus I discussed above. If the current feeds were bent to allow the
>current to enter the flat ring from its inner circumference, the sign of
>this short radial current would change and, by my hypothesis, so would the
>direction of rotation of the ring. Furthermore, I predict that the
[snip]
Does this mean, that in the case of a rotating flat ring with current
feed through brushes, you would expect no rotation at all, if the
brushes make contact midway between inner and outer edges?
(Such that equal current flows radially in both directions). Granted
it might take a bit of fiddling to find the null point.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 12 16:09:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24234;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:05:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:05:14 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:05:08 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350cbbaf.26932123 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <003601bd4c92$57c36000$6f8cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <003601bd4c92$57c36000$6f8cbfa8 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: <"rr1Bp3.0.Gw5.vW72r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16533
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:05:58 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>Given that a negative particle with a few ev rest mass (more or less)can
>fall into a close
>"orbit" radius, R = kq^2/Eo[(qV/Eo)+1] where

I think you meant R = (kq^2/Eo)*[(qV/Eo)+1] yes? 
Could you give the derivation? (TIA)

>V = kq/R.

If so, then this simplifies to R=(kq^2/Eo)*[(1+sqrt(5))/2]

i.e. R=(kq^2/Eo)*golden mean.

BTW if Eo is rest-mass-energy, then this yields a strange result for
the electron (and even if you fill in 27.2 eV).
Have I done something wrong?
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 12 16:10:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24327;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:05:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:05:31 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Freakish particles
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:05:18 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350ec364.28905248 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <002c01bd4d35$cc8c63c0$6a8cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <002c01bd4d35$cc8c63c0$6a8cbfa8 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: <"8FNd7.0.rx5.4X72r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16536
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:36:08 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>When I cranked out the "model" a few years back with Ron Brodzinski looking
>over my shoulder, we decided the only way to verify it, was to wait and let
>the Science Guys do the experiments that sooner or later support it. The
>basic physics was already done.   :-)
[snip]
Hi Frederick, do you have your whole "model" in one or more computer
documents (other than vortex archives :)?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 12 16:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16713;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35087929.1AA6 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:09:13 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org> <35085C84.2D04@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GCRlw.0.154.gc72r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16536
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 
> What happened to this question: How is that an electron can be reflected
> by a magentic field, and undergo a complete reversal of momentum, solely
> under the action of a conservative (Lorentz) force?

Robert, I'm far from an expert on this, but a "reflection by a
conservative force" must be possible.  I know gravity is a conservative
force and it can "reflect" a particle.  If a comet approaches the sun
with parabolic (escape velocity) velocity or greater, it is reflected.
If it has exactly parabolic velocity, it will be turned through 180
degrees and recede to infinity after infinite time (assuming no impact,
of course!)  A bit more and the orbit will be an open hyperbolic one.  I
think being conservative does not prohibit a field from reflecting a
particle.
Anyone agree with this assessment?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 16:19:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA15595;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:06:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:06:54 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:05:11 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350dc138.28349799 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aa
a0 spectre.mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aaa0 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: <"ogVYx.0.bp3.OY72r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16535
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:53:20 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
[snip]
>>BTW isn't the weak force conversion going to considerably reduce the
>>likelihood of this happening?
>
>    My first inclination was to answer yes, but that is somewhat
>misleading.  It is the fact that an electron is involved that really knocks
>down the probability at low energies, since the uncertainty in the
>electron's position is large.  At higher energies, the relative size of the
>electron is smaller, but now the (slow) speed of the weak interaction
>becomes significant.  So there will be a value for the energy of the
>electron which will maximize the interaction probability.  Now if someone
>can come up with a reason why the electrons in cold fusion experiments act
>small...superconductivity would do.

Does this mean that if Mills' hydrinos (deuterinos) are real, then the
"close" electron might be more available? (I think this may be what
Frederick was getting at before).

>
>>Or in that case, even thermal neutrons.
> 
[snip]
>     But back to your assertion.  We wouldn't see the thermal neutrons.
>But we know that some would be captured by nucleii, and others would decay
>into protons.  In either case the X-ray signature should be obvious,
>through dead people (grad students) even if no measurements were made.

Which is precisely why I added it.
[snip]
So the bottom line is that if CF does indeed involve nuclear
reactions, then neutrons play no part in the reactions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 12 16:50:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04014;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:45:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:45:16 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:43:37 GMT
Message-ID: <35167cd0.14632286 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org> <35085C84.2D04@skylink.net> <35087929.1AA6@interlaced.net>
In-Reply-To: <35087929.1AA6 interlaced.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: <"Q5EgA3.0.e-.Q682r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16537
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:09:13 -0500, "Francis J. Stenger"
<fstenger interlaced.net> wrote:

>Robert Stirniman wrote:
>> What happened to this question: How is that an electron can be reflected
>> by a magentic field, and undergo a complete reversal of momentum, solely
>> under the action of a conservative (Lorentz) force?

>Robert, I'm far from an expert on this, but a "reflection by a
>conservative force" must be possible.  I know gravity is a conservative
>force and it can "reflect" a particle.  If a comet approaches the sun
>with parabolic (escape velocity) velocity or greater, it is reflected.
>If it has exactly parabolic velocity, it will be turned through 180
>degrees and recede to infinity after infinite time (assuming no impact,
>of course!)  A bit more and the orbit will be an open hyperbolic one.  I
>think being conservative does not prohibit a field from reflecting a
>particle.
>Anyone agree with this assessment?

Yes, and in both cases the change in momentum must be transferred to
other objects... the sun or the matter that makes the magnetic field.

Robert are you thinking that there is no equal and opposite effect?
Is that the problem?

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 17:31:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14339;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:28:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:28:01 -0800
Message-ID: <01BD4DEC.B1537820 pm3-130.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Paper Requested
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:26:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RX_Xq1.0.rV3.Uk82r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16538
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Greetings all:

Can someone here tell me where I can get a copy of this paper: "Gravity as a Zero Point Fluctuation Force" by H. E. Puthoff.

Thanks,
Kyle R. Mcallister

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 18:10:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA24063;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:06:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:06:20 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b12e4469dcf2 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <35087929.1AA6 interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:06:41 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"sw-9v2.0.tt5.QI92r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16539
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Robert Stirniman wrote:
>>
>> What happened to this question: How is that an electron can be reflected
>> by a magentic field, and undergo a complete reversal of momentum, solely
>> under the action of a conservative (Lorentz) force?
>
>Robert, I'm far from an expert on this, but a "reflection by a
>conservative force" must be possible.  I know gravity is a conservative
>force and it can "reflect" a particle.  If a comet approaches the sun
>with parabolic (escape velocity) velocity or greater, it is reflected.
>If it has exactly parabolic velocity, it will be turned through 180
>degrees and recede to infinity after infinite time (assuming no impact,
>of course!)  A bit more and the orbit will be an open hyperbolic one.  I
>think being conservative does not prohibit a field from reflecting a
>particle.
>Anyone agree with this assessment?

A good example. Actually, since the mass of the sun is not infinite, a
small fraction of the comet's energy and momentum get transferred to the
sun. Similarly, when a charged particle is turned around by the magnetic
field (it doesn't have to be 180 deg---just angle of exit equals angle of
entrance if the mag field is distributed like a slab---the mass of the
magnet is not infinite, and a  small fraction of the particle's energy and
momentum get transferred to the magnet.

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 Mar 12 19:42:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12665;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:36:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:36:55 -0800
From: Puthoff <Puthoff aol.com>
Message-ID: <7e0e55f6.3508a9ab aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:36:09 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Paper Requested
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"xDXnp2.0.j53.KdA2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16540
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Kyle,

The full reference is included in the bibliography at the back of the attached
paper.  It is available in any university library; they all carry Physical
Review A.  Otherwise drop me an address and I'll send you a copy.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 19:44:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA13274;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:38:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:38:21 -0800
From: Puthoff <Puthoff aol.com>
Message-ID: <504ce5f6.3508a9e7 aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:36:53 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Paper Requested
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id TAA13200
Resent-Message-ID: <"nf9Xr1.0.DF3.feA2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16541
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Attached Paper - forgot to attach!

Can the Vacuum be Engineered for Spaceflight Applications?
Overview of Theory and Experiments1

H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D.
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78759-5329

1This paper was originally presented at the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion
Physics Workshop, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, August 12-14,
1997.

ABSTRACT

Quantum theory predicts, and experiments verify, that empty space (the vacuum)
contains an enormous residual background energy known as zero-point energy
(ZPE).  Originally thought to be of significance only for such esoteric
concerns as small perturbations to atomic emission processes, it is now known
to play a role in large-scale phenomena of interest to technologists as well,
such as the inhibition of spontaneous emission, the generation of short-range
attractive forces (e.g., the Casimir force), and the possibility of accounting
for sonoluminescence phenomena.  ZPE topics of interest for spaceflight
applications range from fundamental issues (where does inertia come from, can
it be controlled?), through laboratory attempts to extract useful energy from
vacuum fluctuations (can the ZPE be "mined" for practical use?), to
scientifically-grounded extrapolations concerning "engineering the vacuum" (is
"warp-drive" space propulsion a scientific possibility?).  Recent advances in
research into the physics of the underlying ZPE indicate the possibility of
potential application in all these areas of interest.


INTRODUCTION

The concept "engineering the vacuum" was first introduced by Nobel Laureate T.
D. Lee (1988) in his book Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory.
As stated there: "The experimental method to alter the properties of the
vacuum may be called vacuum engineering....  If indeed we are able to alter
the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena, totally unexpected."
Recent experiments have indeed shown this to be the case.

With regard to space propulsion, the question of engineering the vacuum can be
put succinctly:  "Can empty space itself provide the solution?"  Surprisingly
enough, there are hints that potential help may in fact emerge quite literally
out of the vacuum of so-called "empty space."  Quantum theory tells us that
empty space is not truly empty, but rather is the seat of myriad energetic
quantum processes that could have profound implications for future space
travel.  To understand these implications it will serve us to review briefly
the historical development of the scientific view of what constitutes empty
space.

At the time of the Greek philosophers, Democritus argued that empty space was
truly a void, otherwise there would not be room for the motion of atoms.
Aristotle, on the other hand, argued equally forcefully that what appeared to
be empty space was in fact a plenum (a background filled with substance), for
did not heat and light travel from place to place as if carried by some kind
of medium?  

The argument went back and forth through the centuries until finally codified
by Maxwell's theory of the luminiferous ether, a plenum that carried
electromagnetic waves, including light, much as water carries waves across its
surface.  Attempts to measure the properties of this ether, or to measure the
Earth's velocity through the ether (as in the Michelson-Morley experiment),
however, met with failure.  With the rise of special relativity which did not
require reference to such an underlying substrate, Einstein in 1905
effectively banished the ether in favor of the concept that empty space
constitutes a true void.  Ten years later, however, Einstein's own development
of the general theory of relativity with its concept of curved space and
distorted geometry forced him to reverse his stand and opt for a richly-
endowed plenum, under the new label spacetime metric.

It was the advent of modern quantum theory, however, that established the
quantum vacuum, so-called empty space, as a very active place, with particles
arising and disappearing, a virtual plasma, and fields continuously
fluctuating about their zero baseline values.  The energy associated with such
processes is called zero-point energy (ZPE), reflecting the fact that such
activity remains even at absolute zero.


THE VACUUM AS A POTENTIAL ENERGY SOURCE

At its most fundamental level, we now recognize that the quantum vacuum is an
enormous reservoir of untapped energy, with energy densities conservatively
estimated by Feynman and Hibbs (1965) to be on the order of nuclear energy
densities or greater.  Therefore, the question is, can the ZPE be "mined" for
practical use?  If so, it would constitute a virtually ubiquitous energy
supply, a veritable "Holy Grail" energy source for space propulsion.

As utopian as such a possibility may seem, physicist Robert Forward (1984) at
Hughes Research Laboratories demonstrated proof-of-principle in a paper
"Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged Foliated
Conductors."  Forward's approach exploited a phenomenon called the Casimir
Effect, an attractive quantum force between closely-spaced metal plates, named
for its discoverer, H. G. B. Casimir (1948) of Philips Laboratories in the
Netherlands.  The Casimir force, recently measured with high accuracy by S. K.
Lamoreaux (1997) at the University of Washington, derives from partial
shielding of the interior region of the plates from the background zero-point
fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field.  As shown by Los Alamos
theorists Milonni et al. (1988), this shielding results in the plates being
pushed together by the unbalanced ZPE radiation pressures. The result is a
corollary conversion of vacuum energy to some other form such as heat.  Proof
that such a process violates neither energy nor thermodynamic constraints can
be found in a paper by a colleague and myself (Cole & Puthoff) under the title
"Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum."  

Attempts to harness the Casimir and related effects for vacuum energy
conversion are ongoing in our laboratory and elsewhere.  The fact that its
potential application to space propulsion has not gone unnoticed by the Air
Force can be seen in its request for proposals for the FY-1986 Defense SBIR
Program.  Under entry AF86-77, Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory (AFRPL)
Topic: Non-Conventional Propulsion Concepts we find the statement: "Bold, new
non-conventional propulsion concepts are solicited....  The specific areas in
which AFRPL is interested include.... (6) Esoteric energy sources for
propulsion including the zero point quantum dynamic energy of vacuum space."

Several experimental formats for tapping the ZPE for practical use are under
investigation in our laboratory.  An early one of interest is based on the
idea of a Casimir pinch effect in non-neutral plasmas, basically a plasma
equivalent of Forward's electromechanical charged-plate collapse (Puthoff,
1990).  The underlying physics is described in a paper submitted for
publication by myself and a colleague (Puthoff & Piestrup, 1997), and it is
illustrative that the first of several patents issued to a consultant to our
laboratory, K. R. Shoulders (1991) contains the descriptive phrase "... energy
is provided... and the ultimate source of this energy appears to be the zero-
point radiation of the vacuum continuum."  

Another intriguing possibility is provided by the phenomenon of
sonoluminescence, bubble collapse in an ultrasonically-driven fluid which is
accompanied by intense, sub-nanosecond light radiation.  Although the jury is
still out as to the mechanism of light generation, Nobelist Julian Schwinger
(1993) has argued for a Casimir interpretation.  Possibly related experimental
evidence for excess heat generation in ultrasonically-driven cavitation in
heavy water is claimed in an EPRI Report (George & Stringham, 1996) by E-Quest
Sciences, although attributed to a nuclear micro-fusion process.  Work is
under way in our laboratory to see if this claim can be replicated.

Yet another proposal for ZPE extraction is described in a recent patent (Mead
and Nachamkin, 1996).  The approach proposes the use of resonant dielectric
spheres, slightly detuned from each other, to provide a beat-frequency
downshift of the more energetic high-frequency components of the ZPE to a more
easily captured form.  We are discussing the possibility of a collaborative
effort between us to determine whether such an approach is feasible.

Finally, an approach utilizing micro-cavity techniques to perturb the ground
state stability of atomic hydrogen is under consideration in our lab.  It is
based on a paper of mine (Puthoff, 1987) in which I put forth the hypothesis
that the nonradiative nature of the ground state is due to a dynamic
equilibrium in which radiation emitted due to accelerated electron ground
state motion is compensated by absorption from the ZPE.  If this hypothesis is
true, there exists the potential for energy generation by the application of
the techniques of so-called cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED).  In cavity
QED, excited atoms are passed through Casimir-like cavities whose structure
suppresses electromagnetic cavity modes at the transition frequency between
the atom's excited and ground states.  The result is that the so-called
"spontaneous" emission time is lengthened considerably (for example, by
factors of ten), simply because spontaneous emission is not so spontaneous
after all, but rather is driven by vacuum fluctuations.  Eliminate the modes,
and you eliminate the zero-point fluctuations of the modes, hence suppressing
decay of the excited state.  As stated in a review article on cavity QED in
Scientific American (Haroche & Raimond, 1993), "An excited atom that would
ordinarily emit a low-frequency photon cannot do so, because there are no
vacuum fluctuations to stimulate its emission...."  In its application to
energy generation, mode suppression would be used to perturb the hypothesized
dynamic ground-state absorption/emission balance to lead to energy release
(patent pending).

An example in which Nature herself may have taken advantage of energetic
vacuum effects is discussed in a model published by ZPE colleagues A. Rueda of
California State University at Long Beach, B. Haisch of Lockheed-Martin, and
D. Cole of IBM (1995).  In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal,
they propose that the vast reaches of outer space constitute an ideal
environment for ZPE acceleration of nuclei and thus provide a mechanism for
"powering up" cosmic rays.  Details of the model would appear to account for
other observed phenomena as well, such as the formation of cosmic voids.  This
raises the possibility of utilizing a "sub-cosmic-ray" approach to accelerate
protons in a cryogenically-cooled, collision-free vacuum trap and thus extract
energy from the vacuum fluctuations by this mechanism.

	
THE VACUUM AS THE SOURCE OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA

What of the fundamental forces of gravity and inertia that we seek to overcome
in space travel?  We have phenomenological theories that describe their
effects (Newton's Laws and their relativistic generalizations), but what of
their origins?

The first hint that these phenomena might themselves be traceable to roots in
the underlying fluctuations of the vacuum came in a study published by the
well-known Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov (1968).  Searching to derive
Einstein's phenomenological equations for general relativity from a more
fundamental set of assumptions, Sakharov came to the conclusion that the
entire panoply of general relativistic phenomena could be seen as induced
effects brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the
vacuum due to the presence of matter.  In this view the attractive
gravitational force is more akin to the induced Casimir force discussed above,
than to the fundamental inverse square law Coulomb force between charged
particles with which it is often compared.  Although speculative when first
introduced by Sakharov, this hypothesis has led to a rich and ongoing
literature, including contributions of my own (Puthoff, 1989, 1993) on
quantum-fluctuation-induced gravity, a literature that continues to yield deep
insight into the role played by vacuum forces.

Given an apparent deep connection between gravity and the zero-point
fluctuations of the vacuum, a similar connection must exist between these
self-same vacuum fluctuations and inertia.  This is because it is an empirical
fact that the gravitational and inertial masses have the same value, even
though the underlying phenomena are quite disparate.  Why, for example, should
a measure of the resistance of a body to being accelerated, even if far from
any gravitational field, have the same value that is associated with the
gravitational attraction between bodies? Indeed, if one is determined by
vacuum fluctuations, so must the other.

To get to the heart of inertia, consider a specific example in which you are
standing on a train in the station.  As the train leaves the platform with a
jolt, you could be thrown to the floor.  What is this force that knocks you
down, seemingly coming out of nowhere?  This phenomenon, which we conveniently
label inertia and go on about our physics, is a subtle feature of the universe
that has perplexed generations of physicists from Newton to Einstein.  Since
in this example the sudden disquieting imbalance results from acceleration
"relative to the fixed stars," in its most provocative form one could say that
it was the "stars" that delivered the punch.  This key feature was emphasized
by the Austrian philosopher of science Ernst Mach, and is now known as Mach's
Principle.  Nonetheless, the mechanism by which the stars might do this deed
has eluded convincing explication.

Addressing this issue in a paper entitled "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field
Lorentz Force," my colleagues and I (Haisch, Rueda & Puthoff, 1994) were
successful in tracing the problem of inertia and its connection to Mach's
Principle to the ZPE properties of the vacuum.  In a sentence, although a
uniformly moving body does not experience a drag force from the (Lorentz-
invariant) vacuum fluctuations, an accelerated body meets a resistance (force)
proportional to the acceleration.  By accelerated we mean, of course,
accelerated relative to the fixed stars.  It turns out that an argument can be
made that the quantum fluctuations of distant matter structure the local
vacuum-fluctuation frame of reference (Puthoff, 1989, 1991).  Thus, in the
example of the train the punch was delivered by the wall of vacuum
fluctuations acting as a proxy for the fixed stars through which one attempted
to accelerate.

The implication for space travel is this: Given the evidence generated in the
field of cavity QED (discussed above), there is experimental evidence that
vacuum fluctuations can be altered by technological means.  This leads to the
corollary that, in principle, gravitational and inertial masses can also be
altered.

The possibility of altering mass with a view to easing the energy burden of
future spaceships has been seriously considered by the Advanced Concepts
Office of the Propulsion Directorate of the Phillips Laboratory at Edwards Air
Force Base.  Gravity researcher Robert Forward accepted an assignment to
review this concept.  His deliverable product was to recommend a broad, multi-
pronged effort involving laboratories from around the world to investigate the
inertia model experimentally.

After a one-year investigation Forward (1996) finished his study and submitted
his report to the Air Force, who published it under the title Mass
Modification Experiment Definition Study.  The Abstract reads in part:

"....  Many researchers see the vacuum as a central ingredient of 21st-Century
physics.  Some even believe the vacuum may be harnessed to provide a limitless
supply of energy.  This report summarizes an attempt to find an experiment
that would test the Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (HRP) conjecture that the mass
and inertia of a body are induced effects brought about by changes in the
quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum....  It was possible to find an
experiment that might be able to prove or disprove that the inertial mass of a
body can be altered by making changes in the vacuum surrounding the body."

With regard to action items, Forward in fact recommends a ranked list of not
one but four experiments to be carried out to address the ZPF-inertia concept
and its broad implications.  The recommendations included investigation of the
proposed "sub-cosmic-ray energy device" mentioned earlier, and the
investigation of an hypothesized "inertia-wind" effect proposed by our
laboratory and possibly detected in early experimental work (Forward & Miller,
1967), though the latter possibility is highly speculative at this point.

	
ENGINEERING THE VACUUM FOR "WARP DRIVE"

Perhaps one of the most speculative, but nonetheless scientifically-grounded,
proposals of all is the so-called Alcubierre Warp Drive (Alcubierre, 1994).
Taking on the challenge of determining whether Warp Drive a la Star Trek was a
scientific possibility, general relativity theorist Miguel Alcubierre of the
University of Wales set himself the task of determining whether faster-than-
light travel was possible within the constraints of standard theory.  Although
such clearly could not be the case in the flat space of special relativity,
general relativity permits consideration of altered spacetime metrics where
such a possibility is not a priori ruled out.  Alcubierre's further self-
imposed constraints on an acceptable solution included the requirements that
no net time distortion should occur (breakfast on Earth, lunch on Alpha
Centauri, and home for dinner with your wife and children, not your great-
great-great grandchildren), and that the occupants of the spaceship were not
to be flattened against the bulkhead by unconscionable accelerations.  

A solution meeting all of the above requirements was found and published by
Alcubierre in Classical and Quantum Gravity in 1994.  The solution discovered
by Alcubierre involved the creation of a local distortion of spacetime such
that spacetime is expanded behind the spaceship, contracted ahead of it, and
yields a hypersurfer-like motion faster than the speed of light as seen by
observers outside the disturbed region.  In essence, on the outgoing leg of
its journey the spaceship is pushed away from Earth and pulled towards its
distant destination by the engineered local expansion of spacetime itself.
For follow-up on the broader aspects of "metric engineering" concepts, one can
refer to a paper published by myself in Physics Essays (Puthoff, 1996).
Interestingly enough, the engineering requirements rely on the generation of
macroscopic, negative-energy-density, Casimir-like states in the quantum
vacuum of the type discussed earlier.  Unfortunately,  meeting such
requirements is beyond technological reach without some unforeseen
breakthrough (Pfenning and Ford, 1997).

Related, of course, is the knowledge that general relativity permits the
possibility of wormholes, topological tunnels which in principle could connect
distant parts of the universe, a cosmic subway so to speak.  Publishing in the
American Journal of Physics, theorists Morris and Thorne (1988) initially
outlined in some detail the requirements for traversible wormholes and have
found that, in principle, the possibility exists provided one has access to
Casimir-like, negative-energy-density quantum vacuum states.  This has led to
a rich literature, summarized recently in a book by Matt Visser (1996) of
Washington University, St. Louis.  Again, the technological requirements
appear out of reach for the foreseeable future, perhaps awaiting new
techniques for cohering the ZPE vacuum fluctuations in order to meet the
energy-density requirements.


CONCLUSIONS
	
We began this discussion with the question: "Can the vacuum be engineered for
spaceflight applications?"  The answer is: "In principle, yes."  However,
engineering-wise it is clear that there is a long way to go.  Given the cliché
"a journey of 1000 miles begins with the first steps," it is also clear that
we can take those first steps now in the laboratory.  Given that Casimir and
related effects indicate the possibility of tapping the enormous residual
energy in the vacuum-fluctuation ZPE, and the demonstration in cavity QED that
portions of the ZPE spectrum can be manipulated to produce macroscopic
technological effects such as the inhibition of spontaneous emission of
excited states in quantum systems, it would appear that the first steps along
this path are visible.  This, combined with newly-emerging concepts of the
relationship of gravity, inertia and warp drive to properties of the vacuum as
a manipulable medium, indicate yet further reaches of possible technological
development, although requiring yet unforeseen breakthroughs with regard to
the possibility of engineering vacuum fluctuations to produce desired results.

Where does this leave us?  As we peer into the heavens from the depth of our
gravity well, hoping for some "magic" solution that will launch our
spacefarers first to the planets and then to the stars, we are reminded of
Arthur C. Clarke's phrase that highly-advanced technology is essentially
indistinguishable from magic.  Fortunately, such magic appears to be waiting
in the wings of our deepening understanding of the quantum vacuum in which we
live.


REFERENCES

Lee, T.D. (1988) Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood
Academic, London.

Feynman, R.P., and Hibbs, A.R. (1965) Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals,
McGraw-Hill, New York.

Forward, R.L. (1984) "Extracting electrical energy from the vacuum by cohesion
of charged foliated conductors", Phys. Rev. B, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1700-1702.

Casimir, H.G.B. (1948) "On the attraction between two perfectly conducting
plates", Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. van Weten., Vol. 51, No. 7, pp. 793-796.

Lamoreaux, S.K. (1997) "Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to 6 µm
range", Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 5-8.

Milonni, P.W., Cook, R.J., and Goggin, M.E. (1988) "Radiation pressure from
the vacuum: Physical interpretation of the Casimir force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol.
38, No. 3, pp. 1621-1623.

Cole, D.C., and Puthoff, H.E. (1993) "Extracting energy and heat from the
vacuum", Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 1562-1565.

Puthoff, H.E. (1990) "The energetic vacuum: Implications for energy research",
Spec. in Sci. and Tech., Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 247-257.

Puthoff, H.E., and Piestrup, M.A. (1997) "On the possibility of charge
confinement by van der Waals/Casimir-type forces", subm. to Phys. Lett. B.

Shoulders, K.R. (1991) "Energy  conversion using high charge density", U.S.
Patent No. 5,018,180, issued May 21, 1991.

Schwinger, J. (1993) "Casimir light: The source", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol.
90, pp. 2105-2106.

George, D.R., and Stringham, R.S. (1996) "Technical report on the
demonstration of new technology producing heat and nuclear products via
cavitation induced micro-fusion in the E-Quest Sciences Mark II research
device", EPRI Project Final Report, Work Order #3170-28, Palo Alto, CA, May
1996.

Mead, Jr., F.B., and Nachamkin, J. (1996) "System for converting
electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy", U.S. Patent No.
5,590,031, issued Dec. 31, 1996.

Puthoff, H.E. (1987) "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-
determined state", Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 3266-3269.

Haroche, S, and Raimond, J.-M. (1993) "Cavity quantum electrodynamics", Sci.
Am., April 1993, pp. 54-62.

Rueda, A., Haisch, B. and Cole, D.C. (1995) "Vacuum zero-point field pressure
instability in astrophysical plasmas and the formation of cosmic voids",
Astrophys. J., Vol. 445, pp. 7-16.

Sakharov, A. (1968) "Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the
theory of gravitation", Sov. Phys.-Dokl., Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1040-1041.

Puthoff, H.E. (1989, 1993) "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force", Phys.
Rev. A, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 2333-2342; Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 3454-3455.

Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E. (1994) "Inertia as a zero point field
Lorentz force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 679-694.

Puthoff, H. E. (1989, 1991) "Source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point
energy", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 4857-4862; Vol. 44, No. 5, pp.
3385-3386.

Forward, R.L. (1996) "Mass modification experiment definition study", J. Sci.
Exploration, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 325-354.

Forward, R.L., and Miller, L.R. (1967) "Generation and detection of dynamic
gravitational-gradient fields", J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 512-518.

Alcubierre, M. (1994) "The warp drive: Hyper-fast travel within general
relativity", Class. Quant. Grav., Vol. 11, pp. L73-L77.

Puthoff, H.E. (1996) "SETI, the velocity-of-light limitation, and the
Alcubierre warp drive: An integrating overview", Phys. Essays, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp. 156-158.

Pfenning, M.J., and Ford, L.H. (1997) "The unphysical nature of 'warp drive'
", subm. to Class. Quant. Grav.

Morris, M., and Thorne, K.S. (1988) "Wormholes in spacetime and their use for
interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity", Am. J. Phys.,
Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 395-412. 

Visser, M. (1996) Lorentzian Wormholes, AIP Press, Woodbury, NY.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 12 22:55:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25264;
	Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:53:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:53:34 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <9aeec2dc.3508d7bd aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:52:51 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Looking for a pump.
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"IJIPP2.0.YA6.jVD2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16542
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vorts,
Does anyone out there know where I can obtain a used vacuum pump?
I need something that will pump a pretty hard vacuum. Funds are limited.
I have no idea what these things cost folks. 
I have started building a glow discharge hydrino reactor in a quartz 
tube. The device is approx 4 inches long by 1/4 id. and is attached
to copper tubing plumbing.  
I also need to get a supplier of metallic K.  This will be difficult, but
I need it for the experiment.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 01:42:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA01660;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003801bd4e18$582d7e40$6e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:37:53 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"lfkYn1.0.pP.-xF2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16543
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 <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!


>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:05:58 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>[snip]
>>Given that a negative particle with a few ev rest mass (more or less)can
>>fall into a close
>>"orbit" radius, R = kq^2/Eo[(qV/Eo)+1] where
>
>I think you meant R = (kq^2/Eo)*[(qV/Eo)+1] yes?

No, Robin. The way it was stated allows for the RELATIVISTIC increase of the
particle falling into POTENTIAL V at RADIUS R.
>Could you give the derivation? (TIA)

OK. Mrel = Mo[(qV/Mo*c^2) + 1] and if an LL- of
rest energy Eo  or mass Mo is absorbed, that is the way that I figure it.
This shows that the fractional orbits have a relativistic effect (albeit
very small) on the electron.
Is it right?  :-)
>
>>V = kq/R.

I left this out merely to show it's traditional usage,rather than losing it
in the equation.  :-)
>
>If so, then this simplifies to R=(kq^2/Eo)*[(1+sqrt(5))/2]
>
>i.e. R=(kq^2/Eo)*golden mean.
>
>BTW if Eo is rest-mass-energy, then this yields a strange result for
>the electron (and even if you fill in 27.2
eV).

I didn't work through your math, but it does show that the potential energy
"adds" relativistic mass to the electron.

>Have I done something wrong?

Bad,Bad,Robin!.    :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>[snip]
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>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 Mar 13 01:50:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA02207;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <005901bd4e19$86629b00$6e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Freakish particles
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:46:14 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"HjKHg.0.MY.z2G2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16544
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 <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Freakish particles


>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:36:08 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>[snip]
>>When I cranked out the "model" a few years back with Ron Brodzinski
looking
>>over my shoulder, we decided the only way to verify it, was to wait and
let
>>the Science Guys do the experiments that sooner or later support it. The
>>basic physics was already done.   :-)
>[snip]
>Hi Frederick, do you have your whole "model" in one or more computer
>documents (other than vortex archives :)?

Not at the moment, Robin. Still waiting for more experimental verification.
:-)

Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>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 Mar 13 04:12:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA11964;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 04:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 04:10:36 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Coulomb barrier bottom line please!
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:09:08 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350b215d.39875181 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <003801bd4e18$582d7e40$6e8cbfa8 default>
In-Reply-To: <003801bd4e18$582d7e40$6e8cbfa8 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: <"2aBaf.0.sw2.w8I2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16545
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:37:53 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
[snip]
>>[snip]
>>>Given that a negative particle with a few ev rest mass (more or less)can
>>>fall into a close
>>>"orbit" radius, R = kq^2/Eo[(qV/Eo)+1] where

Well, if we leave this the way it is, and substitute V=kq/R, then I
get R=kq^2*R/[(k*q^2)+R*Eo], which simplifies to R*Eo=0.
Now I have a little trouble making up my mind whether R or Eo should
be zero, but I'll think I'll go for Eo, and assume we are dealing with
a massless particle such as a photon :>.

>>
>>I think you meant R = (kq^2/Eo)*[(qV/Eo)+1] yes?
>
>No, Robin. The way it was stated allows for the RELATIVISTIC increase of the
>particle falling into POTENTIAL V at RADIUS R.
>>Could you give the derivation? (TIA)
>
>OK. Mrel = Mo[(qV/Mo*c^2) + 1] and if an LL- of
>rest energy Eo  or mass Mo is absorbed, that is the way that I figure it.
>This shows that the fractional orbits have a relativistic effect (albeit
>very small) on the electron.
>Is it right?  :-)
>>
>>>V = kq/R.
>
>I left this out merely to show it's traditional usage,rather than losing it
>in the equation.  :-)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 13 05:03:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA18400;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313070012.00b1ccbc mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:00:12 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
In-Reply-To: <9aeec2dc.3508d7bd aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"gvsEb2.0.QV4.ItI2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16546
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:52 3/13/98 EST, you wrote:
>Vorts,
>Does anyone out there know where I can obtain a used vacuum pump?
>I need something that will pump a pretty hard vacuum. Funds are limited.
>I have no idea what these things cost folks. 

Brace yourself.  A good used pump is ~$600 from C&H sales and that's only a
forepump.  It can get down to a few millitorr pressure when in good
condition without a cold trap.  With a cold trap, you can get to the
advertised pressure of 0.1 millitorr with such a pump.  One hope would be
to pick up a piece of semiconductor processing junk on the surplus market
that had pump(s) in it...

>I have started building a glow discharge hydrino reactor in a quartz 
>tube.

Allright, Vince!  You're in the "rose" period of the experiment now.  You
haven't got it running so you can fantasize all you want about the
spectacular results it will produce...<g>

What'cha gonna measure?  heat output?

>I also need to get a supplier of metallic K.  This will be difficult, but
>I need it for the experiment.

I'll give you all you need.  I bought 50g and that's quite a large volume.
It's ugly lumps under mineral oil.



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 Mar 13 05:15:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA19830;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980313131106.006a380c 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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:11:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re:  Paper Requested
Resent-Message-ID: <"oU2Ts1.0.mr4.u2J2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16547
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:36 PM 3/12/98 EST, Hal Puthoff wrote:
>
>To get to the heart of inertia, consider a specific example in which you are
>standing on a train in the station.  As the train leaves the platform with a
>jolt, you could be thrown to the floor.  What is this force that knocks you
>down, seemingly coming out of nowhere?  This phenomenon, which we conveniently
>label inertia and go on about our physics, is a subtle feature of the universe
>that has perplexed generations of physicists from Newton to Einstein.  Since
>in this example the sudden disquieting imbalance results from acceleration
>"relative to the fixed stars," in its most provocative form one could say that
>it was the "stars" that delivered the punch.  This key feature was emphasized
>by the Austrian philosopher of science Ernst Mach, and is now known as Mach's
>Principle.  Nonetheless, the mechanism by which the stars might do this deed
>has eluded convincing explication.
>

I have a hard time visualizing the difference between a force acting on an
accelerating 
body and one acting on a body moving at a steady velocity.  To me I
interpret that there
is a force acting on an accelerating body but this same force has no effect
on a body 
moving at a steady velocity.  Is this interpretation wrong?

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 05:32:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21215;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980313132426.006a0624 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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:24:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
Resent-Message-ID: <"sdIJQ2.0.OB5.gFJ2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16548
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:52 AM 3/13/98 EST, Vince Cockeram wrote:
>Vorts,
  
>I also need to get a supplier of metallic K.  This will be difficult, but
>I need it for the experiment.
>
>Regards,
>Vince Cockeram
>Las Vegas
>
Strem Chemicals will supply chemicals to individuals:

Strem Chemicals, Inc
7 Mulliken Way
Newburyport, MA 01950-4098

Web Site: http:// www.strem.com

Phone: 978 462 3191

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 05:41:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23652;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350934D5.666F skylink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:29:57 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
	 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"U_TE91.0.Sn5.pQJ2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16549
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:

> the mass of the magnet is not infinite, and a small fraction 
> of the particle's energy and momentum get transferred to the magnet.

Yes. Twice the momentum of the incoming electron must be transferred 
to the magnet. In the case of gravitation the force is longitudinal
and transfer of momentum can occur. A longitudinal field such as 
gravitation can do work. The Lorentz force is perpendicular and can not 
transfer momentum. A magnetic field can not do work. How then is the 
momentum transferred in the case of reflection by magnetic field?

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 05:53:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13612;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:51:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:51:31 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313075300.00b20be4 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:53:00 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
In-Reply-To: <350934D5.666F skylink.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net>
 <v03007800b12e4469dcf2 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PKJNn2.0.cK3.YdJ2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16550
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:29 3/13/98 -0800, Robert S wrote:

>A magnetic field can not do work.

I was wondering why my car wouldn't start this morning.  Darned started
motor just sat there and got hot...no torque!....<g>

Come on Robert, every time you let two permanent magnets "clack" together,
the magnetic fields do work...plain old force x distance work.

Scott


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 07:11:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29162;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:05:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:05:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313100709.00c05c00 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:07:09 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <350dc138.28349799 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aaa0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aaa0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"4_Hjn2.0.a77.BjK2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16551
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:05 AM 3/13/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>So the bottom line is that if CF does indeed involve nuclear
>reactions, then neutrons play no part in the reactions.

   I would say it as "any neutron exchanges in CNF cannot involve free
neutrons."  Exchange of a virtual neutron is possible:  d + d --> p + t,
but you still need a mechanism to get those deuterons close together.

   But I'd like to get the discussion back to the track I was trying to
start.  It is clear to me that (to choose one possible implementation) a
deuteron beam aimed at a block of silver will produce energy through at
least five paths: (I'm using Ag109 for specificity, Ag107 has similar
characteristics with different energies.)

  1)  Ag109  ---> (d,p)  Ag110
      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110

  2)  Ag109  ---> (d,n)  Pd110
      Ag109 + n ---> Ag110
      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110

  3)  d ---> p + n
      Ag109 + n ---> Ag110
      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110

  4)  d + d --> t + p
  
  5)  d + d --> He3 + n
      Ag109 + n ---> Ag110
      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110

  Only the third reaction has any endothermic steps, and that can be
catalysed either by a high energy deuteron passing near a silver nucleus,
or by high energy betas from the first three paths, or by gammas.

  The key question is how much energy will be created for a given beam
energy?  I expect that the peak ratio (total energy/energy in) will be
around one to two MeV.  (A one MeV deuteron beam can be created on a
table-top, if you use a large table. ;-)  More seriously it is at the high
end of the range for a Van de Graff, but there are other efficient
generators that can be used.

  If the power ratio is over two, a combined cycle generating plant could
produce net electricity.  If it is over four, you don't even need combined
cycle.  (But I would go that way anyway in a commercial plant.  If the
silver target is molten metal, it will minimize self-targeting (paths four
and five above.)


                                        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 Mar 13 07:28:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA01352;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:23:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:23:19 -0800
Message-ID: <35094F72.3B09 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:23:30 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
		 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]> <350934D5.666F@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CUDta.0.xK.bzK2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16552
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 
 The Lorentz force is perpendicular and can not
> transfer momentum. A magnetic field can not do work. How then is the
> momentum transferred in the case of reflection by magnetic field?
> 

Robert, the constant B field will not change the KE of the electron
because the transverse force can not change it's speed.  But, momentum
is a vector quantity and CAN be changed without changing speed.  All
you need to do is change direction.  This still exerts a reaction force
on the field structure and can transfer momentum to it.  
Now, cut this out before you confuse me again!! :-)

Frank Stenger (who wants to stop when he THINKS he understands :-))

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 07:51:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12446;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:47:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Puthoff <Puthoff aol.com>
Message-ID: <804a7049.35095495 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:45:23 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Re:  Paper Requested
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"3PWVK3.0.O23.EKL2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16553
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


In a message dated 3/13/98 7:12:13 AM, you wrote:

<<interpret that there
is a force acting on an accelerating body but this same force has no effect
on a body 
moving at a steady velocity.  Is this interpretation wrong?>>

Your interpretation is correct.  The vacuum fluctuations are Lorentz invariant
is one way to say it; you can't tell whether you are stationary or moving at
constant velocity.  This is because when you move thru at constant velocity
the forces cancel by Doppler shift cancellations.  But when you accelerate you
upset the cancellations and are left with a net force that is proportional to
acceleration.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 09:40:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03821;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:35:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:35:37 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <2f8e6157.35096e36 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:34:44 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"fLk_f.0.Xx.dvM2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16554
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-13 08:01:23 EST, you write:

> Brace yourself.  A good used pump is ~$600 from C&H sales and that's >only a
forepump.
  
Arrgh! Sigh...Do You have a number to get in touch with them?
Wife Laura is gonna be upset but I gotta have it.
>  
>  >I have started building a glow discharge hydrino reactor in a quartz 
>  >tube.

>  What'cha gonna measure?  heat output?

I am looking for a very robust effect. By robust I mean if it doesn't melt
the quartz tube, I would consider that a failed experiment. I am not
an expert in calorimetry and at this time have no way of doing heat
measurments in my garage.
Put it this way, if the reactor tube melts with a couple of watts input
from my TV flyback transformer power supply, then I will seek out
a calorimetry expert.  I have built a couple of reactor tubes using
quartz heater lamps salvaged from laser printers. The tubes are 
about a foot long with an ID of about  .230" and a  .040" thick wall.
I cut them in half and remove all but a stub of the filiment, then I
attach a brass fitting to the open end. Electrical connection to the
upper electrode is made at the brass fitting. Operating the tube in
a verticle position with the brass fitting at the top I want to put 
enough K metal in the tube to just cover the stub of the filiment
at the bottom. I expect in operation  that the K will melt (63.38 C)
in the bottom of the tube as the reaction zone in the tube should
go to 500 to 1000 C. This will vaporize the K and make a mess
which will make me happy. I have constructed a plexiglass shield
around the experiment so things don't get too messy.
To begin I will use a very low voltage discharge and  work my way
slowly to higher temperatures.
Question: When K solidifies does it expand? contract? I worry
about thermal expansion cracking the quartz.
In any case the tube will be mounted above a box of sand to catch
any hot goodies in case something does melt or crack open.
I have also purchased two additional fire extinguishers for the 
shop area.
My power supply is able to generate just about any voltage from
zero to 20 Kv at 15 Khz. Going to try AC first (mix up those ions)
and DC later on.
>  
>  >I also need to get a supplier of metallic K.  This will be difficult, but
>  >I need it for the experiment.
>  
>  I'll give you all you need.  I bought 50g and that's quite a large volume.
>  It's ugly lumps under mineral oil.
>  
Offer accepted Scott! Thanks. 
Question: How is the oil best cleaned off the K? I will be loading the 
reactor tube under Argon. I have to make the lumps of K small
enough  <.230" to fit into the reactor tube.

Hold off on the K for a while as I am still gathering needed stuff:
  a tank of H2, a tank of Ar, valves and plumbing.
I have been taking pictures of the project and as soon as I mail
them off to Seattle Filmworks and get them processed I will
send some to you as .gif's

Mitchell Swartz says I should do calorimetry right away but I am
going to put that on hold until I see if this setup gets _really hot_
first. If  then, I will get an expert involved.
>  
>  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)

Best Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada
702-254-2122

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 09:49:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08376;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:46:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:46:18 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <62c1f704.350970a4 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:45:14 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"sDhyl.0.f22.d3N2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16555
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-13 08:29:04 EST, you write:

> Strem Chemicals will supply chemicals to individuals:
>  
>  Strem Chemicals, Inc
>  7 Mulliken Way
>  Newburyport, MA 01950-4098
>  
>  Web Site: http:// www.strem.com
Thanks Ed,

Vince 
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 13:11:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01460;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35099DBB.3DD5 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:57:31 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
References: <2f8e6157.35096e36 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"T1Yds3.0.kM.LvP2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16556
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

VCockeram wrote:
> 

> Arrgh! Sigh...Do You have a number to get in touch with them?
> Wife Laura is gonna be upset but I gotta have it.

Vince, you did check out:

	http://www.tiac.net/users/shansen/belljar/

I hope.  Follow the links around this page for good vacuum scoop.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 13:34:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA04743;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35099DB4.58E flash.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:57:24 -0600
From: George Marklin <marklin flash.net>
Reply-To: marklin flash.net
Organization: Internet Physics Academy
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
References: <804a7049.35095495 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AD34S2.0.0A1.59Q2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16557
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Puthoff wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 3/13/98 7:12:13 AM, you wrote:
> 
> <<interpret that there
> is a force acting on an accelerating body but this same force has no effect
> on a body
> moving at a steady velocity.  Is this interpretation wrong?>>
> 
> Your interpretation is correct.  The vacuum fluctuations are Lorentz invariant
> is one way to say it; you can't tell whether you are stationary or moving at
> constant velocity.  This is because when you move thru at constant velocity
> the forces cancel by Doppler shift cancellations.  But when you accelerate you
> upset the cancellations and are left with a net force that is proportional to
> acceleration.
> 
> Hal Puthoff

This is correct, of course, but there is a deeper point which I think is
worthy of some contemplation:

The w^3 spectrum of the ZPE is the only spectrum that is Lorentz
invariant.
But it also has infinite energy.  Iconoclasts like myself, who cling to
the
old-fashioned notion that real things cannot be infinite, will
stubbornly 
insist that there must be a cutoff.  Any cutoff will destroy the Lorentz
invariance.  There will then be one unique frame of reference in which
the 
cutoff appears isotropic.

Following this line of reasoning it appears that the ZPE may provide a
means
for devising an experiment to detect the ether.  (The ZPE might even BE
the 
ether.)  One could imagine looking for variations in measured Casimir
forces
with absolute orientation in space or with sidereal time.

There may even be data right now, showing a sidereal time variation in
the
cross-section of some high energy particle interaction, sitting,
unexamined,
on some tape archive in the basement of Fermilab.  Lorentz invariance
has 
become such an article of faith with so many modern physicists that I am 
sure there is no program in place to systematically screen all high
energy
physics data for violations of it.

Whether or not these effects are detectable depends on where the cutoff
is.
If it as at the Planck frequency, then there may be no hope of ever
seeing
its effects.  But it could be lower.  No one really has any idea.

Questions for ZPE experts:

1.  What lower limit can be placed on the ZPE cutoff using currently
    available experimental data?

2.  What is the highest cutoff that would still allow a ZPE based ether
    drift experiment to work, using currently available technology?

George Marklin
marklin flash.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:03:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA29257;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:57:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:57:10 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Where's the cutoff, Mr Puthoff
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:55:17 GMT
Message-ID: <3509a38f.262861 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <804a7049.35095495 aol.com> <35099DB4.58E@flash.net>
In-Reply-To: <35099DB4.58E flash.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: <"NVLew.0.r87.okQ2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16558
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:57:24 -0600, George Marklin <marklin flash.net>
wrote:
...
>Whether or not these effects are detectable depends on where the cutoff is.
>If it as at the Planck frequency, then there may be no hope of ever seeing
>its effects.  But it could be lower.  No one really has any idea.

Sorry, I can't help myself ...

George Marklin asked Puthoff,
"Just where is the cutoff?"
It could have the decency,
To have its frequency,
Far from the Planck,
Or the prospects are dank.

>Questions for ZPE experts:

>1.  What lower limit can be placed on the ZPE cutoff using currently
>    available experimental data?

>2.  What is the highest cutoff that would still allow a ZPE based ether
>    drift experiment to work, using currently available technology?

Well I am not a ZPE expert but will venture an answer anyway.

The cutoff must be beyond 10^24 Hz otherwise nucleons would notice it.
In my opinion it is only just beyond there and not near the Planck
energy.  The clue is in the fine structure constant and the Large
Numbers Hypothesis (LNH).  First the facts:

1. The inverse fine structure constant has a value of 137.036 and varies
by exactly 1 with every doubling of energy that it is measured at.

2. The ratios of many fundamental things in the universe come out to
near 10^40 and one of these is the size of universe to the size of a
nucleon which is 10^41.

3. The obvious coincidence that 2^137.036 ~= 10^41 is given meaning by
the fact that the inverse fine structure constant does vary with the log
of energy to the base 2.

4. Incidentally, the implied scale limit by this method is almost
exactly 1/3 of a nucleon mass (a quark?).

Now the "logic".  This all suggests to me that the present energy of the
universe (except in special places like accelerators and supernova) is
distributed only over the range of wavelengths from the universe size to
the nucleon scale or a tiny bit beyond.

This can probably be shot down in flames, so I might as well try myself.

a. The variation in 1/alpha is in the wrong direction... it gets LESS at
higher energies whereas it should get more according to this!

b. The values of alpha might just be limited to the nucleon scale
because that is what we use to detect them.

Having said all that I still feel that the energy distribution of the
universe is mainly spread between the wavelengths universe size to 1/3
nucleon size.

I might add that the Harmonics theory is all about how energy moves
between frequencies due to the non-linearities of GR and Maxwell's
equations.  I believe that QM is only a consequence of this.  In the
beginning was just a single universal wave (the word? or the light?) and
over time the energy is moving towards higher frequencies but in a very
definite manner that can be calculated.  I have done these calculations
and they do solve many problems that were never able to be attempted
before.

To put it another way, the ultraviolet catastrophe does happen and is
happening all around us.  It has taken billions of years for the
frequencies to get to 10^24 Hz and it is still working its way on up to
higher frequencies.  The Hubble rate is the speed at which this happens.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:11:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11792;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3509A661.3FFA interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:34:25 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
References: <2f8e6157.35096e36 aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"dN-fc.0.5u2.KqQ2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16559
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

VCockeram wrote:
> 
(snip)

> In any case the tube will be mounted above a box of sand to catch
> any hot goodies in case something does melt or crack open.
> I have also purchased two additional fire extinguishers for the
> shop area.

Vince, be sure to look into the hazzards of a K fire!  As I recall,
K smoke = K oxides + moisture in your nose and throat = potassium
hydroxide inside of you = trip to ER.  Fred S., do you know the details
of this?  Scott? At NASA they seemed to treat Na and K fires as a BIG
DEAL!  Be careful!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12576;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01BD4E98.FB138D40 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Paper Requested
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:59:17 -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 mx2.eskimo.com id OAA12531
Resent-Message-ID: <"K3Z9h1.0.Q43.ruQ2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16560
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



----------
From: 	George Marklin[SMTP:marklin flash.net]
Sent: 	Friday, March 13, 1998 2:57 PM
To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 	Re: Paper Requested

>Following this line of reasoning it appears that the ZPE may provide a
>means
>for devising an experiment to detect the ether.  (The ZPE might even BE
>the 
>ether.)  One could imagine looking for variations in measured Casimir
>forces
>with absolute orientation in space or with sidereal time.

If there exists an absolute frame of reference (ether) that is at the same time the ZPE, then we now have:

1. Non-infinite ZPE. This is much more acceptable in my opinion than an infinite one.
2. An explanation for the ether drift detected by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, the Esclangon experiment, the Dayton Miller experiment... (funny, these were said to show NO ether drift. Funny, they actually DID show i
t.)
3. A more reasonable explanation for time dilation, inertia, centrifugal 'force', etc.
4. A causality preserving medium for FTL phenomena. The Gunter Nimtz FTL transmissions were confirmed to be GROUP velocity, not the infamous phase velocity. Yet the results were ignored, since Einstein of course is right...

>There may even be data right now, showing a sidereal time variation in

Sidereal variation of C was measured in the following experiments:
1. Michaelson-Morley: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation vanishes 9 hours and 21 hours.
2. Esclangon: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation vanishes at 9 hours and 21 hours.
3. Dayton Miller: Most variation at 3-4 hours and 14-15 hours, variation vanishes at 9 hours and 21 hours.

Coincidence?

Best Regards,
Kyle R. Mcallister

P.S.: Anyone know where I can get a small (about 2" by 2") half silvered mirror?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:21:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02104;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:16:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:16:39 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:16:24 +1000
Message-Id: <199803132216.IAA24501 nornet.nor.com.au>
X-Sender: mindtech pophost.nor.com.au
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: Peter Nielsen <mindtech nor.com.au>
Subject: Re: Magnetics question for Ross
Resent-Message-ID: <"cHL2s2.0.nW.61R2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16561
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>When I first joined Vortex, I was asking about ways to rotate a magnetic
>field. Perhaps naively, and to the consternation of some list members, I
>wasn't satisfied with the answers I got then. But I was looking for ways to
>do it at very high rotational velocities, because I thought there's
>something there worth checking out. Now that I've read your material, and
>have a (somewhat imprecise) conceptual feel for it, I think it's time to
>look at those magnetic fields more closely in this new light.
>
>Dan Quickert
>

Plasma aside, you can use stepped Helmholtz coils. The drive speed and
radius of enclosed space determines velocity of the vortex. How high do you
want to get?

Peter Nielsen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:29:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA14219;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:16:27 +1000
Message-Id: <199803132216.IAA24503 nornet.nor.com.au>
X-Sender: mindtech pophost.nor.com.au
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: Peter Nielsen <mindtech nor.com.au>
Subject: Re:  Paper Requested
Resent-Message-ID: <"M3Fea3.0._T3.S2R2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16562
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>I have a hard time visualizing the difference between a force acting on an
>accelerating 
>body and one acting on a body moving at a steady velocity.  To me I
>interpret that there
>is a force acting on an accelerating body but this same force has no effect
>on a body 
>moving at a steady velocity.  Is this interpretation wrong?
>
>Ed Strojny
>

It might be useful to look at an accelerating object as the complimentary
function to a varying rate of time flow. The latter is caused by an
alteration in the density of space/time through applied energy.

Peter Nielsen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:29:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA14775;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313172122.00c0fb10 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:21:22 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Looking for a pump.
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <2f8e6157.35096e36 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"M3Bl9.0.hc3.k5R2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16563
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:34 PM 3/13/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:
>In a message dated 98-03-13 08:01:23 EST, you write:
>
>> Brace yourself.  A good used pump is ~$600 from C&H sales and that's
>only a
>forepump.
>  
>Arrgh! Sigh...Do You have a number to get in touch with them?
>Wife Laura is gonna be upset but I gotta have it.

   Make sure you know what you need and what you don't.  Check out, for
example, www.grainger.com.  A 25 Micron pump, Dayton 4Z577 is 305.75.  They
also have a TIF 6T368 for $380, that looks to be slightly better for your
purpose.  But you are going to have to do quite a bit of outgassing to get
near the limit of a 25 Micron pump.  (Of course, if you really think you
need it, they have 0.1 Micron pumps starting about four times that price...)

   Seriously good technique is much more important to a good vacuum than a
top of the line pump, but if you don't start with a good pump, you are dead
in the water.  Grainger will also sell you lots of cheaper pumps, but when
you see ratings in inches, steer clear.  I wouldn't even use one of those
to expose litho plates.  (When making litho plates, or for that matter
computer chips, you use a frame with a glass front and draw a vacuum to
bring the film in contact with the plate.  But you need a good vacuum, or
you will have air bubbles, and the slightest separation can cause
interference fringes.)  From experience, I trust Dayton pumps, and the
number I gave you is a two stage pump.

   Now to start on the advise on technique.  Clean the apparatus--in your
case the quartz tube thoroughly.  Acetone or alcohol is nice.  I actually
found that some brands of gin are often better than commercial products,
but Vodka contains oils.  Now put a small amount of water (or alcohol) in
the apparatus and connect your pump.  Heat the tube to about 400 degrees C
slowly.  (Of course you will boil the water out well before you exceed 100
degees C.)  If you are using a cold trap--and for what you need that seems
unnecessary--only switch it into the circut after about three to four
hours.  Oh, yes.  If you are using a working gas--in this case hydrogen,
start bleeding it in during the pump down.  Might as well have your
residual gas be the one you want to work with.

     Oh, last but not least.  That potassium is going to limit the quality
of your vacuum.  If you really need molten metal in the apparatus you are
going to have to limit your bake down temperature or have a (ordinary water
will do) cold trap set up so that you can trap the metal vapors, then melt
the metal back into the apparatus.  You bake down the trap first, then boil
off the metal into the trap, and finally heat the trap (but not to 400
degrees!) to get most of the metal back where it belongs, minus in the case
of store bought potassium, a lot of hydrogen gas and hydrocarbons.

     The hydrogen comes from potassium metal reacting with the oil, forming
organometallic compounds.  How do you avoid this mess?  Make your own
potassium in situ.  I'm not even going to think about giving
directions--well maybe--just remembered a technique that is not too
dangerous and might fit your problem.  Take a compound like potassium
iodide and cook it in a reflux tube under vacuum.   The iodine cooks away,
and the potassium metal is left behind. Introducing a little hydrogen gas
will speed up the process.  BUT, be sure that you vent your vacuum pump
through a big tub of water, and into a non-enclosed space.  You don't want
to be breathing too much iodine vapor, and you certainly don't want any
potassium, potassium hydroxide, or potassium oxide in your breathing mix,
not to mention hydrogen iodide. 

    Oh, one last (non-) safety tip that will just save you money.  Tub (or
tank) of water on the floor, vacuum pump up on a high shelf, with a one to
two pound pressure relief valve in the circut.  Otherwise it can ruin your
pump and your whole day if the power fails when you are not around.  What I
actually used in a similar setup was a normally open solenoid operated
plastic valve.  It was wired in parallel with the pump, so if the pump
circut went out for any reason, the valve opened.  (Of course, I had one
pump motor burn out, and had to explain why there was water in the pump
when I returned it for credit.)

                                        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 Mar 13 14:35:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06722;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:29:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:29:42 -0800
Message-ID: <00ba01bd4e7f$8c06a220$6e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Robin van Spaandonk" <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
Cc: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw. Freakish particles
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:56:35 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"TNuXm1.0.qe1.KDR2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16564
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

1,Fundamental particles are Superstring Circles with radius R = kq^2/Eo:

k = 1/4(pi)eo

Eo = Moc^2  (joule)

C = 2(pi)R*eo  (farad)

L = 2(pi)R*uo  (henry)

(L/C)^1/2 =  377  (ohms)

V = (2*Eo/C)^1/2  (volts)

I = (2*Eo/L)^1/2  (displacement current amperes)
q = CV = (+/-) 1.602E-19 Coulombs

f = 1/[2(pi)*(LC)^1/2]  (Hertz)

i = q*f (loop current amperes)

5A - 2Z of these in a nucleus, plus Z external
electrons. They change radius with energy to keep mvr (spin)constant.

Regards,    Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 14:52:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA18817;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00c801bd4e84$6e974960$6e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Mail Test
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:32:07 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"mU38C3.0.tb4.oQR2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16565
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Excuse Pls,  Mail Test. Slow mail or What?

FJS

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 15:04:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20288;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:44:41 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Cold comfort about asteroid
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803131748_MC2-36AD-D0BA compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"cyKn52.0.uy4.LXR2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16566
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scientists sometimes have a gift for saying the wrong thing. Here is a quote
from the New York Times yesterday, regarding the asteroid which may or may not
strike the earth on October 26, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time:

     The impact of an asteroid one mile in diameter would have devastating
     global effects, including tidal waves, continent-size fires and an
     eruption of dust that could cause global cooling and long term
     disruption of agriculture. But Dr. Marsden said such an asteroid impact
     would not necessarily be severe enough to wipe out the human race.

Wow, that's comforting. Not *necessarily* severe enough. And it is "highly
probable" it will miss.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 15:04:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA17394;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:59:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:59:20 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:59:03 -0800
Message-Id: <199803132259.OAA24058 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: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DoeCy1.0.LF4.5fR2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16567
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Thanks for the comments;

I have in the past discussed numerous devices.  I have recently posted how
to construct an anti gravitational device.  I think I know how to build a
nuclear energy producing and radioactive waste remediation device(s).  The
problem is, for the most part on vortex everyone is looking for some simple,
cheap, kludge it together sort of device that uses magnets or some other
fancy device.  A few are working on some truly interesting plasma devices.
And many have worked on a lot of interesting and possibly useful phenomena
including plasmoids in the microwaves which I find fascinating and amusing,
and wish I had an extra microwave to blow up and have some fun too.

However, for the most part the devices I am confident will work, there is a
requirement to build things out of high tech materials and using high tech
proceedures which are not readily available in industry.  Thus, it is not
possible that I know of to construct a cheap device to demonstrate these
effects.  
Further, as pertain to the nuclear devices, I consider it to be likely that
early devices will not sufficiently control the nuclear reactions inside.
Thus, I expect that the early devices are at times, going to blow up like
hand grenades.  This occured as most of you know over at SRI, and killed a
researcher.  So there are a couple of reasons why I will not disclose my
designs for that sort of device.

I must say, though, that 3 years down the tubes has made me impatient as for
waiting for funding.  And it is a fact that virtually no one on the planet
has a clue as to the reasons the devices I have designed are logical and
indeed, have already been accidentally constructed in trivial versions in
the CF devices of P/F.  

when any of us approach investors, there is no understanding of the ideas,
and no ability to evaluate whether we are exhibiting enthusiasm in
ignorance, or whether we are really on to something.  So when it will cost
on the order of $100,000 to even begin to try building things, the odds of
getting that drop to nil.  Even "Angels" fear to tred into this speculative
an investment.

And finally, for a real device, such as the scope of devices I want to build
constitute, what you additionally deal with is the fact that these things
have to be patented.  And if you are going to patent them, then you CAN NOT
have disclosed the design to the public (foreign), or you can only have
disclosed it to the public in less than the past year (domestic).  but to do
so virtually cuts off your throat because it often takes longer than a year
to arrange for funding, take care of patent office rejections, build the
device to prove to the PTO that it works, etc etc.

Thus, while I am trying to disclose everything I can, if I have any hope at
all of securing the device designs for myself, the US, or a company I think
will use the ideas to the betterment of mankind, then it behooves me to bite
my tongue.  Though I can say that if I ever thought I was being cornered or
would lose out on the ideas, or that anyone was trying to bottle them up and
hide them (all of which I consider absurd as no one, IMO, really buys up
patents in order to NOT make money from them),  in any case, if I feared
that anything like that was in progress I would at that instant reveal to
this group and to others what the design ideas are and why they will work
and why we already know that some people have succeeded at making these
things work, accidentally.

To me it is so clear and simple that I chuckle often.  And everytime I read
about yet another news flash, I smile when it is yet another that I had
anticipated.

You see, when you work with an aether model, you expect things of solitons
that others do not expect of particles.  When you work with spacetime as a
topology of waves, you expect things that people who work with spacetime as
a "metric" do not expect.  and when you look around, you find a plethora of
things that match what you expect.

So when that is the case, I cannot imagine that the ideas I came up with 3
years ago will fail to produce nuclear energy.  The reason is two fold.
First, I designed the devices to produce honest fusion reactions according
to normal physics.  The model is based a bit on a laser inertial confinement
reactor.

But the past three years have showed me that there is an entirely new way of
thinking of physics.  And this new way allows us to do things we do not
anticipate from our present models.  Thus, there is no reason for anyone to
even think about trying to construct the devices I have designed.

However, exposure to CF, new energy, vortex, and these theories have caused
me to accept that the PF and other results are valid to a degree.  I accept
that there have been transmutations.  

And if this is correct, then it is possible that my aether model is correct,
AND, it is possible that the devices I designed can be modified slightly in
order to force those reactions to proceed rather than the DD fusion
reactions I had intended to drive.  ie, the CF reaction paths are at lower
energies than the DD fusion reaction paths, but the same device can drive
either.

Thus, not only do I think I can drive CF reactions, but also that I can
drive normal fusion.  The problem is simply one of funding.  

I have had offers to evaluate the ideas, from numerous people including
Merriman, but then following the offer, nothing results and no analysis is
performed.  The only statement made is that "Well, it certainly looks like
your ideas are headed in a logical manner, but there is no reason to expect
the device to get up to the needed energy densities, ie temperatures".
However, I have already accumulated the evidence where others indeed have,
accidentally.

so, what is a moron person in the back field to do?  Well, I own a machine
shop, barely profitable.  And I purchased some electronics last summer in
the hope that these low power devices will be sufficient to attain the
energy density I need.  It is like tapping on glass.  you can tap forever at
a really low energy level and the window will not break.  but tap just once
with enough of a bang, and crash you break the window.  Atoms are like that.

The trick is knowing how to build the hammer.  

ZPE is completely a different, nebulous, mystical realm, and I don't
advocate, or say that there is no way to get net energy out of zpe.  The
only way I know of to do it, is via an "anti gravitational" turbine, set up
as a pinwheel to filter out the wave energy coming from above, just like an
old world paddle wheel with water pouring over the top.  But the design for
that has nothing to do with paddles, and I gave that design to you in a
posting a few weeks back.

So, it is my hope that I can afford this summer to take the next step to
build a first device and to try to blow it up.  And to do so I need to build
a blast shield capable of protecting me from the fragments in that eventuality.

The good news is that I have analysed the solitonic model over and over and
over, and every time come up with the result that there is no manner to
create a runaway nuclear reaction.  In other words, the explosion would be
like a water heater that got too hot for the container, and the high
pressure inside caused it to explode.  So I only need to literally protect
against a hand grenade sort of explosion just like the cannister that
exploded at SRI, which was essentially a hand grenade.

I do, however, expect a bigger bang ;-)

If I can succeed, then it should be possible to demonstrate conclusively
that I caused nuclear reactions to proceed.  The reason is because I will
not have the contamination paths of PF etc. and I will not have the
possibility of atoms escaping or plating out of the system.  So if I
generate a result, it will not be able to be blamed on some other "normal
physics".  

This last point is really important because if I can get one of my devices
to work, then it will prove once and for all, that there is validity to the
other CF kinds of devices if they used certain principles.  However, when
everyone sees what I am doing, and compares that to what a variety of other
people are doing, it will be apparent that the devices I am trying to build
are orders of magnitude more intense in how the energy density is amplified.

Well, enough babble I suppose.  But you need to realize that for those of us
involved in this group who truly are in industry, patenting the discoveries
is an important step toward making certain that the technology goes where
you want it to.  And disclosing the designs on the group is not allowed.
This is a simple fact of life.

If there were someone on vortex who came to me in private and said, "We can
fund your research with a joint venture" etc etc., well my ears would be
open.  But as it will cost on the order of $10k to $20k per device, and
probably $40k to set up a really good experimental attempt, there is no one
who is going to build any of the devices I have designed on this group, if
they are working just in their garage.  So there is no point in disclosing
the ideas just for fun.

If someone could actually go to work on a $100k project, well then fine, I
will be interested in seeing if we can work out the formation of a
corporation to build the things.  In fact, I am preparing now to try to
raise $100k from ten individuals at $10k each.  I have about $40k spoken for
and need the balance before I can make a bonified attempt.

Later Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 15:20:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19841;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:05:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:05:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3509BA42.ADA skylink.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:59:14 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>
			 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]> <350934D5.666F@skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4Kl29.0.qr4.KlR2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16568
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

ACHTUNG! Confusion Alert. 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> Robert, the constant B field will not change the KE of the electron
> because the transverse force can not change it's speed.  But, momentum
> is a vector quantity and CAN be changed without changing speed.  All
> you need to do is change direction. 

Very good, thanks. Yes, according to the Lorentz force law you can only 
change the direction of motion. Never the speed. The Lorentz force can 
not change the kinetic energy of the electron. 

An electron reflected by a magnetic field must transfer momentum to 
the apparatus. The apparatus, even if near infinite mass relative to
the electron, has received an increase in velocity. The apparatus
has acquired a samll amount of kinetic energy from the electron. 
The electron's speed after reflection must be slightly, even if 
infinitesmally, smaller. 

The kinetic energy of the electron has changed. Work has been done on 
the electron. The Lorentz force can not do this. This can only be done 
by a longitudinal force, such as the Coulomb force or the gravitational 
force. Or in our case, Ampere's longitudinal component of magnetic force.

> This still exerts a reaction force
> on the field structure and can transfer momentum to it.

The Lorentz force is non-reactionary. It does not obey
Newton's reaction law. You rarely see this fundamental
information in Electromagnetics 101. Feyman mentions it 
briefly in his lectures. That's about it. 
Maybe it is too confusing? Too fundamental?
 
> Now, cut this out before you confuse me again!! :-)

Sorry.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 15:29:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24764;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:21:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:21:48 -0800
From: Puthoff <Puthoff aol.com>
Message-ID: <124c8566.3509bf3e aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:20:27 EST
To: marklin flash.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  Re: Paper Requested
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"3xtJh1.0.j26.8-R2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16569
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


In a message dated 3/13/98 3:20:46 PM, marklin flash.net wrote:

<<The w^3 spectrum of the ZPE is the only spectrum that is Lorentz
invariant.
But it also has infinite energy.  Iconoclasts like myself, who cling to
the
old-fashioned notion that real things cannot be infinite, will
stubbornly 
insist that there must be a cutoff.  Any cutoff will destroy the Lorentz
invariance.  >>

As noted in footnote 21 of my gravity paper (Phys Rev A, vol 39, p. 2333,
1989) I and my colleagues generally take the cutoff at the Planck freq.  This
means that the energy is not infinite (but getting there!), and Lorentz
invariance is broken at that freq.  However, until an experiment can detect
some effect at that freq, physics is safely assumed to be Lorentz-invariant.
Since spontaneous emission is driven by ZPE, and spontaneous emission is
observable at the highest frequencies we detect, I don't think there is any
evidence available for assuming a lower detectable ZPE cutoff.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 15:33:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26141;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:25:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:25:57 -0800
From: Puthoff <Puthoff aol.com>
Message-ID: <98012d74.3509c057 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:25:08 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re:  RE: Paper Requested
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 78
Resent-Message-ID: <"R8V9s2.0.MO6.22S2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16570
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


In a message dated 3/13/98 4:11:37 PM, you wrote:

<<Sidereal variation of C was measured in the following experiments:
1. Michaelson-Morley: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation
vanishes 9 hours and 21 hours.
2. Esclangon: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation vanishes at 9
hours and 21 hours.
3. Dayton Miller: Most variation at 3-4 hours and 14-15 hours, variation
vanishes at 9 hours and 21 hours.>>

Interesting - can you give some references?  I had heard of q and 3, but not
2.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 16:33:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10294;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:28:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:28:25 -0800
Message-ID: <01BD4EAD.85AC1D00 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Paper Requested
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:26:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD4EAD.85B3BE20"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KfgTW.0.SW2.byS2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16571
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4EAD.85B3BE20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



----------
From: 	Puthoff[SMTP:Puthoff aol.com]
Sent: 	Friday, March 13, 1998 5:25 PM
To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 	Re:  RE: Paper Requested



>Interesting - can you give some references?  I had heard of q and 3, but not
>2.

>Hal Puthoff

For the Esclangon experiment:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/esclangon.html

For a good source of info regarding possible detections of the absolute reference frame (or ether):

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/

Best Regards,
Kyle R. Mcallister


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4EAD.85B3BE20
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4EAD.85B3BE20--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 16:52:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09203;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:34:40 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:29:08 GMT
Message-ID: <3511cd0f.9456708 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <01BD4E98.FB138D40 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net>
In-Reply-To: <01BD4E98.FB138D40 pm3-117.gpt.infi.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: <"saHiO3.0.bF2.P2T2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16572
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:59:17 -0600, "Kyle R. Mcallister"
<stk sunherald.infi.net> wrote:

>If there exists an absolute frame of reference (ether) that is at 
>the same time the ZPE, then we now have:
>
>1. Non-infinite ZPE. This is much more acceptable in my opinion 
>than an infinite one.
>2. An explanation for the ether drift detected by the Michaelson
>-Morley experiment, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, the Esclangon 
>experiment, the Dayton Miller experiment... (funny, these were said 
>to show NO ether drift. Funny, they actually DID show it.)
>3. A more reasonable explanation for time dilation, inertia, 
>centrifugal 'force', etc.
>4. A causality preserving medium for FTL phenomena. The Gunter Nimtz 
>FTL transmissions were confirmed to be GROUP velocity, not the infamous 
>phase velocity. Yet the results were ignored, since Einstein of course 
>is right...

>Sidereal variation of C was measured in the following experiments:
>1. Michaelson-Morley: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation 
>vanishes 9 hours and 21 hours.
>2. Esclangon: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation vanishes 
>at 9 hours and 21 hours.
>3. Dayton Miller: Most variation at 3-4 hours and 14-15 hours, variation 
>vanishes at 9 hours and 21 hours.

There is also the Sivertooth experiment which uses a different method to
the M-M experiment (1st order rather than 2nd order) and gets a
consistent (maximum) result of about 380 Km/s.  Are you aware of this
one?  I can post some details if desired.  I understand that it has been
replicated successfully.

Someone else mentioned a 350 km/s measurement and that value and
Silvertooth's 380 km/s may be taken as reasonable measurements of our
velocity relative to the CMBR which averages 370 km/s throughout the
year.  Sivertooth's figures also show a daily cycle but I don't know the
phase.

A comment on Dayton Millers 1933(?) paper where he says non-zero results
were always obtained.  I strongly suspect that he averaged his vectors
wrongly (i.e by averaging the magnitude and directions seperately) and
that his results are notreliable.  How else do you account for later,
far more accurate experiments, getting a null result?

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 16:55:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16932;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:52:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:52:07 -0800
From: "Paul Brown" <brownpm concentric.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:51:29 -0700
Message-ID: <01bd4ee3$53603a80$13a99bcf isonix>
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: <"DIA5M1.0.U84.rIT2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16573
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Teissen said;
>I think I know how to build a nuclear energy producing and >radioactive
waste remediation device.
>I must say, though, that 3 years down the tubes has made me >impatient as
for waiting for funding.  Even "Angels" fear to tred into >this speculative
an investment.
>If there were someone on vortex who came to me in private and >said, "We
can fund your research with a joint venture" etc etc., well >my ears would
be open.
>Later Ross Tessien

Ross,

What is your direct e-mail address?
Paul Brown
brownpm concentric.net


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 17:13:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21394;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:08:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:08:44 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:08:36 -0800
Message-Id: <199803140108.RAA06041 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: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_XDDC3.0.9E5.QYT2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16575
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>What is your direct e-mail address?


tessien oro.net

Ross Tessien



>Paul Brown
>brownpm concentric.net
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 17:13:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21138;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:08:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:08:06 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:06:24 -0800
Message-Id: <199803140106.RAA05877 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: Paper Requested
Resent-Message-ID: <"LBM2H.0.q95.pXT2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16574
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Marklin wrote;
>Puthoff wrote:
>> 
>> In a message dated 3/13/98 7:12:13 AM, you wrote:
>> 
>> <<interpret that there
>> is a force acting on an accelerating body but this same force has no effect
>> on a body
>> moving at a steady velocity.  Is this interpretation wrong?>>
>> 
>> Your interpretation is correct.  The vacuum fluctuations are Lorentz
invariant
>> is one way to say it; you can't tell whether you are stationary or moving at
>> constant velocity.  This is because when you move thru at constant velocity
>> the forces cancel by Doppler shift cancellations.  But when you
accelerate you
>> upset the cancellations and are left with a net force that is proportional to
>> acceleration.
>> 
>> Hal Puthoff

I also agree with the above.  From the solitonic model viewpoint,
"spacetime"  is the sum of the incident wave energy arriving from
oscillations throughout the universe.  Solitons must remain phase and
frequency synchronized to the incident wave energy.   They also distort the
local topology of the wave energy that IS, spacetime.  Thus, there is a
continuous distortion to the wave topology from what we know of as
"spacetime", into what we know of as "particles".  The degree of that
distortion is what we know of as "fields" when we measure the effect of the
changing wave topology as you converge into the realm of "particle", aka
soliton.

If a soliton is going to change it's velocity, then it must rotate it's
phase angle, or shift it's internal frequency of resonances, or both.  To
accomplish that, it must emit, or absorb, some of the aether waves in
assymetric fashion.  Thus, all accelerations are accompanied by a change in
the amount of aether associated with a soliton wave.  Exothermy is
associated with an emission of aether, and endothermy is associated with a
absorption of aether.


>
>This is correct, of course, but there is a deeper point which I think is
>worthy of some contemplation:
>
>The w^3 spectrum of the ZPE is the only spectrum that is Lorentz
>invariant.
>But it also has infinite energy.  Iconoclasts like myself, who cling to
>the
>old-fashioned notion that real things cannot be infinite, will
>stubbornly 
>insist that there must be a cutoff.  Any cutoff will destroy the Lorentz
>invariance.  

But, IMO, there need be no cutoff.  Infinity is not as impossible a notion
to consider as it seems to our brains!  Consider the length of shoreline
around the island of Maui.  It is easy to measure it and say it is 200
miles, or whatever it is.  But, when you measure it with finer instruments,
you begin moving in and out around the boulders making up the shoreline and
the length goes up.  If you then measure in and around the pieces of sand,
the length goes way up.  IF you begin measuring in and around the atoms
making up the grains of sand, the length continues to go on up.

Thus, our expectation that things be finite, is to me not a necessary
requirement to place upon physics.  In the model I work with, "spacetime" is
a wave structure permeating the universe at the Planck scale, E-35 meters
wavelength.  Thus, the energy of those waves is immense, and leads us to
expect that it would be really hard for a soliton coupled to wave energy at
0 degrees phase angle to just slip over and become connected to wave energy
at 180 degrees phase angle.  Thus, we expect that "charge" should be
conserved, which is another way of saying the same thing.

Remember this, we only think of those energies as being "large" because we
operate at really trivial energy levels.  IOW, if you have intense energy
all around, it seems the same as having NO energy all around.  It is all in
balance.  
But when I work with spacetime at the Planck scale, I can replace our idea
of a metric with a logical wave structure.  However, I am then posed with a
new problem of how the aether knows to move this spacetime topology.  ie, I
could assume I need some form of wave energy far below the Planck scale in
order that the Planck scale oscillations remain coherent.  An absolute
spacetime so to speak.  

But I really think it is not necessary to fear infinity.  Either in the
small direction, far below the Planck scale, or in the big direction, far
larger than our universe.  When I do this, it is not lost on me that my
model of the expansion and compression of our universe into and out of a
black hole, is identical to the motion of my model of an electron!


There will then be one unique frame of reference in which
>the 
>cutoff appears isotropic.

As far as particles are concerned, where particles means solitons in our
spacetime scale, I think that there is a cutoff at the Planck scale of E-35
meters wavelength.  Thus, if you use that as the cutoff for wave energy to
be able to remain coherent across macroscopic regions of our universe, I
think you would be on target.

>
>Following this line of reasoning it appears that the ZPE may provide a
>means
>for devising an experiment to detect the ether.  (The ZPE might even BE
>the 
>ether.)  

Note, ZPE must be waves in the aether, and not the aether itself.  This is
like saying that "sound may be air".  They are different.


>2.  What is the highest cutoff that would still allow a ZPE based ether
>    drift experiment to work, using currently available technology?

Aether drift experiment such as the MM exp., are based on the assumption
that EM waves move through aether, and that particles making up the
apparatus are something different.  If particles are aether solitons, this
assumption is not valid, and any distortion to the em wave propogation is
also distorting the spacetime locally and the positions of the atoms in the
matter making up the apparatus.  Thus, it is entirely possible that no
aether drift will be found from any experiment like that.

However, it may be possible to establish the existence of aether another
way.  Build an apparatus that pumps the aether and derives an inertial
thrust, ie anti gravity, and you will have established that there is aether
because you will be doing the same thing as a helicopter does with air, but
in a vacuum.

Alternately, use your telescopes and see if you can find where there is a
cosmological expansive thrust accelerating galaxies apart due to aether
emission from stars.  Then see if that outward thrust diminishes as you head
away from a large concentration of stars.  Then see if you find anamolous
accelerations external to stars that just ignited.  Then see if you find
anamolous inertial accelerations external to our sun.  

When you look, they are all, there.  

Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 17:20:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA15277;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:11:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <3509BA42.ADA skylink.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>			
 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>
 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:09:36 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"cvWR33.0.ak3.caT2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16576
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>An electron reflected by a magnetic field must transfer momentum to
>the apparatus. The apparatus, even if near infinite mass relative to
>the electron, has received an increase in velocity. The apparatus
>has acquired a samll amount of kinetic energy from the electron.
>The electron's speed after reflection must be slightly, even if
>infinitesmally, smaller.
>
>The kinetic energy of the electron has changed. Work has been done on
>the electron. The Lorentz force can not do this. This can only be done
>by a longitudinal force, such as the Coulomb force or the gravitational
>force. Or in our case, Ampere's longitudinal component of magnetic force.

The explanation is as follows. Since that magnetic field and its generating
coil got put into motion, the magnetic field distribution is changing with
time, and that changing field induces an electric field. The electric field
takes the energy out of the charged particle to make momentum and energy
balance. Normally it's all too small to see, given the ratio of electron to
coil mass, but the effect is there.

>The Lorentz force is non-reactionary. It does not obey
>Newton's reaction law. You rarely see this fundamental
>information in Electromagnetics 101. Feyman mentions it
>briefly in his lectures. That's about it.
>Maybe it is too confusing? Too fundamental?

I think this is because, when you look at the fine details, you also have
to account for the CHANGES TO THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD due to the changed
trajectory of the cahrged particle as well. Changing the EM field takes
both momentum and energy. Not confusing. Usually small and ignored. But,
yes, fundamental.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 17:20:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA23747;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:18:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:18:30 -0800
Message-ID: <01BD4EB4.89C04180 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Paper Requested
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:16:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD4EB4.89C04180"
Resent-Message-ID: <"CmFqG3.0.wo5.ahT2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16577
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4EB4.89C04180
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



----------
From: 	Ray Tomes[SMTP:rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz]
Sent: 	Friday, March 13, 1998 6:29 PM
To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 	Re: Paper Requested

>There is also the Sivertooth experiment which uses a different method =
to
>the M-M experiment (1st order rather than 2nd order) and gets a
>consistent (maximum) result of about 380 Km/s.  Are you aware of this
>one?  I can post some details if desired.  I understand that it has =
been
>replicated successfully.

Yes, post some details on this.

>A comment on Dayton Millers 1933(?) paper where he says non-zero =
results
>were always obtained.  I strongly suspect that he averaged his vectors
>wrongly (i.e by averaging the magnitude and directions seperately) and
>that his results are notreliable.  How else do you account for later,
>far more accurate experiments, getting a null result?


I don't recall much about the Miller experiment. I'll look it up though. =
One must be careful as to what is called a null result. Almost every =
experiment that showed an ether drift was said to have a null result. =
Cause: People were set in their ways about relativity. Similiar to the =
way the Pythagoreans did when they found the irrationality of the square =
root of two.

Kyle R. Mcallister
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4EB4.89C04180
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD4EB4.89C04180--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 17:31:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25971;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:28:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:28:33 -0800
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:06:26 -0800
Message-Id: <199803140106.RAA05892 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: Magnetics question for Ross
Resent-Message-ID: <"HxhWh1.0.dL6.0rT2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16578
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>When I first joined Vortex, I was asking about ways to rotate a magnetic
>>field. Perhaps naively, and to the consternation of some list members, I
>>wasn't satisfied with the answers I got then. But I was looking for ways to
>>do it at very high rotational velocities, because I thought there's
>>something there worth checking out. Now that I've read your material, and
>>have a (somewhat imprecise) conceptual feel for it, I think it's time to
>>look at those magnetic fields more closely in this new light.
>>
>>Dan Quickert

OK, based on the theory I am studying, I will do my best to answer this
question for you.

First of all, I wish to point out that your notion of spacetime, and your
notion of magnetic fields are two independent things.  In my thinking, they
are one and the same.  In other words, a region of the universe with a
magnetic field present is a region where the waves making up spacetime are
distorted in a specific manner.  We can then study the ways that the waves
called spacetime in a region with a magnetic field are different from the
waves we call spacetime in a region without a magnetic field.

Let us first try to understand what the portion of the wave topology is that
is the magnetic field portion, then I will try to describe a quadrature
spacetime topology.  The answer is the sum of the two.

To establish a magnetic field, what you must do is to cause an electric
field to rotate.  ie, you cause charged particles to rotate around in a
circle, and you will have a magnetic field.  So, what are "charged
particles" in an aether model such as mine?

The answer is, they are pulsating spheres.  This is the same as Thomson's
work of the 1870's as I have said before, so if you want more reading
material look up Thomson (Kelvin), and Bjerknes, as they worked it out and
showed it to be lead to Maxwell's equations.

Anyway, if you have two pulsating spheres, what is meant is that you have
two structures of standing waves such that as you move our radially from one
of the spheres, you find that the pressure of the aether is higher then
lower then higher in spherical shells of greater radii.

We will now place two such strctures on a circle, and constrain them to
remain on the circle.  (If left free to move in any direction, two spheres
with the same resonance phase angle repulse, so they would fly away from one
another just as is known to occur for like charged particles).

At rest, the two spheres establish an interference wave pattern that is
something you have certainly seen in fresnel lenses and elsewhere.  Arrange
the two spheres such that their waves land on top of one another, ie, they
are in phase with one another.

Now, we can add more of these resonances around the circle, but being
careful to make certain they all constructively interfere with each other
(normall spacetime forces this to be so, but for now, just imagine them to
remain coherently in phase despite being placed around the circle.)

Again, we get an interference pattern of waves to establish.

Now, we need to make a bunch of similar waves but using a different color so
we can distinguish them.  These are going to be 180 degrees out of phase, or
in other words, these are going to be of positive charge, ie the nuclei of
the atoms in a ring coil.  When we position all of these around the circle,
again we get an interference pattern to establish.

Now, leave the "positive" colored waves stationary, and begin rotating the
"negative" colored waves around the circle, what happens?  Well, there is a
sort of rotation that occurs where the negative nodes rotate around the
positive nodes sort of like two people square dancing arm in arm around in a
circle.  

This is not quite a perfect analogy, but it will give you a beginning flavor
for the direction to go in.  What is happening, I think, is that at the
Planck scale, the rotation of the charges around the circle is causing the
intference pattern of spacetime itself to rotate around in a circle.  And
the more charges that are rotating, the greater the "number density of
nodes" where the rotations are manifest in the region inside of the coil.

So as a first crude explanation, you can think of a charged particle as
needing to head through that rotating region of nodes, hop scotch fashion,
remaining in the proper colored nodes as it goes.  But since the nodes at
that fine scale are rotating to a degree, any standing wave moving across
the "negative" color is going to be slightly deflected one way, while
standing waves (ie free electrons in a beam heading across the magnetic
field region) of the opposite color, aka charge, are going to deflect
(follow the spacetime topology) in the opposite direction.

Thus, a magnetic field, I think, is simply a distortion to the topology of
spacetime itself.  The two wave structures simply sum.  Basically, this is
what causes water in a rotating bucket to form into a parabola, because all
of the waves, positive and negative, are curving the spacetime in the local
region of the spinning bucket.

Here are the points that are very hard to visualize and which I don't think
I can adequately explain in words, yet.

1)  Spacetime is not the simple "two color" structure I described above.  It
is a quadrature structure that is dynamic.  So to tile spacetime requres not
simple spheres, or cubes, but a dynamic set of shapes that are expanding and
contracting with four primary phase angles for solitons to couple to.  These
are 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees and we call them positive, neutral, negative
and neutral charge.

2)  solitons distort spacetime from a sort of rectangular kind of topology,
into a spherically concentric shell sort of topology as you converge into
the innermost region of the electron resonance.  At some radius, the wave
intensity of the spherical resonance exceeds the intensity of the spacetime
waves.  I think that this is the radius at which the "electric" force
transitions into becoming the "nuclear strong" force, and so this is at
about E-15 meters.

If there was not a decoupling, then any given soliton would be trapped in a
single spacetime node and could never translate across the universe.  All
particles would thus be locked in a single position, and we would not exist,
so this is clearly not the model that is actually responsible for what we
observe.

Thus, it has to be that solitons decouple their resonances.  

The good news is that this leaves us expecting that we should observe
different kinds of solitonic interactions.  Namely, 

soliton to soliton        strong
soliton exchange into and out of composite particles,         weak
soliton to spacetime to soliton        electric
soliton frequency interference     gravitation;
soliton drift due to aether emission   cosmological.

So it all plays in with what we do indeed observe.

As for the magnetic fields, you are IMO, playing with spacetime itself.  So
the wave energy of the electrons is going to spread out at c, announcing any
acceleration or deceleration to the electrons in the coil.  In turn, that is
going to alter the locations of the constructive inteference pattern due to
the contribution to the spacetime topology by the waves coming from the
electrons in the coil.  And so other particles are going to experience a
slight shift in the local spacetime topology when other particles change
their relative velocities.

If you cause a bunch of particles of a single charge to move, then you are
shearing the local spacetime quadrature structure and causing the quadrature
topology to rotate.

An interesting thing which I have not yet figured out has to do with aether
flow and magnetic fields.  

It is obvious to anyone who looks at movies of the sun's motions with an
open mind, that there is action blasting out of the sun.  But there are no
material particles associated with this action.  It does, however, show up
that the particles that are accelerated by this action are experiencing in
addition to the acceleration, strong "magnetic fields".  

When I study how aether expands and converges from one spacetime node to an
adjacent spacetime node in quadrature, it appears as though if there is a
net flow of aether through a region of nodes, that there manifests a sort of
barber pole helicity to the nodes as you go from 0 to 90, 180, 270 and back
to a 0 degree node again.  IOW, the nodes become helical along the direction
of aether flow.  If you study white dwarfs and compare them to our sun, this
will become more apparent, but that takes a lot of research.

Anyway, the interesting thing is, it appears that magnetic fields are
associated with a sort of stretching of the quadrature topology such that
you form a helix along the axis of the magnetic field.  The helicity being
opposite for what we would call a NS vs a SN magnet.  Of course, rotating
one around gives you the other.

The thing that is interesting to me though, is that for stars, a net flow of
aether causes a magnetic field.  Turn off the flow, and you turn off the
fields and the star grows into a red giant because it accumulates a "fog
bank" of particles that are NOT blown away by the aether flow, as happens in
our sun which is still burning it's fuel.

but this means that a simple bar magnet may well have a flow of aether
through it.  I think that it does, but I also think that the flow is
bidirectional, sort of snaking around itself making use of the 4 quadrature
nodes in the spacetime topology.  So for a bar magnet, there ought to be no
manner to derive any inertial thrust from the field.  It is more like a
kaleidoscope rotation where nodes swirl around nodes.

I can think of no manner to separate the two components, as we are talking
about fluxes that are only discrete below the Planck scale.  

But, it may be that by using magnets, and combining them with rotating
superconductors, that maybe the HTSC material in motion *could* separate the
two components of vorticity.  If that is so, then it could be that some
apparatus like that could lead to an easier means of generating inertial
thrust, than the HTSC device I described earlier.

In any case, as I have said before, I can think of no simple way to use
magnets to tap into zpe.  IMO, zpe is at all frequencies, right on down to
spacetime frequency of E45 Hz which drives everything.  

And even if there were some way to do this, you would certainly need to tap
into frequencies that are common and strong in the universe.  So that would
be the Halpha frequencies etc.  But those break down into shorter and
shorter wavelengths as the waves get chopped up due to interference with
other waves from all over the universe.  Well, rambling too much again, I
just don't see zpe as the direction to seek energy.

But hopefully that at least begins to give you a feeling for what a magnetic
field is in a wave topology universe.  It is just a rotation of an
interference pattern of the waves of the electron solitons themselves,
rotating relatively to the positve soliton wave energy.

Later, Ross Tessien








From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 18:55:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00568;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3509F00A.7362 ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:48:42 -0500
From: "Dana K. Loan" <loan ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: loan ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Tessien/Tomes discussion (was: Some general thoughts...)
References: <199803132259.OAA24058 Au.oro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"q_ARk.0.n8.TuU2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16579
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ross Tessien wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the comments;
> 
> I have in the past discussed numerous devices.  I have recently posted how
> to construct an anti gravitational device.  I think I know how to build a
> nuclear energy producing and radioactive waste remediation device(s).  The
> problem is, for the most part on vortex everyone is looking for some simple,
> cheap, kludge it together sort of device that uses magnets or some other
> fancy device.  A few are working on some truly interesting plasma devices.
> And many have worked on a lot of interesting and possibly useful phenomena
> including plasmoids in the microwaves which I find fascinating and amusing,
> and wish I had an extra microwave to blow up and have some fun too.
> 
Ross,
Excuse me for butting in. I don't contribute much to this list but I
read EVERYTHING that comes to my e-mail account.  You dont have to
provide a "simple, cheap, kludge it together sort of devise". A straight
up statement of your working hypothesis is all that's required. Someone
will develop a demonstratable, repeatable, (and yes)simple method to
VERIFY the key points of your devise. You don't even have to do the
experiments yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of willing soles on this
list that will make the effort on thier own for any promising
endevor(sp?). I personnaly am into the electrostatics and high
voltage/low amperage elctronics. I have repated T.T. Brown's
simplest(and cheapest) demonstrations of electrostatic propulsion with
results that verify, and in one case, far outstrip Dr. Browns results.
That's my thing. There are others on this list who are into the Nuclear,
Plasmoid, and yes the Permanent Magnet sort of things. You don't have to
reveal your whole theory...just the "New Physics" part of it. Think of
it this way. The Wright brothers would have gotten smothered with
support from this list goup if they could have posulated to us, before
the advent of heavier than air flight, the "Theory" of pressure
differentials developed by a lifting body. A simple, cheap demonstration
of a hand held out of a moving automobile would easily verify their
theory. Is there not a simplified, cheap(relatively speaking), linchpin
in your theories that can drum up the support you need.
Sorry for the interuption...just my thoughts.
Dana

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 20:08:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14418;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980313215535.008a8a00 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:55:35 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Utah news
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fjYaj1.0.9X3.H0W2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16580
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday March 10, 1998:
	
U. Officially Ends Its Effort to Capitalize on Cold Fusion

Almost nine years after two University of Utah scientists first claimed to
produce nuclear energy in a test tube, the U. has officially abandoned its
effort to capitalize on cold fusion.

U. Research Vice President Richard Koehn announced Monday that the U.'s
Research Foundation will no longer pursue patents based on the experiments
of former U. chemists B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.

At a March 23, 1989 news conference, the pair claimed that their simple,
tabletop device was producing such incredible amounts of heat that it could
only be explained by nuclear reactions. That triggered a worldwide scramble
to reproduce the experiment.

But in the end - when the claims could not be proved - the scientists and
the U. found the real heat came from the scorching they received via the
scientific establishment.

Pons and Fleischmann left the U. within two years, and the university
eventually transferred the patent rights to a private company, ENECO. The
U. was forced to look for another licensee when ENECO gave back the rights,
but no viable offers surfaced. Pons and Fleischmann had the option to take
up the fight themselves, but the U. never heard from them, Koehn said.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 20:49:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA22438;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 20:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 20:44:10 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:40:41 GMT
Message-ID: <35140910.19670596 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <01BD4EB4.89C04180 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net>
In-Reply-To: <01BD4EB4.89C04180 pm3-117.gpt.infi.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: <"ruAei1.0.WU5.NiW2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16581
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:16:33 -0600, "Kyle R. Mcallister"
<stk sunherald.infi.net> wrote:
[re Sivertooth experiment]

>Yes, post some details on this.

Here is a report an an experiment which seems to me to be a much
more direct way of measuring the motion of the earth through the
ether than the Michelson-Morley experiment.

This is a summary of a paper "MOTION THROUGH THE ETHER" by
E W Silvertooth and published in Electronics & Wireless May 1989.
He claims to get a consistent measurement of around 380 km/s
which is of course of the order of our motion relative to the CMBR.

                /________Laser
               /!
                !                    BS2
     Beam      \!____________________\______\M2
    Splitter BS1!\                   !\     !\Mirror
                !                    !      !
            PS [_]    Photocathode   !      !
                !       V_____       !      !
      [_]_______!/______[.....]______!/     !
      PZM1      /M1     [_____]D1    /M3    !
   Piezo-electric         [ ]               !BS3  _
     actuator             [ ]|______________!/___[ ] Detector
                          [_]|M4           /!    [_] D2
                      <------>              !
                          delta            [_]
                                          PZM2

The diagram shows the laser beam being split and the two beams
coming together from opposite directions.  This will of course
produce a standing wave.  If there was no ether, of if relativity
was correct, then the wave would not move.  If however there is
an ether, and the apparatus is moving to the left or right with
respect to the ether, then the wavelengths of the laser beam
would be affected by the v+c and v-c velocities in the two
directions and the standing waves would have phase reversals
at intervals within the detector D1.

Using this setup, Sivertooth detected a 380 km/s motion relative
to the ether, with a zero result 6 hours before and after (when
the earth's rotation would make the apparatus across the motion).
The results are reported to be always consistent to within 5%
for a variety of configurations with three apparatus over a number
of years.  Note that the author accepts the null M-M result.
Note also that this measures something quite different.

As well as the above mentioned paper, Sivertooth has an article
in Nature v322 p590, and the reasons for the results are discussed by 
B A Manning in Physics Essays v1 no4 1988.

>I don't recall much about the Miller experiment. I'll look it up though. 
>One must be careful as to what is called a null result. Almost every 
>experiment that showed an ether drift was said to have a null result. 
>Cause: People were set in their ways about relativity. Similiar to the 
>way the Pythagoreans did when they found the irrationality of the square 
>root of two.

Null should mean within experimental errors.  The far more accurate
experiment was done by J... but I forget the name.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 13 21:27:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA19846;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:24:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:24:19 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Difference between ridig vs fluid aether models
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:24:12 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350b0024.5776126 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <199803121659.IAA02872 Au.oro.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803121659.IAA02872 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: <"Dcnv62.0.xr4.1IX2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16582
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:59:32 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote:
[snip]
>In the rigid models, it can be supposed that spherical or other rotations or
>wave phenomena are involved.  Tension is the rule of the day, and
>compressions also occur.  They can, however, be thought of as simply tension
>though because you can always place the nominal zero tension at an
>arbitrarily large density of aether.  Low aether density leads to increased
>aether tension.
>
>Tensile aethers *require* the notion that aether, reaches outward, and pulls
>on other aether.  Since no one things aether has trained arms, hooks, or
>grapples, tensile aether theories adopt a "force" field into their notions.
[snip]
I detect a little of the pot calling the kettle black here Ross. Your
aether model (if I'm not mistaken) depends upon compressive forces,
which is aether reaching out and pushing on other aether. Granted the
range is shorter, but the force concept is there just the same. Only
the direction is different.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 13 21:30:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA27901;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:25:55 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Burning Deuterium
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:24:16 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350f106f.9948548 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aaa0 spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258d0@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980309111420.00becd00@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980310101204.009258
d0 spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980311125320.00c0aaa0@spectre.mitre.org> <3.0.1.32.19980313100709.00c05c00@spectre.mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980313100709.00c05c00 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: <"1sZPV3.0.sp6.WJX2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16584
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:07:09 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>At 01:05 AM 3/13/98 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>So the bottom line is that if CF does indeed involve nuclear
>>reactions, then neutrons play no part in the reactions.
>
>   I would say it as "any neutron exchanges in CNF cannot involve free
>neutrons."  

I agree, that sounds better.
[snip]
>  2)  Ag109  ---> (d,n)  Pd110
Shouldn't this be Ag109 ---> (d,n) Cd110 ?

>      Ag109 + n ---> Ag110
>      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110
>
>  3)  d ---> p + n
>      Ag109 + n ---> Ag110
>      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110

I doubt you will get this to happen with a 1 MeV beam. I suspect that
any stripping reactions are in fact of either type 1) or 2) above.

>
>  4)  d + d --> t + p
>  
>  5)  d + d --> He3 + n
>      Ag109 + n ---> Ag110
>      Ag110  ---> (beta) Pd110
>
>  Only the third reaction has any endothermic steps, and that can be
>catalysed either by a high energy deuteron passing near a silver nucleus,
>or by high energy betas from the first three paths, or by gammas.

I fear that most of the high energy electrons will have lost too much
energy before they even get to the D to do any good, and that most of
them would miss anyway. I'm not sure that there are any sufficiently
high energy gammas produced (but could well be wrong about this).

Also, I'm curious as to why you didn't include 

D + Ag109 ---> Cd111 

followed by some form of fission?
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 13 21:31:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA27883;
	Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:25:55 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:24:13 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350d0a95.8449769 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <804a7049.35095495 aol.com> <35099DB4.58E@flash.net>
In-Reply-To: <35099DB4.58E flash.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: <"5nrkr.0.Zp6.TJX2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16583
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:57:24 -0600, George Marklin wrote:
[snip]
>There may even be data right now, showing a sidereal time variation in
>the
>cross-section of some high energy particle interaction, sitting,
>unexamined,
>on some tape archive in the basement of Fermilab.  Lorentz invariance
[snip]
Like the reported variations in decay time reported from Russia?
(mentioned just recently on this list).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 14 03:28:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA24228;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <001701bd4f3b$181f2140$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Are Superstring "Circles" ZPE "Storage Rings"?
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:18:25 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"pXOBz1.0.Uw5.vZc2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16585
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The 5A - 2Z Superstring Circles in a nucleus, (5A - Z in an atom)each with
energy:
E = kq^2/R, and Spin MvR = hbar, can change radius in a nucleus due to
charge interaction;
dE = kq^2/dR.

In the "Circles" v = 137c, the phase velocity
of the circling energy-wave, (in the hydrogen atom the ground state v of the
electron is c/137)but mass M and  radius R can change inversely in the
"Circles"; dM = hbar/v*dR, thus storing or releasing mass-energy.

If you shake the atoms-molecules in a box will they borrow Zero Point Energy
(ZPE) from the vacuum and store it?

Regards, Frederick



Regards



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 03:31:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA27136;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:29:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:29:39 -0800
Message-ID: <350A6A2A.5D8D6ECE ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 00:29:51 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com
Subject: transformer generator
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------03E1075E6E7EA1CECB9C1E11"
Resent-Message-ID: <"A7i26.0.od6.Xec2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16586
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.
--------------03E1075E6E7EA1CECB9C1E11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The primary and secondary of a transformer are always in repulsion, the
magnetic fields are in counter-phase.
If you replace the primary coil with a rotating magnet the secondary
does not know the difference so it will still be in counter-phase with
the the magnet!
It will always repel the magnet, There will be no drag on the magnet!
free energy!

This is all theory but there are generators like this and they are
claimed to produce free energy!
Some are patented!

Can someone tell me why this wouldn't work?
If the magnet produces the same magnetic field as the primary did why
would there be any difference?


John berry

--------------03E1075E6E7EA1CECB9C1E11
Content-Type: image/gif; name="GENFOR~1.GIF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="GENFOR~1.GIF"
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--------------03E1075E6E7EA1CECB9C1E11--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 04:07:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA27369;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003d01bd4f40$ecf19b00$418cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: transformer generator
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:01:23 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"L7oKh3.0.Zh6.-Ad2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16587
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; freenrg-l@eskimo.com
<freenrg-l eskimo.com>
Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 8:30 PM
Subject: transformer generator


>The primary and secondary of a transformer are always in repulsion, the
>magnetic fields are in counter-phase.
>If you replace the primary coil with a rotating magnet the secondary
>does not know the difference so it will still be in counter-phase with
>the the magnet!
>It will always repel the magnet, There will be no drag on the magnet!
>free energy!
>
>This is all theory but there are generators like this and they are
>claimed to produce free energy!
>Some are patented!
>
>Can someone tell me why this wouldn't work?
>If the magnet produces the same magnetic field as the primary did why
>would there be any difference?

Ain't that the "magneto" on your chain saw,
John Deere Model B, and Lawn mower, John?

Regards,  Frederick

>
>
>John berry
>


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 04:19:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA28570;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:15:05 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: OFF TOPIC. - Not to worry about Asteroids.
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980314231019.18159E-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"E8KwJ3.0.J-6.eKd2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16588
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Following up on Jed's gloomy post about an Asteroid impact, here's what
Robert Park has to say on on a number of topics of interest to Vortexians
this week.

Cheers

Martin


WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 13 Mar 98   Washington, DC

1. CO2: "A WONDERFUL GIFT FROM THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION."  You
may have received a petition card in the mail this week urging
the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto global-warming accord. 
The return address was a P.O. Box in La Jolla.  It came with a
note signed by physicist Frederick Seitz, an 8-page "review" of
the environmental consequences of carbon dioxide--all good--and a
6 Dec 97 op-ed from the Wall Street Journal.  The op-ed explains
how we can all make this a better world: burn more hydrocarbons. 
This "moves them from below the ground and turns them into living
things... No other single technological factor is more important
to the quality, length and quantity of human life than the
expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons."  The
only thing missing was any hint of who paid for the mailing. The
APS has not taken a position on the issue -- perhaps it should.

2. COLD FUSION: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH ABANDONS PATENT PURSUIT. Ten
days from now the world will celebrate the ninth anniversary of
the announcement by the University of Utah of the discovery of
"cold fusion."  Utah anticipated a bonanza in licensing fees, but
instead, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, spent as
much as $1.5M in legal fees in a futile effort to patent the
technology.  Pons and Fleischmann, the "discoverers," had the
option to take up the fight, but the University never heard from
them.  Fleischmann, however, is to be a speaker at the 7th
International Conference on Cold Fusion in Vancouver in April. 
Pons, for the first time, is not on the program.  The dwindling
band of true believers meets each year hoping for good news, but
MITI, the sponsor of ICCF-6 pulled out last summer (WN 29 Aug
97).  This year, for the first time, there is no sponsor. 

3. ASTEROID: FOR HOLLYWOOD IT'S A DREAM COME TRUE.  The latest
cosmic "close call" vanished even more swiftly than Comet Swift-Tuttle,
which made headlines five years ago.  In less than a day,
the closest approach of 1997 XF11 in the year 2028 grew from
30,000 miles to 600,000.  Meanwhile, Hollywood is revising the
estimated profits from "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" upward by a
similar factor.  In Washington, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is
calling for an asteroid defense program, and Edward Teller said
it's not likely to hit us, but we should send a probe anyway.
What a wonderful plot: far from becoming obsolete, those who had
protected us from the evil empire would now save us from cosmic
disaster.  Others suggest that before we get into mitigation, we
should invest in evaluating the threat -- identify near-Earth
objects and work out their arrival times -- if any.  If a threat
is discovered, that should give us plenty of time to get ready.

4. EMF: NIEHS REPORT FINDS NO LINK TO MAMMARY GLAND TUMORS. 
Claims that studies on rats suggest a link to breast cancer were
just laid to rest by a major National Toxicology Program study.

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 04:53:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00271;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <350A266A.4423B40B mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:40:42 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
References: <1.5.4.32.19980313131106.006a380c freeway.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z3fkk2.0.94.Lrd2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16589
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:36 PM 3/12/98 EST, Hal Puthoff wrote:
 
 To get to the heart of inertia, consider a
 specific example in which you are
 standing on a train in the station.
 As the train leaves the platform with a
 jolt, you could be thrown to the floor.
 What is this force that knocks you
 down, seemingly coming out of nowhere?
 This phenomenon, which we conveniently
 label inertia and go on about our physics,
 is a subtle feature of the universe
 that has perplexed generations of physicists
 from Newton to Einstein.  Since
 in this example the sudden disquieting imbalance
 results from acceleration "relative to the
 fixed stars," in its most provocative form
 one could say that it was the "stars"
 that delivered the punch.  This key feature
 was emphasized by the Austrian philosopher
 of science Ernst Mach, and is now known as Mach's
 Principle.  Nonetheless, the mechanism by
 which the stars might do this deed has eluded
 convincing explication.
 
 Ed Strojny wrote:
 
 I have a hard time visualizing the difference between a
 force acting on an accelerating body and one acting
 on a body moving at a steady velocity.  To me I
 interpret that there is a force acting on an
 accelerating body but this same force has no effect
 on a body moving at a steady velocity.
 Is this interpretation wrong?

Hi Ed, 

The net force "acting on a body moving at steady
velocity" is zero.

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 06:01:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06940;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350A9B33.B1021CC7 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 02:59:02 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: transformer generator
References: <350A6A2A.5D8D6ECE ihug.co.nz> <350A7F22.DC61B41E@ctv.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3DSrD1.0.Ki1.Iqe2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16590
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was not referring to John Bedini's generator, From what I remember it does not qualify, The page is not up right
now though.

I am not saying that anything that shows the slightest resemblance to this must work, What I am saying is that if
you make it as much like a transformer as you can you should see good effects.

If you can find any reason why this should not act like a transformer with the magnetic fields in counter-phase
(always repelling) or any reason why it should not work even with smooth AC always repelling counter-phase magnetic
fields then please do tell!


John Berry


Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga wrote:

>
>
> Hi, JohnI recommend you visit John Bedini page. This is a flux
> transformer. Nothing to do.
> These devices works on pulses, seeming OU, but you must rectify and
> filter the output, and you'll can see the reality...
> You need use NIB magnets to get a high output, but the you'll need a
> great motor to move the magnets.
> Vicente.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 06:24:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12658;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:22:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:22:34 -0800
From: HLafonte <HLafonte aol.com>
Message-ID: <2d74ab7a.350a9285 aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:21:56 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: transformer generator
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Resent-Message-ID: <"4EzKy1.0.h53.eAf2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16591
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John,
Take a look at my web site as we have just finished (except of quickfields
sims) a short course on the basics of the magneto. It has animation, many step
by step color coded drawings, text, and soon Quickfield simulations. The
attached file you sent is a basic magneto, period. But the basic magneto is a
great starting place to develope an overunity device, I believe.
Thanks,
Butch
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/HLafonte/LaFonteResearchSite1.html">LaFonte
Research Site 1</A> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 09:32:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13592;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:30:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:30:22 -0800
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:30:14 -0800
Message-Id: <199803141730.JAA16295 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: Difference between ridig vs fluid aether models
Resent-Message-ID: <"zL7dZ2.0.8K3.iwh2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16592
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:59:32 -0800, Ross Tessien wrote:
>[snip]
>I detect a little of the pot calling the kettle black here Ross. Your
>aether model (if I'm not mistaken) depends upon compressive forces,
>which is aether reaching out and pushing on other aether. Granted the
>range is shorter, but the force concept is there just the same. Only
>the direction is different.

Not at all Robin.

The compressive aether requres that aether ram into other aether, ie is
compressible, ergo of variable density.

The tensile aether requires that aether ram into other aehter AND, that
aether reach out and PULL on other aether.  So the tensile rigid aether
requires two means of transferring action, while the fluid aether requires
only one.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 14:51:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16003;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350B076C.59B6 skylink.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:40:44 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>			
	 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>
	 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net> <v03007804b12f876ac05c@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"iITpr.0.uv3.Dbm2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16593
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
> The explanation is as follows. Since that magnetic field and its generating
> coil got put into motion, the magnetic field distribution is changing with
> time, and that changing field induces an electric field. 

Well it seems, we must at least acknowledge that some kind of longitudinal
force is required to reverse the electron's momentum, and the Lorentz force
can not do this. 

Maybe as Michael suggests the longitudinal force can be attributed to a 
changing magnetic field (and induced electric field due to dA/dt). I
don't think so. Perhaps he can provide some analysis to demonstrate
this. 

In my opinion the longitudinal force results from the spacial gradient
of A which exists as the electron enters the field, and the longitudinal
force is given by the expression:

   F = (v.dot.del)A 

or in the line of the velocity of the charge it is more easy to visualize
it, if you write it as Phipps does:  F = grad(v.dot.A) 

> Normally it's all too small to see, given the ratio of electron to
> coil mass, but the effect is there.

Too small to see? 
Anyone can see that the electron's momentum is completely reversed. 

The force required to reverse the electron's momentum is on the order of 
the same size as the force required to change the electron's direction 
(the Lorentz force). As Ampere determined experimentally and as we 
discussed in an earlier analysis by vector calculus, the longitudinal 
force ranges in magnitude from zero to one-half of the Lorentz force, 
depending on the geometry. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 14 23:35:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA01036;
	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:34:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:34:09 -0800
Message-ID: <350B92E5.9EC98170 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:35:54 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Subject: Patents
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"E7qHP3.0.sF.kHu2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16594
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was looking through differnt patents and found one that had no details
at all except the 21 patents that refernced it.
I found that they were so interesting I decided to post the page that
lists the patents that refernce the patent I was looking up.

http://www.patents.ibm.com/cgi-bin/db2www.cmd/v3ft/forwref.d2w/report?patent_number=3713015



John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 03:45:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA02025;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 03:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 03:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:36:13 GMT
Message-Id: <199803151136.LAA14926 popmail.dircon.co.uk>
X-Sender: dominic popmail.dircon.co.uk
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: Dominic Murphy <dominic popmail.dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Double vision
Resent-Message-ID: <"7uk9I3.0.YV.ywx2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16595
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Recently my Eudora lite has been giving me a double serving of every
messager from the Vortexians (and they alone)....like each message is
immediatly followed by a duplicate.

Any hints as to why?
Dominic Murphy
44+ (0)181 580 2715
0973 886770 (mobile)
dominic dircon.co.uk

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 05:31:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04826;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 05:30:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 05:30:04 -0800
Message-ID: <001901bd5015$f61d69e0$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Accelerated Universe Expansion, Speed of Light Gradient?
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 06:26:23 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"E3ci2.0.KB1.RVz2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16596
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The recently reported observation of accelerated expansion out near the edge
of the Universe could be a gradient in the velocity of light as is measured
near mass concentrations
i.e.., grav Red Shift.

c = 1/uo*eo)^1/2 and since mass M = E/c^2, if c is increasing out away from
higher mass concentration, then dM = E/dc^2 says that mass M is decreasing.

Conservation of Energy E and momentum Mv requires that matter is
accelerating, out there 7 to 10 billion light-years from Earth.

I told you that Pioneer 10 and the Voyager probes are speeding up since they
left the Solar System.  :-)

Regards,     Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 06:33:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14089;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 06:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 06:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <002501bd501e$84c9caa0$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: CNN Community - The expanding universe (http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?1
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:27:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD4FE3.C8701100"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"KLmrM.0.2S3.6Q-2r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16597
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_000D_01BD4FE3.C8701100
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?13 ^1956710@.ee87974

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD4FE3.C8701100
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="CNN Community - The expanding universe.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="CNN Community - The expanding universe.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?13 ^1956710@.ee87974
Modified=003311611E50BD01D1

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD4FE3.C8701100--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 06:42:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12430;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 06:38:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 06:38:42 -0800
Message-ID: <005d01bd501f$88456760$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: CNN Community - The expanding universe (http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?1
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:32:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01BD4FE4.DBDD67A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"QE6MF2.0.323.nV-2r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16598
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_005A_01BD4FE4.DBDD67A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=20
           =20
             =20
                        COMMUNITY =20
                        Message Boards=20
                        Chat=20
                        Feedback=20
                       =20
                        =20
                        SITE SOURCES =20
                        Contents=20
                        Help!=20
                        Search=20
                        CNN Networks=20
                       =20
                        =20
                        SPECIALS =20
                        Quick News=20
                        Almanac=20
                        Video Vault=20
                        News Quiz=20
                        =20
            =20
           =20
           =20
            =20
           =20
           =20
            =20
           =20
           =20
           =20
           =20
           =20
           =20
             =20
            =20
           =20
            CNN Community
           =20
                Space=20
                   =20
                    Topic:=20

                The expanding universe
            Scientists are scratching their heads over a finding that =
indicates the universe, rather than slowing down, is being expanded by a =
mysterious force at an accelerating rate.
           =20
            According to the Big Bang theory, the universe exploded from =
a tiny point of matter about 12 billion years ago and is still =
expanding, but at a slower and slower rate.
           =20
            But Riess and the others found that it is actually expanding =
faster than it was 5 to 7 billion years ago.
           =20
            Full Story
           =20
            What are your thoughts?=20



--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
             (258 previous messages)
            Msg # =20
--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Jachob Zayeh - 06:09pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#259 of 268)
            [django : As for Van der Walls forces having anything to do =
with gravity. I don=92t know, it may at some level. Does so-called =
quantum teleportation raise the possibility of intergalactic phone =
conversations in "real time"? ...information transfer between separate =
universes? ]=20

            As for instantaneous intergalactic phone conversations, =
it=92s beginning to look like this may indeed be possible, however, the =
person on the other end has to know he=92s on the other end, and what =
your coding scheme is. I greatly suspect that if there are "others" out =
there, they are at least utilizing this method if of communication if =
not others that are for the moment completely out of our realm of =
understanding. I am EXTREMELY doubtful that listening for =
"electromagnetic" signals from intelligent species out in space will be =
successful. This would be like some primitive islanders expecting to =
communicate with the world of technological 1998 using smoke signals and =
coming to the conclusion that they must be alone because they have seen =
no evidence of intelligent signals on the horizon. When in fact those =
very islanders are bathed in a vast sea communication taking place all =
around them. But they have not discovered the means of tapping into that =
realm. But one day, perhaps they will discover that very tiny crystals =
are resonating with that "information sea" (as a crystal radio set does) =
The literature on the subject is prolific. Please don=92t read into this =
that I think SETI is a waste of money, because I don=92t. I think it is =
well worth while.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Jachob Zayeh - 06:09pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#260 of 268)
            I=92d be willing to bet however that the average length of =
time any technological civilization utilizes electromagnetic radiation =
for communication could be very short ( in our case probably 150 years, =
most of which we=92ve already lived through). We=92ve only really =
started using electromagnetic forms of communication extensively this =
century, and now we=92ve successfully (apparently) accomplished a form =
of quantum communication. This type of communication as it becomes more =
practical will drastically change how we communicate. All it takes (and =
this is simplified a bit) is for two quantum entangled particles to be =
given to two separate individuals. It would work something like this; =
Quantum modem company makes new modems. They entangle particles, and =
place one inside a modem, and the other particle in their central bank. =
They do this for every modem they make. You and I buy these quantum =
modems. If we wish to communicate with each other, what the Quantum =
modem company does is entangle the two particles that correspond with =
the "partners" of the ones we have in our modems. As soon as they do =
this, "WE" instantly become connected. But we are not connected through =
anything. No wires, no broadcasts, no satellites. No cables, no =
communications infrastructure as we currently know it. And, NO SIGNAL =
PROPOGATION DELAY.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Jachob Zayeh - 06:09pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#261 of 268)
            We wouldn=92t even need computers on space craft because =
they wouldn=92t "need" to be smart. They could be run real time from =
ground based controllers, regardless of the distance, whether that=92s =
near the moon, or across the galaxy. It will take "much" more work, but =
transferring the configuration of "objects" around in the same manner is =
implicit. We probably won=92t be beaming people around in the near =
future, due to the complexity involved. But of course the related =
quantum computation which we are close to accomplishing will increase =
our computational ability almost unimaginably, so who knows. And we are =
probably less than a decade away from having practical forms of this =
technology (except for beaming people around that is). I=92m talking =
about quantum based computation and communications systems. With this =
type of communications, it can=92t be tapped as far as I know, and there =
are no practical bandwidth problems like we have to deal with using, =
fiber, cable, or transmission. I don=92t know about communicating with =
other universes. You can read more about this in the paper:=20

            http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9708004 You will need to =
download the Adobe Acrobat 3.0 reader to actually read the paper. =
Download the paper in PDF format and use the reader.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            mark von Ehrlich - 10:40am Mar 14, 1998 ET (#262 of 268)
            God created the universe 6000 yrs ago and it has been =
expanding at an exponential rate ever since. Duh!!! don't you big fancy =
physic types ever read the bible. It's this great new book out, that =
tells you everything you ever needed to know about life the universe and =
eveything.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            P Arthur Burke - 11:27am Mar 14, 1998 ET (#263 of 268)
            Stephen Hawking postulates that the universe began as an =
'instanton', an exploding mixture of space, time, matter and gravity. =
His collaborator Professor Neil Turok - who will give the paper on the =
new theory in London later this month while Hawking announces it in =
California - tries to explain at www.telegraph.co.uk in the "etcetera" =
section.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Erik Peterson - 06:26pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#264 of 268)
            It's amazing that there are more people interested in how =
the universe began than why the universe began.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            M. Abley - 08:30pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#265 of 268)
            Erik Peterson: It probably has to do with what is =
observable. The "whats" are more accessible than the "whys".=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Erik Peterson - 09:50pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#266 of 268)
            I have a theoretical question then about the "what". I've =
heard of scientists talking about the "fabric of space". In the Big Bang =
theory was the fabric of space already there and a tiny point exploded =
all the matter outward into it, or was that fabric part of the tiny =
point and it exploded outward and now the fabric is expanding? In other =
words what is meant by the universe expanding, just the matter, or both =
the "fabric of space" and the matter? Also, if the universe has =
boundaries then are what are some theories of what is past it? =
Nothingness? I've heard that maybe if you went past the end of one side =
you would come through the other, like a ribbon that has been twisted =
and looped around and reconnected, or something like that.=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            M. Abley - 10:17pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#267 of 268)
            Erik P. Well, the notion of fabric is a result of =
relativity. Matter, space-time, and energy connected. Einstein, as you =
are aware, presented that and to the best of what has been observed, it =
makes total sense. Your questions are philosophical in nature. Sometimes =
I wonder if some things are better left alone.....there is more in =
heaven and earth than is dreamt of...(Shakespeare)=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20
            Bruce McCraney - 10:56pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#268 of 268)
            The expanding Universe. What universe are you refering to.?=20

            The Solar System?=20

            The Milky Way?=20

            The myriad galaxies?=20

            Universe expanding?=20

            Stars expanding?=20

            Starting at a small point?=20

            Somthing is absurd here.=20

            Naturalman=20

            www.naturalman.com=20
           =20


--------------------------------------------------------------------     =
      =20

            If you would like to participate in this discussion, you'll =
need to sign in or register first.=20

           =20
           =20
           =20
           =20
           =20
            =20
            =A9 1998 Cable News Network, Inc.
            All Rights Reserved.

            Terms under which this service is provided to you.=20


------=_NextPart_000_005A_01BD4FE4.DBDD67A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><TITLE>CNN Community - The expanding =
universe</TITLE><BASE=20
href=3Dhttp://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?13 ^1956710@.ee87974>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY aLink=3D#ff0000 background=3Dhttp://cnn.com/images/9607/bgbar.gif=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff link=3D#0a3990 vLink=3D#ff0000>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<TABLE border=3D0 width=3D600><!--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =
NAVIGATION =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D-->
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft vAlign=3Dtop width=3D118><A=20
            href=3D"http://cnn.com/index.html" name=3D#top><IMG =
align=3Dright=20
            alt=3D"CNN logo" border=3D0 height=3D80 hspace=3D11=20
            src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9607/cnn_logo.gif" =
width=3D103></A> <BR=20
            clear=3Dall><A =
href=3D"http://cnn.com/MAPS/9712/nav/basic.map"><IMG=20
            align=3Dleft alt=3DNavigation border=3D0 height=3D348 =
hspace=3D7 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9712/nav/nav.home.gif" =
useMap=3D#nav.map=20
            width=3D110></A><BR clear=3Dall>
            <TABLE align=3Dleft border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 =
cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D96>
                <TBODY>
                <TR><!-- Community -->
                    <TD rowSpan=3D9 width=3D12>&nbsp;</TD>
                <TR>
                    <TD align=3Dright bgColor=3D#000000 vAlign=3Dtop=20
                        width=3D86><FONT color=3D#ffffff =
face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>COMMUNITY&nbsp;</FONT></TD></TR>
                <TR>
                    <TD align=3Dright bgColor=3D#6363ce vAlign=3Dtop =
width=3D86><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/boards/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL" size=3D1>Message=20
                        Boards</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/chat/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>Chat</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/feedback/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        =
size=3D1>Feedback</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><BR></TD></TR><!-- Site Sources =
-->
                <TR>
                    <TD align=3Dright bgColor=3D#000000 vAlign=3Dtop=20
                        width=3D86><FONT color=3D#ffffff =
face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>SITE SOURCES&nbsp;</FONT></TD></TR>
                <TR>
                    <TD align=3Dright bgColor=3D#6363ce vAlign=3Dtop =
width=3D86><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/INDEX/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>Contents</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/feedback/help/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>Help!</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/SEARCH/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>Search</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/CNN/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL" size=3D1>CNN=20
                        Networks</A></FONT>&nbsp;<BR><BR></TD></TR><!-- =
Specials -->
                <TR>
                    <TD align=3Dright bgColor=3D#000000 vAlign=3Dtop=20
                        width=3D86><FONT color=3D#ffffff =
face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>SPECIALS&nbsp;</FONT></TD></TR>
                <TR>
                    <TD align=3Dright bgColor=3D#6363ce vAlign=3Dtop =
width=3D86><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/QUICKNEWS/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL" size=3D1>Quick=20
                        News</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/almanac/daily/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL"=20
                        size=3D1>Almanac</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/video_vault/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL" size=3D1>Video=20
                        Vault</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR><A=20
                        href=3D"http://cnn.com/SEARCH/quiz/"><FONT =
color=3D#ffffff=20
                        face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL" size=3D1>News=20
                        =
Quiz</FONT></A>&nbsp;<BR></TD></TR></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <MAP=20
            name=3Dnav.map><AREA coords=3D4,1,110,29=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/customnews/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,35,110,52 href=3D"http://cnn.com/WORLD/" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,53,110,70 href=3D"http://cnn.com/US/" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,71,110,88 href=3D"http://cnn.com/LOCAL/" =
shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,89,110,106 href=3D"http://cnn.com/WEATHER/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,107,110,124=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/cnnsi/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,125,110,142 href=3D"http://cnn.com/TECH/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,143,110,160=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/TRAVEL/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,161,110,178 href=3D"http://cnn.com/STYLE/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,179,110,196=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,197,110,214 href=3D"http://cnn.com/books/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,215,110,232=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/HEALTH/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,233,110,250 href=3D"http://cnn.com/EARTH/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,251,110,268=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/SPECIALS/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,276,90,293 href=3D"http://cnn.com/cnnsi/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,294,90,311=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/allpolitics/" shape=3DRECT><AREA=20
                coords=3D4,312,90,329 href=3D"http://cnn.com/cnnfn/"=20
                shape=3DRECT><AREA coords=3D4,330,90,347=20
                href=3D"http://cnn.com/cnnes/" =
shape=3DRECT></MAP><!--/NAVIGATION--><BR=20
            clear=3Dall><BR><BR clear=3Dall><!-- search --><A=20
            href=3D"http://cnn.com/MAPS/9704/explore.map"><IMG =
align=3Dright=20
            alt=3D"Infoseek/Big Yellow" border=3D0 height=3D107 =
hspace=3D10 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9704/explore.anim.gif" =
width=3D106></A> <BR=20
            clear=3Dall><BR><BR clear=3Dall><!-- /search --><!--  =
spotlight --><A=20
            href=3D"http://cnn.com/MAPS/9704/spotlight.map"><IMG =
align=3Dright=20
            alt=3D"Pathfinder/Warner Bros" border=3D0 height=3D104 =
hspace=3D10 isMap=20
            src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9705/pathnet.warner.gif" =
width=3D106></A>=20
            <BR clear=3Dall><BR><BR clear=3Dall><!-- /spotlight --><!-- =
barnesandnoble --><A=20
            =
href=3D"http://barnesandnoble.bfast.com/booklink/click?sourceid=3D11764&c=
ategoryid=3Dcnnsearch"><IMG=20
            align=3Dright alt=3D"Barnes and Noble" border=3D0 =
height=3D104 hspace=3D10=20
            src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9710/book.search.gif"=20
            width=3D106></A><BR><BR clear=3Dall><BR><BR clear=3Dall><!-- =
/barnesandnoble --></TD>
        <TD vAlign=3Dtop =
width=3D482><!--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--><IMG=20
            align=3Dleft border=3D0 height=3D60 =
src=3D"/images/msg.bd.gif" width=3D252> <A=20
            =
href=3D"http://victory.cnn.com/click.ng/Origin=3Dplus&Section=3Dpluscommu=
nity&Size=3D234x60&SpaceDesc=3D/ads/NG/pluscommunity&PagePos=3D1"><IMG=20
            =
src=3D"http://victory.cnn.com/image.ng/Origin=3Dplus&Section=3Dpluscommun=
ity&Size=3D234x60&SpaceDesc=3D/ads/NG/pluscommunity&PagePos=3D1"></A><BR =

            clear=3Dall><IMG align=3Dtop border=3D0 height=3D30=20
            src=3D"/images/custom/banner.gif" vspace=3D6 width=3D490> =
<BR clear=3Dall><!-- Content --><BR><B><B><A=20
            href=3D"http://cnn.com/community/index.html"><IMG border=3D0 =
hspace=3D10=20
            src=3D"http://community.cnn.com/images/site.gif">CNN=20
            Community</A></B><BR>
            <UL><B><A=20
                =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee82979">Space</A></B>=20
                <UL><BR><B>Topic: <A href=3D""></A></B>
                    <P></P></UL></UL></B>
            <H1>
            <UL>The expanding universe</UL></H1>
            <P>Scientists are scratching their heads over a finding that =

            indicates the universe, rather than slowing down, is being =
expanded=20
            by a mysterious force at an accelerating =
rate.<BR><BR>According to=20
            the Big Bang theory, the universe exploded from a tiny point =
of=20
            matter about 12 billion years ago and is still expanding, =
but at a=20
            slower and slower rate.<BR><BR>But Riess and the others =
found that=20
            it is actually expanding faster than it was 5 to 7 billion =
years=20
            ago.<BR><BR><A=20
            =
href=3D"http://cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/index.htm=
l">Full=20
            Story</A><BR><BR>What are your thoughts?=20
            <P>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
<!-- restore original path --><A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/0"><IMG =
align=3Dtop=20
            alt=3D"Earliest Messages" border=3D0 height=3D20 hspace=3D0=20
            src=3D"http://community.cnn.com/images/smtotop.gif" =
vspace=3D2=20
            width=3D59></A><A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?7 ^1960142@.ee87974/273"><IMG=20
            align=3Dtop alt=3D"Previous Messages" border=3D0 height=3D20 =
hspace=3D0=20
            src=3D"http://community.cnn.com/images/smprev.gif" =
vspace=3D2=20
            width=3D59></A><A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974"><IMG=20
            align=3Dtop alt=3D"Recent Messages" border=3D0 height=3D20 =
hspace=3D0=20
            src=3D"http://community.cnn.com/images/smrecent.gif" =
vspace=3D2=20
            width=3D59></A><A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974#post"><IMG=20
            align=3Dtop alt=3D"Post Message" border=3D0 height=3D20 =
hspace=3D0=20
            src=3D"http://community.cnn.com/images/smpost.gif" =
vspace=3D2=20
            width=3D59></A> (258 previous messages)
            <FORM action=3D/cgi-bin/WebX?goto_msg ^1960142@.ee87974=20
            method=3Dpost>Msg #=20
            <INPUT maxLength=3D6 name=3Dnum size=3D6> <INPUT =
type=3Dsubmit value=3D"Go To"></FORM>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1d231@.ee87974"><B>Jachob=20
            Zayeh</A><FONT size=3D1> - 06:09pm Mar 13, 1998 ET</B> (#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/274">259</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>[django : As for Van der Walls forces having anything to =
do with=20
            gravity. I don&rsquo;t know, it may at some level. Does =
so-called=20
            quantum teleportation raise the possibility of intergalactic =
phone=20
            conversations in &quot;real time&quot;? ...information =
transfer=20
            between separate universes? ]=20
            <P>As for instantaneous intergalactic phone conversations,=20
            it&rsquo;s beginning to look like this may indeed be =
possible,=20
            however, the person on the other end has to know he&rsquo;s =
on the=20
            other end, and what your coding scheme is. I greatly suspect =
that if=20
            there are &quot;others&quot; out there, they are at least =
utilizing=20
            this method if of communication if not others that are for =
the=20
            moment completely out of our realm of understanding. I am =
EXTREMELY=20
            doubtful that listening for &quot;electromagnetic&quot; =
signals from=20
            intelligent species out in space will be successful. This =
would be=20
            like some primitive islanders expecting to communicate with =
the=20
            world of technological 1998 using smoke signals and coming =
to the=20
            conclusion that they must be alone because they have seen no =

            evidence of intelligent signals on the horizon. When in fact =
those=20
            very islanders are bathed in a vast sea communication taking =
place=20
            all around them. But they have not discovered the means of =
tapping=20
            into that realm. But one day, perhaps they will discover =
that very=20
            tiny crystals are resonating with that &quot;information =
sea&quot;=20
            (as a crystal radio set does) The literature on the subject =
is=20
            prolific. Please don&rsquo;t read into this that I think =
SETI is a=20
            waste of money, because I don&rsquo;t. I think it is well =
worth=20
            while. <BR clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1d231@.ee87974"><B>Jachob=20
            Zayeh</A><FONT size=3D1> - 06:09pm Mar 13, 1998 ET</B> (#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/275">260</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>I&rsquo;d be willing to bet however that the average =
length of=20
            time any technological civilization utilizes electromagnetic =

            radiation for communication could be very short ( in our =
case=20
            probably 150 years, most of which we&rsquo;ve already lived=20
            through). We&rsquo;ve only really started using =
electromagnetic=20
            forms of communication extensively this century, and now =
we&rsquo;ve=20
            successfully (apparently) accomplished a form of quantum=20
            communication. This type of communication as it becomes more =

            practical will drastically change how we communicate. All it =
takes=20
            (and this is simplified a bit) is for two quantum entangled=20
            particles to be given to two separate individuals. It would =
work=20
            something like this; Quantum modem company makes new modems. =
They=20
            entangle particles, and place one inside a modem, and the =
other=20
            particle in their central bank. They do this for every modem =
they=20
            make. You and I buy these quantum modems. If we wish to =
communicate=20
            with each other, what the Quantum modem company does is =
entangle the=20
            two particles that correspond with the &quot;partners&quot; =
of the=20
            ones we have in our modems. As soon as they do this, =
&quot;WE&quot;=20
            instantly become connected. But we are not connected through =

            anything. No wires, no broadcasts, no satellites. No cables, =
no=20
            communications infrastructure as we currently know it. And, =
NO=20
            SIGNAL PROPOGATION DELAY. <BR clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1d231@.ee87974"><B>Jachob=20
            Zayeh</A><FONT size=3D1> - 06:09pm Mar 13, 1998 ET</B> (#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/276">261</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>We wouldn&rsquo;t even need computers on space craft =
because they=20
            wouldn&rsquo;t &quot;need&quot; to be smart. They could be =
run real=20
            time from ground based controllers, regardless of the =
distance,=20
            whether that&rsquo;s near the moon, or across the galaxy. It =
will=20
            take &quot;much&quot; more work, but transferring the =
configuration=20
            of &quot;objects&quot; around in the same manner is =
implicit. We=20
            probably won&rsquo;t be beaming people around in the near =
future,=20
            due to the complexity involved. But of course the related =
quantum=20
            computation which we are close to accomplishing will =
increase our=20
            computational ability almost unimaginably, so who knows. And =
we are=20
            probably less than a decade away from having practical forms =
of this=20
            technology (except for beaming people around that is). =
I&rsquo;m=20
            talking about quantum based computation and communications =
systems.=20
            With this type of communications, it can&rsquo;t be tapped =
as far as=20
            I know, and there are no practical bandwidth problems like =
we have=20
            to deal with using, fiber, cable, or transmission. I =
don&rsquo;t=20
            know about communicating with other universes. You can read =
more=20
            about this in the paper:=20
            <P>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9708004 You will need to =

            download the Adobe Acrobat 3.0 reader to actually read the =
paper.=20
            Download the paper in PDF format and use the reader. <BR =
clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1e7e5@.ee87974"><B>mark von=20
            Ehrlich</A><FONT size=3D1> - 10:40am Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> =
(#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/277">262</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>God created the universe 6000 yrs ago and it has been =
expanding=20
            at an exponential rate ever since. Duh!!! don't you big =
fancy physic=20
            types ever read the bible. It's this great new book out, =
that tells=20
            you everything you ever needed to know about life the =
universe and=20
            eveything. <BR clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1d307@.ee87974"><B>P =
Arthur=20
            Burke</A><FONT size=3D1> - 11:27am Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> (#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/278">263</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>Stephen Hawking postulates that the universe began as an=20
            'instanton', an exploding mixture of space, time, matter and =

            gravity. His collaborator Professor Neil Turok - who will =
give the=20
            paper on the new theory in London later this month while =
Hawking=20
            announces it in California - tries to explain at =
www.telegraph.co.uk=20
            in the &quot;etcetera&quot; section. <BR clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1ea96@.ee87974"><B>Erik=20
            Peterson</A><FONT size=3D1> - 06:26pm Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> =
(#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/279">264</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>It's amazing that there are more people interested in how =
the=20
            universe began than why the universe began. <BR =
clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@159c0@.ee87974"><B>M.=20
            Abley</A><FONT size=3D1> - 08:30pm Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> (#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/280">265</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>Erik Peterson: It probably has to do with what is =
observable. The=20
            &quot;whats&quot; are more accessible than the =
&quot;whys&quot;. <BR=20
            clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1ea96@.ee87974"><B>Erik=20
            Peterson</A><FONT size=3D1> - 09:50pm Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> =
(#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/281">266</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>I have a theoretical question then about the =
&quot;what&quot;.=20
            I've heard of scientists talking about the &quot;fabric of=20
            space&quot;. In the Big Bang theory was the fabric of space =
already=20
            there and a tiny point exploded all the matter outward into =
it, or=20
            was that fabric part of the tiny point and it exploded =
outward and=20
            now the fabric is expanding? In other words what is meant by =
the=20
            universe expanding, just the matter, or both the =
&quot;fabric of=20
            space&quot; and the matter? Also, if the universe has =
boundaries=20
            then are what are some theories of what is past it? =
Nothingness?=20
            I've heard that maybe if you went past the end of one side =
you would=20
            come through the other, like a ribbon that has been twisted =
and=20
            looped around and reconnected, or something like that. <BR=20
            clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@159c0@.ee87974"><B>M.=20
            Abley</A><FONT size=3D1> - 10:17pm Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> (#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/282">267</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>Erik P. Well, the notion of fabric is a result of =
relativity.=20
            Matter, space-time, and energy connected. Einstein, as you =
are=20
            aware, presented that and to the best of what has been =
observed, it=20
            makes total sense. Your questions are philosophical in =
nature.=20
            Sometimes I wonder if some things are better left =
alone.....there is=20
            more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of...(Shakespeare) =
<BR=20
            clear=3Dleft>
            <HR align=3Dleft width=3D200>
            <A =
href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?224 ^1960142@1ee84@.ee87974"><B>Bruce=20
            McCraney</A><FONT size=3D1> - 10:56pm Mar 14, 1998 ET</B> =
(#<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?14 ^1960142@.ee87974/283">268</A> of =
268)</FONT>
            <P>The expanding Universe. What universe are you refering =
to.?=20
            <P>The Solar System?=20
            <P>The Milky Way?=20
            <P>The myriad galaxies?=20
            <P>Universe expanding?=20
            <P>Stars expanding?=20
            <P>Starting at a small point?=20
            <P>Somthing is absurd here.=20
            <P>Naturalman=20
            <P>www.naturalman.com <BR clear=3Dleft>
            <HR>

            <P>If you would like to participate in this discussion, =
you'll need=20
            to <A href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?15 @14@.ee87974">sign in</A> or =
<A=20
            href=3D"/cgi-bin/WebX?18 @14@">register</A> first.=20
            =
<P><!----><!--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DPaste story =
between =
here=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--><!---->
            <CENTER><IMG alt=3Drule height=3D3=20
            src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9607/hr.gif" =
width=3D430><BR><BR>
            <BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></CENTER>
            <CENTER><BR clear=3Dall><A href=3D"#top"><IMG alt=3D"To the =
top" border=3D0=20
            height=3D45 =
src=3D"http://cnn.com/images/9607/back_to_top.gif"=20
            width=3D87></A>=20
            <P>&copy; 1998 Cable News Network, Inc.<BR>All Rights =
Reserved.</P>
            <H6><A =
href=3D"http://cnn.com/interactive_legal.html">Terms</A> under=20
            which this service is provided to=20
you.</H6></CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01BD4FE4.DBDD67A0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 09:14:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA07076;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 09:10:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 09:10:43 -0800
Message-ID: <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:10:55 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>			
		 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>
		 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net> <v03007804b12f876ac05c@[198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PwzIm.0.Uk1.Hk03r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16599
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 

> Well it seems, we must at least acknowledge that some kind of longitudinal
> force is required to reverse the electron's momentum, and the Lorentz force
> can not do this.
> 

Michael was just trying to explain these minute effects caused by the
infitesimal movement of the magnet+field, IMHO.  Can't we agree to
ignore these?  I'm an engineer and engineers ignore negligible effects
all the time - as in the design of a cathode-ray tube.

Please explain to me why the electron being reflected via a 180 degree
arc into and out of a B field differs in dynamics from a rock on a
string tied to a suitable "ground" support.  The rock is given an
initial velocity and momentum in, say, the +y direction.  The CENTRAL
force caused by tension in the string causes the rock to circle 180
degrees where we cut the string with a laser beam.  The rock proceeds
in a straight line in the -y direction at its initial speed but at
-1 times its initial momentum.  Let's agree to ignore the movement of
the Earth - it's a small rock!
Let's also ignore air drag, the only meaningful longitudinal force
acting on the rock.
Now, the rock then, was acted upon by a central force ALWAYS AT RIGHT
ANGLES TO ITS VELOCITY VECTOR.  So, I have REVERSED its momentum (its
speed is the same) while AT NO TIME ACTING ON THE ROCK WITH A FORCE
PARALLEL TO ITS DIRECTION OF INTANT MOTION.
Now, this kind of RESTRICTED mechanics problem I DID study in my ME
courses at the U of Houston, and at no time were we compelled to
introduce some mysterious longitudinal force - the central force of the
string would do the job.
Now, in the old electron doing a 180 in a B field problem, the Lorentz
force acts in a dynamically identical fasion as does the string force
in the rock model.  Now, why do we need a new force parallel to the
electron's velocity?  Honestly, Robert, I just don't understand!!

I did not discover (duh!!) the Lorentz force so I have no "parental"
attachment to it - I'm ready to trash it if doing so will add to the
understanding of this electron problem.

A much more interesting question in my mind would be a magnetic force
between TWO electrons following each other in a straight trajectory.
If we use Biot's law in a qualitative way on the following model,

		+ + + + +	+ + + + +  (magnetic lines into page)

		    X ----->v	    X ----->v  (following electrons)

		. . . . .	. . . . .  (magnetic lines out of page)

Now, could we not argue that the two magnetic fields (away from the
motion axis, where they are zero) would repell each other?  It seems
this would be in addition to the electric repulsion of the electrons.
But, since the electrons are at rest relative to one another, they would
not "see" these magnetic fields, right?  But we guys at rest would,
right?  What's going on here??  Of course, one catch might be that we
observers at rest see the magnetic fields in motion with the electrons
so here come those induced electric fields again. Arghrrrrr!
If people were intended to visualize EM fields, we probably would have
been given feromagnetic eyeballs and opposite pole ear charges!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 10:47:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25535;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 10:44:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 10:44:17 -0800
Message-ID: <007401bd4edf$a804c3c0$6d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Robin van Spaandonk" <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
Cc: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: LLs Again
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:23:58 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"x8Xl_2.0.uE6._523r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16600
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robin:

My thoughts on electron or LL binding energy and mass of a proton or
deuteron.

V = kq/R; at 5.29E-11 meters = 1.44E-9/R = 27.2 "volts".

When an electron falls to this radius it gives up 1/2 of this = 13.6 ev as
radiated photons.

Conservation of energy demands that the mass responsible for charge q gives
up 27.2 ev worth of mass for this kinetic energy plus the energy
given off as a 13.6 ev photon.
27.2/c^2 = 1.5E-16 kg is given off as the 13.6 ev photon and for the rest,
what the proton loses the binding energy gains?

>From this, if an LL is absorbed it can only fall to some radius:

R = kq/V = kq^2/{Eo[(qV/Eo)+1]}

So, the mass loss from the proton is the relativistic mass gain of the LL
(no net gain or loss)plus the mass-energy given off as photons (EUV &
x-rays).

This is cookbook physics but I never was a very good cook.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 10:53:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27531;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 10:51:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 10:51:02 -0800
Message-ID: <008401bd5042$c4ad5780$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:46:47 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"XE8581.0.3k6.KC23r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16601
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 <fstenger interlaced.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1


Frank S. wrote:

Snip some good stuff,

>
>A much more interesting question in my mind would be a magnetic force
>between TWO electrons following each other in a straight trajectory.
>
>Now, could we not argue that the two magnetic fields (away from the
>motion axis, where they are zero) would repel each other?  It seems
>this would be in addition to the electric repulsion of the electrons.
>But, since the electrons are at rest relative to one another, they would
>not "see" these magnetic fields, right?  But we guys at rest would,
>right?  What's going on here??  Of course, one catch might be that we
>observers at rest see the magnetic fields in motion with the electrons
>so here come those induced electric fields again. Arghrrrrr!

Arghrrrrr some more, Frank.  :-)

"In a reference system moving in a z direction with velocity v,in which the
charges are at rest,the magnetic field vanishes and the electric field of
one at the location of the other is E'y*q/y'^2  where y' is the separation
of the charges. In the rest system, the fields can be shown to transform by:

Ey = E'y/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2

Bx = - v/c^2* E'y/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2    y'= y

so that the force between charges is,

Fy = q(Ey + vBx)= qEy(1 - v^2/c^2) = qE'y(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2.

The force is thus reduced by a factor
(1 - v^2/c^2) compared with the electric force alone,and by a factor [1 -
(v^2/c^2)]^1/2 compared with the electric force which exists when the
charges are at rest."

Don't you see?    :-)

Actually this is seen with relativistic electron beams that diverge at low
velocity (like in a cathode ray tube) :-) , but converge at velocities very
close to c.

Methinks this is why Superstring Circles ("quarks")with like charge circling
at velocity very-very near c)can "stack up" in a nucleus without any coulomb
repulsion concerns.

>If people were intended to visualize EM fields, we probably would have
>been given ferromagnetic eyeballs and opposite pole ear charges!

Are you saying that you don't have'em?    :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>Frank Stenger
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 12:24:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14792;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:17:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:17:29 -0800
Message-ID: <350C372A.33EB interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:16:43 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <008401bd5042$c4ad5780$2d8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2xbzk1.0.xc3.NT33r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16602
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

(snip)

> 
 the fields can be shown to transform by:
> 
> Ey = E'y/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2
> 
> Bx = - v/c^2* E'y/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2    y'= y
> 
> so that the force between charges is,
> 
> Fy = q(Ey + vBx)= qEy(1 - v^2/c^2) = qE'y(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2.
> 
> The force is thus reduced by a factor
> (1 - v^2/c^2) compared with the electric force alone,and by a factor [1 -
> (v^2/c^2)]^1/2 compared with the electric force which exists when the
> charges are at rest."
 
OK, Fred.  Thanks.  After my afternoon nap, my gruel, and a pot of
coffee, I'll try to wade through that.  Actually, this probably explains
why I tend to be a skeptic - anything else is just too much work!
As a skeptic, I can just say "Stay between the lines, the lines are
our friends." - and just dose off again. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 13:47:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09349;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:43:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:43:56 -0800
Message-ID: <00a001bd505a$eaa67c60$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Robin van Spaandonk" <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
Subject: Superstring-Quark Line-up?
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 14:39:24 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"EdTjw3.0.-H2.Pk43r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16603
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Superstring Circles (Quarks?) in a nucleus.

5A - 2Z in nucleus plus Z external electrons;

2A positive (+) or "up" circles

2A - Z negative (-) or "down" circles

A - Z   neutrinos

2He3, 5A - 2Z = 6+, 4-, 1 neutrino, net charge +2

+-n+-  +-+-++


2He4, 5A - 2Z = 8+, 6-, 2 neutrinos, net charge +2

+-n+-  +-n+-  +-+-++


3Li7,  5a - 2Z = 14+, 11-, 4 neutrinos,net charge +3

+-n+-   +-n+-  +-n+- +-n+- +-+-+-+++

4Be9, 5A - 2Z = 18+, 14-, 5 neutrinos, net charge +4

+-n+-  +-n+-  +-n+-  +-n+-  +-n+- +-+-+-+-++++

Lots of work for 94Pu239, but does tend to support the Oppenheimer-Phillips
effect.


Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 15:54:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA04642;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:50:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:50:40 -0800
Message-ID: <350C67C5.57C8 skylink.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:44:05 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>			
			 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>
			 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net> <v03007804b12f876ac05c@[198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net> <350C0B9F.7505@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mwNSO2.0.M81.Fb63r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16604
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> Michael was just trying to explain these minute effects caused by the
> infitesimal movement of the magnet+field, IMHO.  Can't we agree to
> ignore these?  I'm an engineer and engineers ignore negligible effects
> all the time - as in the design of a cathode-ray tube.

>From a practical viewpoint, in many many cases, yes we can ignore
the longitudinal force. We are generally not trying to impart momentum 
via a stream of electrons. Similarly from a practical engineering point
of view you can ignore the longitudinal force which exists in the
case of the rock swinging around an "immovable" pole. You are not
trying to impart momentum to the pole. None the less, you do impart
some to the pole. In physics there is no such thing as an immovable 
object.

Anyhow, after all the discussion on this thread, it seems we no longer 
argue that a longitudinal force must exist in order to conserve
momentum. We are left with the questions: Is this force neglible, and
of no practical or scientific interest? And what is the source of the 
induced E field which causes this force?

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 16:51:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14657;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:46:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:46:15 -0800
Message-ID: <00b501bd5074$42a9e1e0$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Robin van Spaandonk" <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
Cc: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Spin 1/2 Neutrinos
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:40:54 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"UV44h1.0.xa3.MP73r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16605
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

For your cogitation, Robin.

Suppose that the neutrino is a paired q+ and q-
Superstring ring with no net charge, but:

R+ = kq^2/Eo+[(qV/Eo+)+1]

and R- = kq^2/Eo-[(qV/Eo-)+1]?

Then M+*v*R+ = hbar  and M-*v*R- = hbar/2 which could result in a net spin
1/2.

This implies that ONLY a Virtual Photon is the progenitor of this neutrino
pair, and the collision energy between an electron and a proton:

dE = hbar/dt or dx = c*dt didn't divide equally in energy in creating it.

Might this be the reason behind the neutrinos "changing spots" as it
traverses matter?

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 17:46:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25828;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000401bd4dfc$c55f5ae0$6e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: John Steck wants EXPERIMENTS!
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:20:16 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"W7wJO3.0.MJ6.b683r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16606
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Okay John, you do them.

Stuff needed:

Small Chamber capable of vacuum to 27 Torr with
a filament at one end.

Lithium Hydride, LiH (m.p. 680 C with vapor pressure of 27 Torr )
Lithium Borohydride LiBH4  Dec. 280 C
Potassium Borohydride KBH4  Dec. 500 C
Sodium Borohydride NaBH4  Dec. 400 C

300 volts peak, power supply 240 V.A.C RMS. OK.

Bombard hydrides with electrons (1.0E7 m/sec at 300 volts)to see if Pairs
are produced from collisions of electrons with protons:
dE = hbar/dt,
dt about 5.29E-18 sec., or dx = c * dt.

You will do it?    :-)

Regards,     Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 18:27:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03106;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 18:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 18:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980315212855.046f59a0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:28:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: High Weirdness from Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pa9il2.0.4m.ll83r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16608
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hello Vorts:

Check out the following URL

http://www.cyberportal.net/nuenergy/pomerlou.zip

which is a collection of some 30 jpg files. An old friend
of mine has visited this guy, and claims he has some
new energy technology. The pictures are, in a word, bizarre.
My friends description is even more so. By the way, there
is no connection between the two ( pictures and friends
story ). I don't know who or where the pictures came from.

My friend was tapped to check the guy out and see if there
was anything to it. His response was somewhat positive,
but he was not allowed to do any kind of real tests. Note the
use of macaroni as a winding form for some of the inductors.
Whimsical, yes? 

Well folks, lets hear it. Anyone have any more information
on this guy? Anyone know what the hell some of these circuits
are supposed to be doing? Some seem to show transmission of
DC without wires, although there is nothing in the pictures
which give a clue as to how this is accomplished. If you
take them at face value, the circuits have no way of working.
But friend did see them function. 

If I seem rather skeptical about this, I am. You likely will be too
when you see the pictures. But I'll throw it out to the
vortex, and give you my guarantee that for that 300k of
zipped download you will be entertained and perplexed. 
What more could you ask of the Internet?

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 18:35:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26947;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:44:51 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Double vision
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 01:26:46 +0000
Message-ID: <19980316012636.AAC19746 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"uTASK.0.ra6.lD83r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16607
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

My Eudora Lite does not and never has,  I imagine that you somehow got a
"double subscription."  I suggest you contact Bill Beaty if it is every
message being duplicated.



At 11:36 AM 3/15/98 GMT, you wrote:
>Recently my Eudora lite has been giving me a double serving of every
>messager from the Vortexians (and they alone)....like each message is
>immediatly followed by a duplicate.
>
>Any hints as to why?
>Dominic Murphy
>44+ (0)181 580 2715
>0973 886770 (mobile)
>dominic dircon.co.uk
>
>


Ed Wall
ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
-- Juvenal

Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
[Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 19:54:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA22738;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 19:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 19:51:02 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <1aa0313f.350ca0d5 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:47:33 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"dcGJX.0.8Z5.Y6A3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16609
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,
I have completed the apparatus to experiment in using a high frequency
(82 KHz) glow discharge using K as one of the electrodes and W as
the other.  My junk bin turned up an old Bell & Gossett Model LVGH vacuum
pump that could only pump down to about 25 in Hg. I hooked it up to the 
reactor tube and with the HV on, produced a beautiful violet arc in the 
quartz tube between the two tungsten filiments. Closing off the pump valve
caused the arc to die after about 10 seconds indicating leaks in the system.
Not a problem as I had only hand tightened all the fittings and had not
applied any sealent to the copper pipe / tygon tubing connections.  I just
wanted to check the HV wiring and basic setup.  I worked beyond my 
wildest dreams! A great day today.

Tomorrow (monday) I will stop at the WW Grainger store and purchase the
vacuum pump that Robert Eachus recommended. I figure if I can get such
a nice arc with my cheapo old dentists vacuum pump why go for a $$$$
.1 micron pump when a 25 micron will probably do just fine.
I have taken pictures of the construction of this thingy and will upload them
via private e-mail to anyone who is interested. Not going to post to Vortex
as I don't want to eat up Mr. Bills disk space and make him get mad not
to mention all the others who are not interested.  The film is still in the 
camera but as soon as the roll is finished I will send it off to Seattle
Filmworks for processing. Anyone interested in photos please let me know.

Scott     Earthtech:
 Please let me know about the offered K metal. Don't need much,
just a couple of grams. A lump about .250 ~ .300 square would do it I think.
 I will call you for details.

Still to get (this week I hope)  
A tank of H2 and a tank of Ar.  I want to load the K under Ar and also use
it a a system purge gas.  I wish K wasn't such a pain to handle.

Also thinking of using that old dentists vacuum pump as a fore pump. Can't
hurt and it might help the good one really suck. <g>

Scott, you had said I was in the "rose period" of this experiment the other 
day. Well, sort of last week, but the "Rose" period _really_ started today
when I saw that beautiful arc start in the reactor tube I had spent so much
time putting together.  
All of you on Vortex have been an inspiration to me. And to all of you have
responded to "looking for a pump", thank you, especially the safety concerns.
They will be followed very carefully.  On that note, I purchased two
additional fire extinguishers today, 1 CO2 and 1 dry chemical.

Regards to all,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 21:19:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25000;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:09:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:09:09 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Double vision
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 06:09:00 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350dbe8d.61624041 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <199803151136.LAA14926 popmail.dircon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <199803151136.LAA14926 popmail.dircon.co.uk>
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: <"3QDcO3.0.Y66.pFB3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16610
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:36:13 GMT, Dominic Murphy wrote:

>Recently my Eudora lite has been giving me a double serving of every
>messager from the Vortexians (and they alone)....like each message is
>immediatly followed by a duplicate.
>
>Any hints as to why?
>Dominic Murphy
>44+ (0)181 580 2715
>0973 886770 (mobile)
>dominic dircon.co.uk
>
If you are subscribed to both freenrg-l and vortex-l, sometimes the
filter on your mail program will route both copies of a message into
the same folder.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 15 21:26:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA08191;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350CC5AC.475418F9 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:24:46 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
References: <3.0.32.19980315212855.046f59a0 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RDQYq3.0.v_1.AUB3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16611
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Do you have any more info on him?
Did your friend relay any stories?
Did he indicate if there was any (psychic) connection to the operator ?
Anything else about this very odd chain of experiments?


Keith Nagel wrote:

> Hello Vorts:
>
> Check out the following URL
>
> http://www.cyberportal.net/nuenergy/pomerlou.zip
>
> which is a collection of some 30 jpg files. An old friend
> of mine has visited this guy, and claims he has some
> new energy technology. The pictures are, in a word, bizarre.
> My friends description is even more so. By the way, there
> is no connection between the two ( pictures and friends
> story ). I don't know who or where the pictures came from.
>
> My friend was tapped to check the guy out and see if there
> was anything to it. His response was somewhat positive,
> but he was not allowed to do any kind of real tests. Note the
> use of macaroni as a winding form for some of the inductors.
> Whimsical, yes?
>
> Well folks, lets hear it. Anyone have any more information
> on this guy? Anyone know what the hell some of these circuits
> are supposed to be doing? Some seem to show transmission of
> DC without wires, although there is nothing in the pictures
> which give a clue as to how this is accomplished. If you
> take them at face value, the circuits have no way of working.
> But friend did see them function.
>
> If I seem rather skeptical about this, I am. You likely will be too
> when you see the pictures. But I'll throw it out to the
> vortex, and give you my guarantee that for that 300k of
> zipped download you will be entertained and perplexed.
> What more could you ask of the Internet?
>
> KPN



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 21:58:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA13266;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980315235413.008c51a0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:54:13 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <1aa0313f.350ca0d5 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"zqN4T3.0.BF3.iwB3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16613
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:47 PM 3/15/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:

>Scott     Earthtech:
> Please let me know about the offered K metal. Don't need much,
>just a couple of grams. A lump about .250 ~ .300 square would do it I think.

I'll get some out tomorrow and try cleaning off the oil, working with it,
etc.  If it catches the solvent wipes on fire like Li sometimes does, I'll
let you know...<g>

Just send me your mailing address and you'll have the K soon.  Of course,
feel free to call and discuss things.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 15 21:59:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA32474;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:51:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:51:23 -0800
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803160551.VAA00396 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 <dequickert ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Magnetics question for Ross
Resent-Message-ID: <"A1Rs02.0.Cx7.PtB3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16612
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross, thanks for your response. You've given much to think about recently, I
really appreciate it. The silence you'll be hearing from me in return is not
from inattention, just lots of contemplation and trying to catch up :-)

and Peter Nielsen wrote:

>Plasma aside, you can use stepped Helmholtz coils. The drive speed and
>radius of enclosed space determines velocity of the vortex. How high do you
>want to get?
>
>Peter Nielsen

Thanks, Peter. I'm going to file that away with the rest of the ideas I got
earlier. For right now I'm going to be focusing on learning quite a bit more
before trying to hatch an experimental idea. Among other things, got to try
to digest Ross's theories some.

Dan Quickert


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 15 22:18:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA05178;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:16:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:16:11 -0800
From: "Paul Brown" <brownpm concentric.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:15:39 -0700
Message-ID: <01bd50a2$f0d72ec0$c9a89bcf isonix>
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: <"jGL861.0.lG1.gEC3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16614
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada


>Do you have any more info on him?
>Did your friend relay any stories?
>Did he indicate if there was any (psychic) connection to the operator ?
>Anything else about this very odd chain of experiments?
>
>
>Keith Nagel wrote:
>
>> Hello Vorts:
>>
>> Check out the following URL
>>
>> http://www.cyberportal.net/nuenergy/pomerlou.zip
>>
>> which is a collection of some 30 jpg files. An old friend
>> of mine has visited this guy, and claims he has some
>> new energy technology. The pictures are, in a word, bizarre.
>> My friends description is even more so. By the way, there
>> is no connection between the two ( pictures and friends
>> story ). I don't know who or where the pictures came from.
>>
>> My friend was tapped to check the guy out and see if there
>> was anything to it. His response was somewhat positive,
>> but he was not allowed to do any kind of real tests. Note the
>> use of macaroni as a winding form for some of the inductors.
>> Whimsical, yes?
>>
>> Well folks, lets hear it. Anyone have any more information
>> on this guy? Anyone know what the hell some of these circuits
>> are supposed to be doing? Some seem to show transmission of
>> DC without wires, although there is nothing in the pictures
>> which give a clue as to how this is accomplished. If you
>> take them at face value, the circuits have no way of working.
>> But friend did see them function.
>>
>> If I seem rather skeptical about this, I am. You likely will be too
>> when you see the pictures. But I'll throw it out to the
>> vortex, and give you my guarantee that for that 300k of
>> zipped download you will be entertained and perplexed.
>> What more could you ask of the Internet?
>>
>> KPN
>
It is Daniel Pomerlou. The energy demonstrated is supposed to be
psycho-kinetic. Daniel has been giving such demonstrations for years. He
claims that he can "see" aether energy flows and asks them to flow into
circuits. Guy Oblenski was working with Daniel, last I heard, trying to
verify the demo.
Paul Brown

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 00:01:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA25530;
	Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <001e01bd50b1$dccfeed0$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Sorry -- This is a test
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 01:02:26 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Swgl8.0.qE6.ykD3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16615
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

test

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 04:23:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA15053;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 04:20:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 04:20:06 -0800
Message-ID: <011701bd50d5$471a3d40$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Quasi-Neutron Production?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 05:15:53 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"AC_rb1.0.7h3.rZH3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16616
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

As a first step in the PeP production of a Deuteron, might it be possible
that a "Quasi-Neutron" is produced from the collision of an electron with a
Proton,which concurrently produces a Pair from a Virtual Photon , ie., a
Neutrino? resulting in a bound state.

Subsequent (but rare)collision of this neutral particle with a Proton then
creates the Deuteron?

e-  ---->  P+ Virtual Photon Pair Production:

 ---->  [-(+-)+] where (+-) is
the neutrino, - is the electron, + is the Proton,resulting in the
Quasi-Neutron [-(+-)+].

The energy would be provided by the potential
V = kq/R of the Proton-Electron-neutrino,

R = kq^2/Eo*[(qV/Eo)+1] where Eo is the rest energy of the neutrino pair
created in the Electron-Proton (Virtual Photon) collision:

dE = hbar/dt or dx = c*dt energetically allowed.

Not a "real" Neutron, nor a Hydrino, but something in between that can
release EUV to x-ray energy (about 2 Kev if the radius is about 3.86E-13
meters)while being formed and producing reactions when absorbed by heavier
nuclei.

Regards,    Frederick






From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 05:49:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA24566;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 05:46:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 05:46:45 -0800
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <350CD6E8.2779FDB0 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:38:16 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
References: <3.0.32.19980315212855.046f59a0 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cpbfO3.0.k_5.3rI3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16617
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
 
 Hello Vorts:
 
 Check out the following URL
 
 http://www.cyberportal.net/nuenergy/pomerlou.zip
 
 which is a collection of some 30 jpg files. An old friend
 of mine has visited this guy, and claims he has some
 new energy technology. The pictures are, in a word, bizarre.
 My friends description is even more so. By the way, there
 is no connection between the two ( pictures and friends
 story ). I don't know who or where the pictures came from.
 
 My friend was tapped to check the guy out and see if there
 was anything to it. His response was somewhat positive,
 but he was not allowed to do any kind of real tests. Note the
 use of macaroni as a winding form for some of the inductors.
 Whimsical, yes?
 
 Well folks, lets hear it. Anyone have any more information
 on this guy? Anyone know what the hell some of these circuits
 are supposed to be doing? Some seem to show transmission of
 DC without wires, although there is nothing in the pictures
 which give a clue as to how this is accomplished. If you
 take them at face value, the circuits have no way of working.
 But friend did see them function.
 
 If I seem rather skeptical about this, I am. You likely will be too
 when you see the pictures. But I'll throw it out to the
 vortex, and give you my guarantee that for that 300k of
 zipped download you will be entertained and perplexed.
 What more could you ask of the Internet?
 
 KPN
 
 From: "Paul Brown" <brownpm concentric.net>
 To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
 Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:15:39 -0700
 
 It is Daniel Pomerlou. The energy demonstrated is supposed to be
 psycho-kinetic. Daniel has been giving such
 demonstrations for years. He
 claims that he can "see" aether energy flows and asks them to flow into
 circuits. Guy Oblenski was working with Daniel, last I heard, trying o
 verify the demo.
 
 Paul Brown

Hi Keith,

Out of curiosity, how did you find this zip
file on the Nuenergy web site?  I don't see
any way to get to it unless one knows it's
there.

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 06:08:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26317;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 06:07:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 06:07:17 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <350D3206.F9FE81A1 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:07:02 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: John Steck wants EXPERIMENTS!
References: <000401bd4dfc$c55f5ae0$6e8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"36HMM3.0.0R6.J8J3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16618
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

> Okay John, you do them.

I am.... 8^)    Nothing interesting to report yet.

> Stuff needed:

A bit beyond my resources at the moment.  Not really my sandbox either.

> You will do it?    :-)

No.  I have a few other things in line that I would like to try before opening
the focus a bit.  Right now I am focusing on mechanically inducing aether
densities via energy vortex structures.  I don't think it takes anything
exotic, just the right design parameters.  The hard part is figuring out what
the parameters are.  From there it becomes just trial and error..... 8^) 


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 06:58:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA00250;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 06:54:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 06:54:00 -0800
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <350CE6AA.25ED55A5 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:45:30 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC. - Not to worry about Asteroids.
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.980314231019.18159E-100000 liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RBrZR3.0.q3.6qJ3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16619
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Martin Sevior wrote:

Following up on Jed's gloomy post about an Asteroid impact,
here's what Robert Park has to say on on a number of
topics of interest to Vortexians this week.

Cheers, Martin

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 13 Mar 98   Washington, DC

1. CO2: "A WONDERFUL GIFT FROM THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION."  You
may have received a petition card in the mail this week urging
the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto global-warming accord. 
The return address was a P.O. Box in La Jolla.  It came with a
note signed by physicist Frederick Seitz, an 8-page "review" of
the environmental consequences of carbon dioxide--all good--and a
6 Dec 97 op-ed from the Wall Street Journal.  The op-ed explains
how we can all make this a better world: burn more hydrocarbons. 
This "moves them from below the ground and turns them into living
things... No other single technological factor is more important
to the quality, length and quantity of human life than the
expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons."  The
only thing missing was any hint of who paid for the mailing. The
APS has not taken a position on the issue -- perhaps it should.

Hi Martin,

Here is an interesting letter from "Science News", 3-7-98, p. 147:

"Children of the C4 World" (SN, 1/3/98, p.14) left out a very
important detail about the Himalayas.  During the Miocene,
the Himalayas were rising.  As they pushed up into the atmosphere,
they drained carbon dioxide, reducing the greenhouse effect and
resulting in a cooling of the planet and the onset of ice ages.
This decrease in carbon dioxide would make a perfect growing
climate for C4 grass all over the planet.  Sev Slaymaker

Quoting from the 1-3-98 article:

James R. Ehleringer and Thure E. Cerling "propose that ... during
the days of the dinosaurs ... carbon dioxide had a concentration
of more than 1000 parts per million, whereas the value before the
Industrial Revolution hovered near 280 ppm.  Ehleringer and Cerling
speculate that as carbon dioxide values dropped slowly over time,
they eventually reached a level --around 500 ppm-- that inhibited
the efficiency of C3 plants."

Maureen Raymo has evidence that as the Indian plate continues
to collide with the Asian plate, more and more rock face is
being exposed, leadimng to the capture in sediemtary rock of
more and more CO2.  One possible stable condition resulting
from this process is the ice-ball Earth.

The controlled release of CO2 might be able to maintain things 
as they are now (the best of all possible worlds?); but if global
warming is going to continue, it might be better to go faster
rather than slower.  A frightening possibility is that the Arctic
ice cap could melt exposing open water to very cold air.  This
could result in "lake-effect snow" all over North America
with 100 feet falling in July.  This white blanket, reflecting
sunlight into space, could begin the last ice age (until the Sun
becomes a red giant?)

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 07:26:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09052;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980316092157.00b184ec mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:21:57 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Potassium
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"M7FYY.0.FD2.-EK3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16620
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I cleaned the oil off a 1" long 1" dia cyl. of K metal (already heavily
oxidized) this morning by rinsing it with toluene.  With a pocket knife I
easily sliced off a 1/16" thick slab to remove the oxide covering from one
end and then I sliced off a 1/4" thick piece to send to Vince.  I scraped
off the oxide skin (and some K metal) from the edges of the 1/4" thick
piece onto a paper towel.

In less than a minute the paper towel caught fire where the little
scrapings were furiously oxidizing on it.

Then I noticed that the 1/16" slab had melted!  K's m.p. is
63C...apparently the heat from oxidation of the surface was sufficient to
melt the relatively thin piece.  Fortunately it just sat there on a
non-combustible surface and oxidized quietly.

I put the 1/4" long 1" dia slice in a small jar and covered it with oil.

Vince, are you ready for it!?  

1/4" thick 1" dia K is only ~3 grams...think that's enough?



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 Mar 16 08:58:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28421;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:55:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:55:26 -0800
Message-ID: <350D58F9.6220 interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:53:13 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Potassium
References: <3.0.1.32.19980316092157.00b184ec mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cRkWi.0.yx6.xbL3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16621
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
(snip good narative)

> In less than a minute the paper towel caught fire where the little
> scrapings were furiously oxidizing on it.
> 

How about using a 15 --> 20 gallon fish aquarium for a "glove box"?
Lay the aquarium on one side, cover the open top (now side) with a
loose sheet of plastic with rubber gloves taped in for access.
Tape in a few tubes for purge-gas, purge-vent, etc.  Magnetic strip
based access hatch closure?  Did Vince say he was going to get some
argon gas? - good purge!  N2 cheaper?  CO2 even cheaper?  Or would
K displace C from CO2? Chemists? (I'm sure it would displace SOMETHING
from a chemist!)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 09:06:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25314;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <014201bd50fc$6bd2ce00$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:56:04 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"r4__L3.0.OB6.RhL3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16622
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Electron bombardment of a Hydrogenous material such as a polyethylene or
polypropylene plastic film (Glad sandwich or Garbage bags) mounted on a
metal plate, or such.

About any electron energy over 27.2 volts that strikes a hydrogen atom in
the plastic MIGHT create a Virtual Photon Pair with a rest mass-energy of
less than 17 ev (the estimated rest mass of the Neutrino).    :-)

Again, dE = hbar/dt and dx = c*dt for the collision should make the
Quasi-Neutron.

An Electron Beam Welder cranked way down should
do this, otherwise the indirectly-heated cathode out of a vacuum tube would
work.

If John Steck would come out of his Vortex.  :-)

Will they turn Protons into Deuterons and Deuterons into Tritium, do that
other "Cold Fusion (and Hot Fusion) stuff?

Regards,     Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 09:14:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26729;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <014701bd50fd$c0e31f20$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Potassium
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:05:37 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"77um92.0.XX6.RqL3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16623
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 <fstenger interlaced.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Potassium


>Scott Little wrote:
>>
>(snip good narative)
>
>> In less than a minute the paper towel caught fire where the little
>> scrapings were furiously oxidizing on it.
>>
>
>How about using a 15 --> 20 gallon fish aquarium for a "glove box"?
>Lay the aquarium on one side, cover the open top (now side) with a
>loose sheet of plastic with rubber gloves taped in for access.
>Tape in a few tubes for purge-gas, purge-vent, etc.  Magnetic strip
>based access hatch closure?  Did Vince say he was going to get some
>argon gas? - good purge!  N2 cheaper?  CO2 even cheaper?  Or would
>K displace C from CO2?

No, but 2 K + 2 H2O (from the humidity in the air) = 2 KOH + H2 then CO2 + 2
KOH = K2CO3 + 1/2 O2 which combines with the H2 = H2O and then K2 + CO2 = CO
(carbon monoxide) + K2O which combines with the H2O = KOH + KH and on and
on..... :-)

 Chemists? (I'm sure it would displace SOMETHING
>from a chemist!)

Right On!   :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>Frank Stenger
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 09:17:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00575;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:12:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:12:38 -0800
X-Sender: wharton 128.183.200.226
Message-Id: <v03020900b132fd62262f [128.183.200.195]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:07:17 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Science fair project - iron from wood
Resent-Message-ID: <"hc8Nj1.0.n8.4sL3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16624
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

  To Vortex,

  My third grade daughter has just turned in her science fair project.  The
project was to find out how much iron is in the ash of burned wood.  I knew
from reading about alchemy in Infinite Energy that it was thought that
reacting carbon with oxygen produces iron.  Also I remember when John
Bockris spoke here at Goddard he said that this could be done.  So I
figured that burning wood in the fireplace would produce iron.  This seems
totally bogus because you need two Oxygen(6,12) plus two Carbon(8,16) to
give Cobalt(28,56) which then has two electron capture decays, first to
Nickel and then to Iron(26,56).  However there does seem to somehow be some
iron resulting.
  At first my daughter did not like the idea as she thought that it was
stupid.  Later she agreed to do it because the deadline was two days away
and she did not have any other ideas.  We burned up about 50 pounds of wood
in the fireplace and ran a magnet through the ashes.  We got about 1 cc of
magnetic material weighing about .1 ounces.  Not wanting to get into
supposed bogus pathological science, we gave a hypothesis that forest fires
release iron containing ash that falls to the forest floor.  This iron,
which is essential for plant growth, would then help the new forest to
regrow.  The implication is that the iron is already in the trees and that
the fire "releases" it.
  After seeing that you get a fair amount of magnetic material that is fun
to play with, with my daughter was quite pleased with the project and
wanted to have another fire so she could make some more material to play
with.  Friends at school asked her how she did it and they plan to do the
experiment also.  It is not very hard, you just burn up some wood and run a
magnet through the ashes.
  It looks like there will be quite a good number of young alchemists
coming up.  By the time they are grown up, I would guess that we will know
where the iron in burned wood comes from - either from transmutation or
existing iron supplies in the wood.

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 Mar 16 09:31:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05178;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:29:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:29:34 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <350D6175.88610BE1 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:29:25 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
References: <014201bd50fc$6bd2ce00$2d8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"zLNYY2.0.pG1.y5M3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16625
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

> If John Steck would come out of his Vortex.  :-)

Sorry, only room for one in my delusional madness, though the straight jacket
does fit nice...... ha ha ha

Quasi-Neutrons?  Going for your name in a textbook or do you have something
mind if it works?  I guess I am missing the point of the exercise.


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 09:42:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08366;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:41:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:41:06 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b13314113c7d [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <350C67C5.57C8 skylink.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>						
 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>			
 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>
 <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>
 <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:41:31 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"3wGnz2.0.Q22.kGM3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16626
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman asked:
>And what is the source of the induced E field which causes this [parallel
>to velocity] force?

The E comes from a change in B, or equivalently, a change in A. The
magnetic field changes in magnitude and/or direction and/or the whole field
structure displaces. Which happens depends on the case at hand.

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 Mar 16 10:00:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13252;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:57:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:57:31 -0800
Message-ID: <017901bd5104$7280bac0$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:52:57 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"1GUe31.0.lE3.8WM3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16627
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?


>Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>
>> If John Steck would come out of his Vortex.  :-)
>
>Sorry, only room for one in my delusional madness, though the straight
jacket
>does fit nice...... ha ha ha
>
>Quasi-Neutrons?  Going for your name in a textbook or do you have something
>mind if it works?

I though it might be something for Martha Stewart to add to her Web Page,
John.  :-)

>
>I guess I am missing the point of the exercise.

Most likely. :-) Just wasting time waiting for Frank Stenger to wake up.
:-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>
>--
>John E. Steck
>Prototype Tool Engineering
>Motorola CSS, Libertyville
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 10:12:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15665;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:09:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:09:53 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:13:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: progress
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980316160414.13318A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"C47Uj3.0.cq3.lhM3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16628
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortex,

No trouble making crosslinked gels. Going to ditch polygycol 400
dimethacrylate and use something much smaller as I want a highly
crosslinked structure with most of the properties of the polyacrylic acid
salt. The PG400MA is too big.

I tried 1,2 Butynediol it seems quite unreactive, even with that triple
bond. The -OH groups must be withdrawing electrons. Anyway, only chose it
because the alternative, propargyl alcohol is nasty stuff and toxic by
inhalation. Just gotta be careful and use a fume hood.

Theory of operation of the vesicles is all complete now. Finishing the
paper *and* I'm going to put experimental results in it! This will be
submitted to (forgive me) mainstream journals without the contentiousness
of strange physics.

Also had a thought. The biggest trouble I'm having is with osmotic
pressure breaking things or squeesing things out. Why not use polyvinyl
alcohol as that is hygroscopic and water soluble? Shall look up
preparation procedures.

I'm using this account because iesun9's had some clever software installed
to stop junk mail. Trouble is, when one subscribes to a list server, one's
messages don't echo. That with terrible email problems on both accounts is
very confusing.

Have fun.
Remi.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 10:24:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18915;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:20:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:20:06 -0800
From: tv juno.com
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Cc: Vcockeram aol.com, little@eden.com
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:15:35 -0800
Subject: Correa PAGD experiments
Message-ID: <19980316.101536.4054.3.tv juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8-20
Resent-Message-ID: <"6OHMz.0.Td4.LrM3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16629
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vince Cockeram and Scott Little,

If Blacklight Power and Hydrino's don't pan out, why not try Correa's
Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge invention.   Unlike Blacklight Power,  the
Correa device directly converts to electrical energy.  The Correa's have
documented their work very well.   Need about 110 small lead-acid
batteries to do the experiment like Correa.  Tube is simple but requires
careful vacuum cleanliness.  Patent even describes how to build a
plexiglass tube.

For more info see:

http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/
United States Patent 5,416,391
United States Patent 5,449,989
United States Patent 5,502,354
Recent Articles in Infinite Energy Magazine by Correa and Mike Carrel


Tim Vaughan
( tv juno.com )

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 10:30:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12188;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350D6CC7.2C75 skylink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:17:43 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>						
	 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>			
	 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>
	 <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>
	 <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net> <v03007800b13314113c7d@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3LKWh.0.J-2.pwM3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16630
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
>>And what is the source of the induced E field which causes this [parallel
>>to velocity] force? 
> The E comes from a change in B, or equivalently, a change in A. The
> magnetic field changes in magnitude and/or direction and/or the whole field
> structure displaces. Which happens depends on the case at hand.

Yes an induced E field generates the longitudinal force. In the
motional reference frame of the moving electron, there is 
a relatively large E field generated due to dA/dt. As the 
electron moves with velocity v into an A field from a region of 
space where there is no A field, the electron sees a relatively
large time changing A field (dA/dt). 

The value of dA/dt, is proportional to the electron's velocity and 
proportional to the spacial derivative of A in the direction of the 
electron's motion. 

   E = (v.dot.del)A = dA/dt in frame of electron motion.

And if you stay in the line of the electron's motion, it can be
written equivalently as:

   E = grad(v.dot.A) = dA/dt in frame of electron motion.


Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 11:16:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19645;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:09:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b133265c8899 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <350D6CC7.2C75 skylink.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>							
 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>				
 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>	
 <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>	
 <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net> <v03007800b13314113c7d@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:08:04 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y118P3.0.mo4.SZN3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16631
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:

>The value of dA/dt, is proportional to the electron's velocity and
>proportional to the spacial derivative of A in the direction of the
>electron's motion.
>
>   E = (v.dot.del)A = dA/dt in frame of electron motion.	(1)

Under some circumstances, yes. However, this is not the complete expression
of dA/dt.

>And if you stay in the line of the electron's motion, it can be
>written equivalently as:
>
>   E = grad(v.dot.A) = dA/dt in frame of electron motion.	(2)

No. Eq. (2) does not follow mathematically from Eq. (1). It should be

   dA/dt = (v dot del)A = div(vA) - (div v)A = div(vA).		(3)

Now, div v = 0 for this class of problems, but div(vA), the divergence of
the tensor formed from the two vectors v and A, is not the same as (2).  To
convince you, consider a charged particle traveling in the x-direction and
incident upon a magnetic field B pointing in the z-direction. The vector
potential of this B points in the negative-y-direction. The product v dot A
is zero. Yet we know that the particle trajectory will be bent. Eq. (2)
fails in this simple example.

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 Mar 16 11:54:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24861;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13326b70aa3 [199.237.131.235]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:44:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id LAA24813
Resent-Message-ID: <"NIXey.0.M46.K0O3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16632
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello Vorts,

I signed back on to vortex Fri the 13th thinking maybe I could just watch,
but, darn it Fred, I just can't resist putting my 2 cents worth in  ...

I really like your Quasi-Neutron idea, but wonder about the possibility of
using even more energy to create ordinary leptons (instead of LL's) in the
process.  In a wild and wooly private collaboration with Prof. Elio Conte
in 1996, which I agreed to keep confident for a while to let him publish
(that time interval is long gone, and haven't heard from Elio Conte or seen
a publication either) the discuission led to a similar experiment as you
propose, performed by Conte et al, with (preliminarily and possibly
erroneous) positive results!  The motivation was his p + e --> n quantum
theory, but the experiment was similar. Here is the relevant
correspondence, including some of my typical blunders and wild
speculations:


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3/24/96:
[snip]
>Dear Horace,
>yes,there was an error that we eliminated:we executed the bombardment
>under vacuum in an accelerator for 1700 sec,but now we have eliminated
>the error.Naturally.the 90 Sr is unable to recover the energetic conditions
>of the experiment,but the advantage is that it is in equilibrium with 90Y
>that instead has a continuous spectrum up to 2.24 Mev and thus has
>the required condition to emit  also electrons with 800 kev.Our source gives
>120000 electrons/sec.The surprising fact is that we observed also the effect
>with the anode under vacuum:however it must be considered that we bombarded
>only for 1700 sec and thus a sufficient time to still conserve some protons?In
>any case they remained in the tube.
>I continue to see with interest your idea to use the plastic,now it is more
>clear and we could advance if you could prospect with some detail your
>proposed arrangement of this version of the experiment.From a scientific
>viewpoint it should be of great importance to arrive to final positive results
>using different versions of the same experimentation.
>Thanking in advance,I remain.
>                                                  Yours Sincerely
>                                                     Elio Conte
>---
>Prof Elio Conte
>Centro Studi Radioattività e Radioecologia
>Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia


Let me first correct some of my errors above.  I meant to say for the
deuterium in the LiH you might find:

e + D -> nn -> n + n!

The above would also apply to plastic targets, where you would find D in
it's natural isotopic ratio.  In addition, for the Li you might get
something like:

e + Li7 -> He7

followed in 3x10^-21 seconds by:

He7 -> He6 + n

followed in .807 seconds by:

He6 -> Li6 + e (3.51 MeV beta)

which has the very nice attribute of supplying a very energetic extra beta
which can cascade with electrons and produce many more reactions.  The main
problem with this idea, of course, is not knowing if the reaction e + Li7
-> He7 is possible under your theory, and if so, at what energy.


Another error I made was in assuming the Sr90 betas were of no use because
they are .546 MeV.  This is not true because when the .546 MeV betas
approac the H nuleus they accelerate into the Coulomb well and gain over
500 KeV before reaching the required 1 femtometer distance for your
hypothesized reaction.  The Sr90 betas are actually too energetic.  They
will benefit from being slowed somewhat by interaction with other
neighboring electrons.


About the experimental design, one major problem hampering good design is
not knowing the cross section of your proposed e + p reaction.  The binding
occurs at about 1 fm, but since the two particles are charged, they will
attract, thus increasing the effective cross section of the reaction to
more than 1 fm^2.  If it is not much more than 1 fm^2, then you will see
almost no neutrons generated because the cross section is too small to have
any detectable neutrons formed with only 120000 electrons/sec.  Let us
proceed with the design assuming that an adequate cross section exists.


Two good candidates for plastics are polyethylene and polypropylene.  They
both have 2 H for each C, and no other atoms involved.

Let us assume we are using Polyethylene, as it is the simplest polymer, and
it is tough from -50 C to +93 C.  It comes in specific gravities of .912 to
.965. Let us assume specific gravity .93.  It has a dielectric strength of
about 500 V per .001 in, or 200,000 V / cm.  It has a volume resistivity of
about .5 x 10^-16 ohm-cm.  These electrical characteristics indicate the
need to make a very thin film, a film thick enough that many electrons are
absorbed, but thin enough that the charge build-up inside the plastic film
is neutralized by electron migration to a grounded (connected to ground)
conducting backplate.  If possible, I think the best material for such a
backplate is an enriched uranium foil which will magnify the neutron
production.   This should be followed by a boron compound (what I call
neutron converter) to generate alphas, which I understand you already have.
I feel you must have already selected a good  thickness for the boron
layer.  Of course the scintillation layer follows that.

The main difficulty in selecting a plastic thickness and being able to
predict expected performance of the plastic layer is that the cross section
of the e + p reaction is not known.


It is not a concern that the plastic will absorb the neutrons generated.
The cross sections for thermal neutron absorbtion in the elements involved
is:

H   .332 barns
D    .52 mb
C12  3.5 mb

This gives a cross section for a molecular unit of H2C as 0.668 barn.  The
molecular unit has a molecular weight of 14.0268.  A cubic centimeter
contains .93 g, or .0663 mol, or 3.99 x 10^22 molecular units.  A barn is
10^-28 m^2, so we would expect to absorb 1 neutron in 25000 in the 1 cm
thick plastic.  This means plastic thickness is not a problem in regard to
neutron absorbtion.  It appears the only conern is making the plastic thin
enough that there is not enough electron accumulation in the plastic to
repell the new incoming electrons.  I would try an ordinary plastic
sandwich bag.  If you use an accelerator, you should not need over 300 keV.
If you use the ion source, just place it on top of the plastic.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X-POP3-Rcpt: hheffner anc
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:02:20 +0100
X-Sender: conte teseo.it (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: hheffner anc.ak.net
From: conte teseo.it (Elio Conte)
Subject: Help,Help.......

Dear Horace,
the polypropylene runs! We have obtained a neutron every 2000sec using a
plastic target having dimensions 1cm for 1 cm for 2 mm.It has been posed
in direct contact with a radioactive source having 90Sr+90 Y.For the rivelation
of the neutron it has been used an ultra low BF3 detector connected with a
multichannel analyzer.Our background neutron is about a neutron every 5000-
6000 sec.As you see,since these cannot be considered actual experiments
but preliminar attempts that of course have their extreme relevance in order to
verify that the phenomenon existes, it is need now a continuous repetition of
the same experiments in order to obtain reproducible results.
If these preliminar experiments(those with Al and those with plastic) will be
confirmed,we must think to have a true source of protons at rest colliding
with electrons of proper energy in order to verify the efficiency of the
process.
Nothing may be said at the moment about an experimental evalutation of
the probability of formation of the neutron since we are using fortuitous
sources of protons withouth any sagacity to favour a pure collision between
the proton and the electron.Theoretically,the probability of formation of
the neutron
with proton at rest and proper electron energy is one,but the precise physical
conditions must be realized and now we are very far away.It is very
important,now,
to make only attempts to verify that actually the neutrons are formed:
have you a beta source?.areyou in the condition to make the surface loading of
Al or to use plastic?Are you in the condition to detect directly or indirectly
the neutrons?If yes,why do you not attempt,if possible,to repeat some of our
prelimar experiments to verify if you obtain the sane results?
Have you detailed informations on the neutron background in the world?May you
inform me on these data?In your previous messages you considered a book
on the loading of H in metals.I do not find this book in italy.
 Sincerely.Elio Conte
---
Prof Elio Conte
Centro Studi Radioattività e Radioecologia
Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Prof Conte:

Congratulations on your preliminary success with a plastic target!

I wrote:

"It is not a concern that the plastic will absorb the neutrons generated.
The cross sections for thermal neutron absorbtion in the elements involved
is:

H   .332 barns
D    .52 mb
C12  3.5 mb

This gives a cross section for a molecular unit of H2C as 0.668 barn.  The
molecular unit has a molecular weight of 14.0268.  A cubic centimeter
contains .93 g, or .0663 mol, or 3.99 x 10^22 molecular units.  A barn is
10^-28 m^2, so we would expect to absorb 1 neutron in 25000 in the 1 cm
thick plastic.  This
                                       ^^^^^
Error - should be 1 neutron in 2.5


means plastic thickness is not a problem in regard to neutron absorbtion.
It appears the only conern is making the plastic thin enough that there is
not enough electron accumulation in the plastic to repell the new incoming
electrons.  I would try an ordinary plastic sandwich bag.  If you use an
accelerator, you should not need over 300 keV.  If you use the ion source,
just place it on top of the plastic. "


Please note that I made a calculation error above in that I used barns as
10^-28 m^2 and applied to a cm^2 value. The correct answer is 1 in 2.5
neutrons absorbed in a 1 cm thick piece of plastic, still the same
practical result of no effect of the plastic.  Using a typical .00254 cm
thickness plastic sheet that is one neutron in 157.

Regarding "grounding" the metal backplate: it occured to me that, in the
case of the beta source, what is important is connecting the backplate to
the beta source to complete the electron flow circuit.

On the question of Li6 vs Li7: I mentioned Li7 reaction which might involve
electron capture via your theory because Li7 is 92.5 percent abundant in
nature, while Li6 is only 7.5 percent abundant.

Also, if the electron capture occurs in the Li6 directly, then you directly
arrive at the secondary reaction I suggested earlier after the neutron
emission from He7, i.e.:

    He6 -> Li6 + e + 3.51 MeV

which suggests the Li6 electron capture is not feasible in the first place,
because it should take 3.51 MeV to reverse.  Perhaps your theory  has some
light to shed on this reaction? I am not sure what to think about this.
There is something very unusual going on.

You also might want to keep in mind the reaction:

    n  +  Li6  --->  T  +  He4

which might be energetic enough to affect your BF3 counter directly by
counting the energetic T and the He4.  This is still success of course,
because hopefully you generated the n to begin with via e + p -> n.  Note
that the Li6 acts as the "neutron converter" in place of Boron in this
case.


Also, when using Li7, if some rection should produce fast neutrons, then
these will be moderated and multiplied by:

    n + Li7 ---> Li6 + n + n.

Slow neutrons can produce:

    n  + Li7 ---> Li8

    Li8  --->  e  +  Be8   (+ 16.5 MeV)

    Be8  --->  He4  +  He4     (+ 46 keV)

and now we are talking about some very energetic reactions.


The most exciting thing I think is what I suggested earlier:

    e + Li7 -> He7

followed in 3x10^-21 seconds by:

    He7 -> He6 + n

followed in .807 seconds by:

    He6 -> Li6 + e (3.51 MeV beta).

This produces both a neutron and an electron at sufficient energy to
cascade the energy to many other electrons.  This opens consideration of a
chain reaction because of the possible multiplying effect.  Again the main
problem is knowing if  e + Li7 -> He7 is feasible, and if so, what is the
resonant energy (input) and cross section.  Even though the possibility of
a chain reaction is very exciting, I think a proven reaction e + Li7 -> He7
at the low voltages of the experiment would be a major scientific find
because it does not conserve energy.

Regarding the neutrons from Li6, I am wondering about the controls used.  I
would suggest alternating periods of plastic and no plastic. It is possible
that your radiactive source, or some other part of the experiment, is
slightly contaminated with a neutron source.

About the replication of your experiment:  I suggest that even if I were
capable of replicating your experiment it would be meaningless for you
because I have no credentials.  I just an amateur, working alone on a very
small budget (about $2000/yr, which has already been spent this year on my
calorimeter) as I have said many times on vortex
[snip]

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 13:12:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23448;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:10:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:10:08 -0800
Message-ID: <01ab01bd511f$5edcb300$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:05:41 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"qSX8_.0.Ak5.hKP3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16633
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hey, Great to see you back,Horace!

The temptation was too much,huh?  :-)

March 29th is around the corner. :-)

I read over the papers and conclude that too
much energy was involved, a possibly counter-productive.

My experience with electron bombardment of quartz slides (fluorescence used
to see the beam geometry) that secondary electron emission will set up
enough of a field to cause a discharge through the insulator to the
conductive plate in back, thus I think plastic films up to several mils
thick would be OK at low EB energy. When I used copper ions at up to 60 kev
on ion implantation research the copper
distributed in dendritic shapes through the glass making beautiful copper
"trees".

The electron-proton collision with a low Z material such as the carbon
skeleton should simplify things, and plastic film is inexpensive.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 15:19:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28431;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:11:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:08:52 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5130$7c42e200$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"6AnSF.0.7y6.K6R3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16634
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 




Michael  Schaffer wrote:
>I submit that the claim that recent Marinov motor experiments by Kooistra
>and by George Holz prove that there is an electromagnetic force parallel to
>the direction of electron motion face a serious conceptual challange. This
>is because it appears to be no way to predict what will be the direction
>(or sign) of the torque from the direction of electron flow in the
>experiments as described and illustrated in Infinite Energy (IE) by
>Kooistra and via Vortex by Holz.
>
>Consider that current enters a circular conducting ring stator via a wire
>and exits via another wire 180 deg opposite around the ring. Half of the
>current flows clockwise around one half of the ring, the other half flows
>counterclockwise around the other half of the ring. The experiment
>demonstrates torque on a rotor, about an axis concentric with the axis of
>the circular stator. The rotor is a magnetized torus whose equatorial plane
>contains the previously defined axis. It is reported that maximum torque is
>produced when the rotor torus equatorial plane also contains the current
>feed points. Now, how can this geometry define a direction for the torque?
>Both halves of the stator "see" exactly the same geometry and experience
>exactly the same magentic field leaking from the rotor. Does the torque
>"decide" to go with the clockwise-moving electrons, or does it decide to go
>with the equal number of counterclockwise moving ones? The symmetry of the
>problem precludes the preference of one direction over the other.
>Therefore, at least in this particular experiment, it is logically
>impossible that the torque be associated with a force in the direction of
>the electron flow.


The symmetry here is broken by the right hand rule applied to the ring
current moving away from the connection point. The inside part of the
ring nearest to the torus sees fields pointing up on one side of the
connection point and down on the other side. Further examination
will show that the resulting torque is in the same direction at both
connection points. There is no problem predicting the direction of
rotation.

>On the other hand, I described in an earlier post how the reported
>observations are consistent with a conventional electromagnetic origin in
>the form of the current in the feed wires crossing the leakage magnetic
>field from the rotor. The feed wires get close to the rotor and are a
>non-negligible part of the system. They cannot be ignored. It should be
>possible to see the force in the feed wires by making them of very flexible
>wire and allowing the wires to droop some between supports along the radial
>runs in and out.


Kooistra has tried flexible leads and reports no observable deflection.
I agree that the force from the feed wires needs to be measured and
compared to the ring force.

>With respect to rotation of the conducting ring when it is allowed to
>rotate in Kooistra's experiment, I still think that it rotates because of
>the short _radial_ component of current in the flat ring. This is just the
>same as the radial current cross vertical leakage magnetic field from the
>torus I discussed above. If the current feeds were bent to allow the
>current to enter the flat ring from its inner circumference, the sign of
>this short radial current would change and, by my hypothesis, so would the
>direction of rotation of the ring. Furthermore, I predict that the
>cylindrical ring acting as a rotor would have a still much shorter radial
>current path, and the torque on such a ring would probably be too small to
>observe with the experiments described. However, all these cases would
>still produce a torque on the magnetized torus, because most of the torque
>originates from the radial feed conductors.

I agree that these are important experiments, but predict ring rotation
will be qualitatively unchanged.

>Finally, for the theoretically inclined who take Ampere's form of the force
>between two current elements as evidence for a _physical_ parallel force
>component, I suggest reading "The Electromagnetic Field" by M. Mason and W.
>Weaver. It is copyrighted 1929. I have a Dover reprint, Dover number S185.
>I don't know if it is still available from Dover. This book dedicates all
>of Secton 38 to "the Fundamental Law of Magnetostatics: The Researches of
>Ampere". It is noteworthy that Ampere's third law (out of four) deduced
>from his experiments is, "The action of a closed circuit on a current
>element is always normal to the latter," that is, at right angles. (The
>Graneau's statements contradict this  Amperean result.) Mason and Weaver go
>on to develop Ampere's mathematical expression for the force between two
>elements. All the details are given, so it can be followed by someone with
>only ordinary background in vector calculus. I will point out that it is
>impossible to derive a unique law for the force between elments from the
>force between two current elements, because all DC measurements necessarily
>involve circuits, and it is impossible to isolate "the rest of the circuit"
>from a small element within it.  It is noteworthy that, in order to get
>Ampere's force expression between two elements that gives a parallel force
>component, it is necessary to make an additional _assumption_, that there
>_should_ be a parallel force! Perhaps this assumption appeared resonable in
>the light Newton's law of gravitation and the recently codified Coulomb
>force law of electrostatics. Anyway, one can _assume_ that the force must
>be perpendicular, and then Ampere's four experimental laws yield the usual
>familiar form in common use today. The usual justification is the force
>acting on a single charged particle in a magnetic field, but this is
>logically flawed, because the magnetic field is implicitely generated by a
>closed-circuit electromagnet, not by another isolated current element.
>However, no difference in motion is observed between a magnetic field
>generated by an electromagnetic and another made by a permanent magnet.

Is it an additional assumption to give the Amperian current element a
three dimensional magnetic field configuration rather than a two dimensional
field. What is the precedent in physics for a two dimensional assumed field?
Everyone seems to agree that the total force on a closed circuit is the
same with either assumption. The point of disagreement is the distribution
of forces along the wire. The Graneau's hold that the forces along
the wire are proven by many experiments, contradicted by none and
are accurately predicted by the Amperian form of the force law.

>The only way I can think of physically testing the force between two
current
>elements is to measure the trajectories of two charged particles moving in
>an otherwise field-free space. Each particle generates an electromagnetic
>field by virtue of its motion. The field is described by the
>Lienard-Wiechert potentials, a relativistic generalization of the familiar
>electrostatic and vector potentials. In general the particles experience
>transverse and parallel forces. I myself am not familiar with any
>experiments of this sort. Martin Sevior ought to know, though, because this
>is just the situation that is set up when energetic particles are collided.


It is not clear to me that there is a simple relationship between the force
you propose to measure between particles and the longitudinal force
that has been measured. The wire current is more like an average drift
velocity with charges moving in all directions randomly at much
higher velocity than the drift. Still, I would love to see the results of
an experiment  measuring the magnetic field distribution of an
electron moving in vacuum.

>Since no physicist has jumped up to claim a Nobel prize for discovering a
>violation of quantum electrodynamics, I believe that QED is still
>experimentally sound.

Physicists have shown a remarkable disregard of contrary experimental
evidence in the past, why should it change now. The Lorentz force law
is incomplete and the evidence has been largely ignored since the law
was proposed. Please read about the Graneau's many experiments.
Commercial devices have been made which utilize the longitudinal
forces to pump liquid metal. Investigate, then jump up and be ignored
with the rest of us.   ;-)

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 15:20:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA08291;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:18:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:18:07 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <e09a1df8.350db2fd aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:17:14 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"ovK991.0.J12.hCR3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16635
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-16 11:56:49 EST, Frank Stenger wrote:
> How about using a 15 --> 20 gallon fish aquarium for a "glove box"?

I spoke to Scott today (monday) and he came up with what I think is a good
idea. To wit: use a clear plastic bag, squeeze most air out possible then fill
with Ar. Then either shove hands, K, and anything else needed (like the
reactor tube), or put needed stuff in the bag, squash the air out, fill with
Ar, and work from outside the bag. I think either way will do just fine.

> Did Vince say he was going to get some
>  argon gas? - good purge! 

Yes, I will use Ar as a purge gas.

I stopped by Desert Gasses this morning and 2, I think 20 cu ft gas cylinders
(52 bucks each), regulators for the H2 and Ar (100 bucks each) and the gas
fill (8 bucks H2 and 12 bucks Ar). Delivery Wedsday or Thursday this week.
I figure I have spent approx $404 dollars so far on this. 
I put this out there just in case someone wondered what a project like this
would cost. Luckely I've been working a lot of overtime lately and have some
extra cash around, and so this became the perfect time to try this.  I had no
idea what something like this would cost to do and so post all details of
getting it started including paying the bills. It's going to come in for under
$1000 dollars I'm happy to say. Wife is happy too!
Tomorrow: WW Grainger for the Dayton 4Z577 vacuum pump, by far the biggest
ticket item. The plus side is it will also suck down air conditioning systems,
something I work on once in a while. So the $305 dollar cost will do double
duty.
Will post updates as they happen. Remember I am looking for a robust 
effect. Melting the quartz reactor with <1 watt input is robust. Thats what I
want (and hope) to see. 

Regards,
Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 15:29:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10484;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:26:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:26:55 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980316172833.00b2adec mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:28:33 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
In-Reply-To: <01bd5130$7c42e200$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"FCVzw1.0.jZ2.zKR3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16636
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 18:08 3/16/98 -0500, George Holz wrote:

>The inside part of the
>ring nearest to the torus sees fields pointing up on one side of the
>connection point and down on the other side.

As usual, I'm confused.  If you look at the drawing at
http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.html you will see that the
fields point in the same direction on either side of the connection
points...at least they do in the neighborhood of each connection point.

>Commercial devices have been made which utilize the longitudinal
>forces to pump liquid metal.

I'd sure like to hear more about these.  Standard magnetohydrodynamic
pumping of conductive liquids works via the Lorentz force, I believe.  B is
transverse to the flow direction, a current I is passed at right angles to
B but also transverse to the flow direction and F = I X B pushes the
conductive liquid along in the flow direction.




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 Mar 16 15:35:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01898;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:31:14 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:27:33 GMT
Message-ID: <350dadd5.9821703 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <01BD4E98.FB138D40 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net>
In-Reply-To: <01BD4E98.FB138D40 pm3-117.gpt.infi.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: <"fGI6l3.0.aT.xOR3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16637
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:59:17 -0600, "Kyle R. Mcallister"
<stk sunherald.infi.net> wrote:

>Sidereal variation of C was measured in the following experiments:
>1. Michaelson-Morley: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, 
>variation vanishes 9 hours and 21 hours.
>2. Esclangon: Most variation at 3 hours and 15 hours, variation 
>vanishes at 9 hours and 21 hours.
>3. Dayton Miller: Most variation at 3-4 hours and 14-15 hours, 
>variation vanishes at 9 hours and 21 hours.

I have been giving some thought to the weird orientation of these
directions at 3 and 15 hours which don't seem to fit with any reasonable
model.

At last I have come up with something that might be relevent.
I don't know the correct terminology for some of this stuff, so please
feel free to insert that if you do know.

There is a line around the sun's surface which is the place where the N
and S polarity reverses.  This line is most often in a shape which is
like a cross between a circle and the seam on a tennis ball.  By this I
mean that it goes N and S of the sun's equator twice each in a trip
around the sun.  This means that it normally crosses the equator 4
times.  Sometimes this varies to 2, 6 or 8 times.

As the solar wind pours out of the sun, this neutral zone has a special
significance as it allows charged particles more freedom (I hope that I
have that right) and so the sun is a bit like a lawn sprinkler with 4
heads from the point of view of the earth.  The zone is actually a
curved sheet with a complex topology because of the combination of the
sun's rotation, the motion of the solar wind and the shape of the
"seam".

Anyway, this zone is rotating with the sun at a velocity of 420 km/s at
the earth's distance from the sun, or 390 km/s relative to the earth
because the earth does 30 km/s around its orbit.

Because the solar wind velocity is of the order of 300 to 400 km/s this
means that we are always experiencing this surface as coming from a
direction which is near 45 degrees (or 3 hours) away from the sun's
direction.  It will have maximum effect at near 3 and 21 hours.

So from the earth's point of view we experience crossing of these
neutral zones every 7 days most of the time (the synodic solar rotation
divided by 4).  At most times there will be a maximum magnetic gradient
in the 45 degree direction I think.

Note that the near 45 degrees effect is a function of our distance from
the sun in comparison to the solar rotation and solar wind speeds.  In
the cases of the inner and outer plansets the angles are very different,
ranging from about 20 degrees from the sun to nearly 90 degrees.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 16:26:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25213;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:23:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:23:30 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:17:05 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd513a$044e8650$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"GTNFw.0.i96._9S3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16638
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Scott,
Your web page diagram shows the field lines caused by the
torus, the field lines I was refering to in my last email are those
created by the ring. Just apply the right hand rule to the current
flowing in the ring away from the connection point. The torus
will be repelled where its field lines are in the same direction
as those on the adjacent side of the wire and attracted toward
the direction where the field lines are in opposite directions
(cancelling fields create a lower magnetic field energy).

>>Commercial devices have been made which utilize the longitudinal
>>forces to pump liquid metal.
>
>I'd sure like to hear more about these.  Standard magnetohydrodynamic
>pumping of conductive liquids works via the Lorentz force, I believe.  B is
>transverse to the flow direction, a current I is passed at right angles to
>B but also transverse to the flow direction and F = I X B pushes the
>conductive liquid along in the flow direction.
>
This is a reference from the Graneau book which I don't have here at the
office. I'll try to remember to bring it in tomorrow.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 16:52:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA31089;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:50:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:50:48 -0800
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:50:01 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199803170050.SAA15990 dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Subject: re: Utah news
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Cc: 76570.2270 compuserve.com
Cc: aki ix.netcom.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"tWCR6.0.gb7.bZS3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16639
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

March 16, 1998

To Vortex and 'Gene,

What do you make of what Scott quoted from the Salt Lake Tribune? 

Does it mean that what P&F discovered is now essentially thrown into 
the Public Domain? 

What does this do to any theory that successfully explains CF?

And what does this do to CF as a commercial development when the basic 
discovery is not patented?

Any ideas?

-AK-

Scott quoted:

"Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday March 10, 1998:

  U. Officially Ends Its Effort to Capitalize on Cold Fusion
  
  Almost nine years after two University of Utah scientists first 
claimed to produce nuclear energy in a test tube, the U. has officially 
abandoned its effort to capitalize on cold fusion.
  U. Research Vice President Richard Koehn announced Monday that the 
U.'s Research Foundation will no longer pursue patents based on the 
experiments of former U. chemists B. Stanley Pons and Martin 
Fleischmann.
  At a March 23, 1989 news conference, the pair claimed that their 
simple, tabletop device was producing such incredible amounts of heat 
that it could only be explained by nuclear reactions. That triggered a 
worldwide scramble to reproduce the experiment.
  But in the end - when the claims could not be proved - the scientists 
and the U. found the real heat came from the scorching they received 
via the scientific establishment.
  Pons and Fleischmann left the U. within two years, and the university
eventually transferred the patent rights to a private company, ENECO.   
  The U. was forced to look for another licensee when ENECO gave back 
the rights, but no viable offers surfaced. Pons and Fleischmann had the 
option to take up the fight themselves, but the U. never heard from 
them, Koehn said."





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 17:13:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04965;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:10:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:10:35 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980316205608.0059fd68 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:56:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_3JAM2.0.VD1.9sS3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16640
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:38 AM 3/16/98 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Hi Keith,
>
>Out of curiosity, how did you find this zip
>file on the Nuenergy web site?  I don't see
>any way to get to it unless one knows it's
>there.
>
>Jack Smith
>

Another example of my amazing psi abilities. ;^)

Actually, you can reach it too. Just start fishing
around in his reference materials from the homepage.
Link was titled something like, "Canadian demonstration
of moray device" or somesuch thing. There is of
course no connection to Moray that I can see here.
Perhaps the homepages owner is confused, yes?

KPN


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 17:20:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07686;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:17:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:17:44 -0800
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:17:28 -0800
Message-Id: <199803170117.RAA25029 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: Utah news
Resent-Message-ID: <"NO23n.0.wt1.syS3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16641
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>March 16, 1998
>
>To Vortex and 'Gene,
>
>What do you make of what Scott quoted from the Salt Lake Tribune? 
>
>Does it mean that what P&F discovered is now essentially thrown into 
>the Public Domain? 

NO.

It means that the UOU has some patents that they are interested in selling
off at a bargain price, assuming they are worth anything at all.  Otherwise,
if they allow the patents to lapse by not paying their PTO dues every few
years, then they lapse into public domain.  I doubt that anyone would
knowingly allow that to happen, as the renewal fees are fairly nominal.  But
you never know.  Perhaps the university board of directors would have a hard
time justifying even a few hundred dollars PTO expense due to the ridicule
they may fear.  But apparently Jager at Eneco doesn't think he is giving
anything up.  If that is so, then I am curious if Eneco is about to go belly
up too, or if they just figure they have bigger fish in other technologies.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 17:24:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09321;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:22:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:22:14 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Paper Requested
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:20:09 GMT
Message-ID: <3510cf8c.15460994 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <01BD4E98.FB138D40 pm3-117.gpt.infi.net> <350dadd5.9821703@kcbbs.gen.nz>
In-Reply-To: <350dadd5.9821703 kcbbs.gen.nz>
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: <"4bihr3.0.SH2.41T3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16642
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

As soon as I posted the preceeding message I wondered whether the times
of 3 and 15 hours were siderial or synodic times.  Please let me know.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 17:32:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11906;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:31:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:31:05 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980316211648.005a1030 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:16:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"agze-3.0.kv2.N9T3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16643
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 06:24 PM 3/16/98 +1300, you wrote:
>Do you have any more info on him?
>Did your friend relay any stories?
>Did he indicate if there was any (psychic) connection to the operator ?
>Anything else about this very odd chain of experiments?

Uhhh, yes to all but I am reluctant to pursue this thread.

The psychic explanation was given to me, it is either a
fraud or a sop to prevent questions. That bugs me.

The stories were basically that a bunch of people gathered,
and these demonstrations were performed, with people not
being allowed close inspection of the apparatus. Also,
because of language problems, questions were rudimentary
at best. It was also explained to friend that the man
was what is referred to as an idiot-savant. That is to
say, he builds these things but in other respects is
quite simple. Again, this could be a sop to prevent
questioning. 

Likely you would have to go yourself to best answer these
questions. A weekend and a few tanks of gas would do
it. I will talk to friend sometime this coming week,
and ask him again about it. 

KPN

Sorry if this seems short on information, but with the
above in mind you can see the difficulty of relating
a coherent story. I mean, you would go and see these
things, and what would you say? Lights light, motors
spin, circuits don't seem to go anywhere. We're
not talking about science anymore, now are we?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 18:06:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27771;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350DD951.756E interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:00:50 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
References: <e09a1df8.350db2fd aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DsRxB1.0.bn6.ScT3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16644
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

VCockeram wrote:
> 

> Yes, I will use Ar as a purge gas.
> 

I like the bag idea, Vince!  Neat & simple!

Good luck!  May the muses of anomally smile upon you......

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 18:16:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00457;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350DDC0D.1C7D interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:12:29 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
References: <3.0.32.19980316211648.005a1030 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"84-bv2.0.37.LnT3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16645
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 
 Lights light, motors
> spin, circuits don't seem to go anywhere. We're
> not talking about science anymore, now are we?

More like Red Green meets Radio Shack!  Actually, some of it gets
close to true "coil art"!  Made me want to run and wind a few coils
just for the hell of it.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 19:26:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA30270;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:29:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:29:49 -0800
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:24:49 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Utah news
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803162128_MC2-36F5-9B23 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"wOa_N3.0.mO7.R0U3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16646
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Akira Kawasaki asks "What do you make of what Scott quoted from the Salt Lake
Tribune?"  And Ross Tessien sez:

     It means that the UOU has some patents that they are interested in
     selling off at a bargain price . . . But apparently Jager at Eneco
     doesn't think he is giving anything up.  If that is so, then I am
     curious if Eneco is about to go belly up too . . .

I do not think they are about to go belly up. I think CETI challenged the
patent in a way that it would have been very expensive to overcome, and ENECO
decided it was not worth it. I do not know the details.

Akira asks:

     Does it mean that what P&F discovered is now essentially thrown into the
     Public Domain?

I hope so!


     What does this do to any theory that successfully explains CF?

Theories cannot be patented, only specific implementations.


     And what does this do to CF as a commercial development when the basic
     discovery is not patented?

The IBM PC design is not patented but many companies like IBM, Compaq and Dell
have made a great deal of money selling machines based on this design. IBM
regretted that they did not patent it. Even if the core of CF technology
cannot be patented, implementations, improvements and peripherals will be.
Companies like IBM and Compaq have many PC related patents, which they
cross-license to one-another. The Apple Mac computer is patented (I think)
but Apple is in dire shape. Nothing made by Microsoft or any other software
company is patented, only copyrighted, but software is one of the fastest
growing industries on earth. So, if you play your cards right, a patent will
not make much difference, although it would be nice to have one, all things
being equal.

Many other critical inventions were not patented, or the patents were soon
withdrawn or bought out and dissolved by the government. Two well-known
examples were automobiles and airplanes.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 20:09:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA22035;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:05:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:05:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <001501bd5159$31bdbf60$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: laws (http://www.dnai.com/~zap/laws.txt)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:59:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01BD511E.7A813A00"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"03kLG.0.4O5.6QV3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16647
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_001E_01BD511E.7A813A00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

About 15 small print pages.

http://www.dnai.com/~zap/laws.txt

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BD511E.7A813A00
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="laws.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="laws.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.dnai.com/~zap/laws.txt
Modified=00D9ACFC5851BD01E8

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BD511E.7A813A00--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 20:36:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13524;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:31:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:31:30 -0800
Message-ID: <350DF5BA.EE911886 ipass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:02:03 -0500
From: "Warren A. Huyck" <whuyck ipass.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Utah news
References: <199803162128_MC2-36F5-9B23 compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"paQYB3.0.rI3.UoV3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16648
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> ... IBM regretted that they did not patent it.

Jed - you don't know what you're talking about. When the IBM PC architecture was
introduced, it was one of many competing for acceptance in the market. IBM
deliberately chose to publish all the internal specifications of their
architecture so as to enable as many hardware manufacturers as possible to start
building cards and adapters for the IBM architecture. IBM would not have been able
to develop so many things so fast. By opening it up and making it available,
everyone started developing for it, and it quickly became the de facto standard.

It wasn't that they regretted not patenting it. On the contrary, it was a
deliberate marketing decision that proved extremely successful.

Warren A. Huyck

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 21:27:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02889;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:25:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:25:48 -0800
Message-ID: <350E096E.6AED interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:26:06 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Utah news
References: <199803162128_MC2-36F5-9B23 compuserve.com> <350DF5BA.EE911886@ipass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sJpg92.0.yi.QbW3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16649
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Warren A. Huyck wrote:
> 
(snip all but the operative phrase)

> Jed - you don't know what you're talking about. 

Hey, Jed, you want me to hold your coat for you?  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 16 23:22:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA27056;
	Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:20:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:20:32 -0800
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980317072325.00a048a4 mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:23:25 -0800
To: ghawk eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk eskimo.com>
Subject: Ether and Tigers and Bears.  Oh no!
Resent-Message-ID: <"WA15g3.0.gc6._GY3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16650
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>David Knaack wrote:
>...
> After thinking about it, i thought this:  What if gravity DOESN'T
>effect light?  We all have read about gravity 'bending' space-time, so
>perhaps the answer is simply that gravity changed that which light travels
>through, and so only indirectly effects light.  That is to say, the force of
>gravity does not act on light, but it can distort the path which light
>travels.

I would agree.  If light travelling past a large mass such as the Sun 
merely encounters a thicker medium, then it will refract.  A point 
could be made for that thicker medium simply being a result of fine 
material I suppose, but I would prefer to think of it as higher 
ether density.  If it has not already been determined, then an experiment 
should be done to find out whether the bending of light near the 
Sun is the same at its poles vs its equator.  The ether density 
supposition presupposes that the Sun's rotation would result in a 
"flattened" density field that would extend out further at the 
equator than at the poles for a given density, due to ether viscosity.

It explains the existence of the "plane of the ecliptic", that plane 
in which the planets revolve around the sun, and why Pluto, further 
out, can more easily than the others stray from that path, out where 
the "soup" is more "watery", (though it was certainly diverted by 
something once, and would be slowly being brought back into conformity).

This would also explain why the Michelson-Morley experiments failed 
to indicate the existence of an ether.  It is very simply dragged 
along by the rotation of the earth for its own local ether field 
at nearly the rate of movement of the earth's surface.  The only 
fair test would be one done in space, and then only with movement 
"against the flow".

Paraphrasing Faraday, something along these lines:  For radio waves to 
travel in space, something must be waved.

Cheers,

Gary Hawkins

Btw:  For 20 points each, extra credit:
What is the number of miles/kilometers for a solar-synchronous orbit.
Which planet's orbit falls closest to that distance.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Technology                 Tomorrow's Technology Today
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                      Seattle, WA
--------------------------------------------------------------

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 00:28:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA02256;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:27:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:27:01 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:23:21 -0500
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
Subject: re: Utah news
Sender: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l mail.eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199803170326_MC2-3702-67DB compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"OZeKe3.0.AZ.KFZ3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16651
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross,

>> If that is so, then I am curious if Eneco is about to go belly
up too, or if they just figure they have bigger fish in other technologies.
<<

>From what I hear from ENECO they are going in a different direction
altogether from the original P & F approach.  Exactly what that is I'm not
sure.

Norman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 01:52:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA13396;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:51:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:51:40 -0800
Message-ID: <004301bd5189$c7312ca0$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator, Fire From Ice?
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:47:23 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"nRRJR2.0.9H3.hUa3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16652
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well Horace,if the low energy electron bombardment of the Hydrogenous
(plastic) materials produce the Quasi-Neutron [-(+-)+],
then if bombardment of ice with low energy electrons at 1.0E-3 Torr vapor
pressure (-70 C) produces them, that would make Gene (Fire From Ice) Mallove
very happy.   :-)

The paper that Ron Brodzinski sent regarding the Neutrino mass being around
0.5 to 1.69 ev indicates that it should only take low energy
"effects" to create the Quasi-Neutron, and thus the CF-Heat, and related O/U
effects involving
hydrogenous materials.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 02:33:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA18161;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:32:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:32:41 -0800
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:32:26 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <350e5e64.34571462 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.32.19980316211648.005a1030 cnct.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980316211648.005a1030 cnct.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: <"y1Xr43.0.hR4.85b3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16653
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:16:51 -0500, Keith Nagel wrote:
[snip]
>a coherent story. I mean, you would go and see these
>things, and what would you say? Lights light, motors
>spin, circuits don't seem to go anywhere. We're
>not talking about science anymore, now are we?
>
Funny you should mention that. Circuits that don't "go anywhere",
would appear to fit right in with Bearden's theories.
And when you come to think of it, if you want energy to flow out of
the "aether", rather than out of your power source, then just such a
"circuit" would appear to be the way to go, in as much as a complete
circuit would allow a current to flow, thus draining energy form your
own power source.



Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 17 03:04:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA10974;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004b01bd5192$ace1dbc0$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator, Fire From Ice?
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:51:04 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"YX_tF2.0.Lh2.ZWb3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16654
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

BTW.Horace,

In the early days of Hot Fusion research they bombarded "Heavy Ice" with
deuterons in order  to knock off neutrons (requires 2.23 Mev separation
energy). With 500,000 ev bombarding deuterons the neutron yield was 1 in
200,000 and at 100,000 ev deuteron bombarding energy 1 in 10,000,000.

It may be possible to create the Quasi-Neutron and get some He4 and Li7 to
boot, by creating Q-Ns with low energy electron bombardment of
frozen Boric acid-water. Boric Acid H3BO3 has about 20% B10 in the Boron,
which might let its several thousand Barn thermal neutron absorption
cross-section react with the Q-N:

Q-N + 5B10 ----> 2He4 + 3Li7 + 2.78 Mev. Thus making it easy for species
analysis.

Regards,     Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 05:13:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20666;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:10:05 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803171310.FAA20410 slave2.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Science fair project - iron from wood
Resent-Message-ID: <"8EH5A1.0.l25.CQd3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16655
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Larry wrote:
>  It looks like there will be quite a good number of young alchemists
>coming up.  By the time they are grown up, I would guess that we will know
>where the iron in burned wood comes from - either from transmutation or
>existing iron supplies in the wood.
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton
>NASA/GSFC code 913
>Greenbelt MD 20771
>(301) 286-3486  Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov

Hi Larry,

        Why don't you have her wrap a toothpick or something with wire, and
try magnetizing it like you would a nail.  Float it in water and see if it
points North. -Knuke 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 05:14:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20797;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980317080907.0069bd9c agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:10:02 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Spherical  Resonator... / Reactor?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"gQUba1.0.r45.CRd3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16656
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


'Can't even keep up with the intriguing posts here, but it seemed like
several threads have converged on wave geometry which interests me greatly.
It seems that Vo cross fertilizes varied skills together for that kind of
hybrid vigor. As a believer in the ideals of the Net, i'll offer my two
cents worth :)

Linked around the following URL are real structural possibilities which
i've been trying to build. (This is a crowded graphics site, with little
text to cover all ramifications). The graphics were produced using a high
end PC software, which offers a lot of nonlinear tools, of engineering
precision. Presently i'm looking into better building methods like STL,
(stereolithography/ 3d printing). I've had it with the aluminum foil route!
 Anyone have access to metallurgical/ ceramic  STL? Actually i have
tangible methods , if i could shake off a few of life's thorns in my side:)

     http://www.agate.net/~insearch/concentrSpirSphereFlats.html

Anyway, you may consider the URL portrays a coil. As an electrical
conductor with balanced flow, a magnetic field will swirl orthagonally,
along the face of this conductor.  Note that this swirl proceeds in
opposite directions, on each face of the conductor.  This produces polarity
for the whole sphere.  The spherical cofigurations, i postulate, have
superior "triggering", "focusing" and "regeneration" potentials, compared
with other,  less potent  polyhedra.  Faced with all the critical  issues
of tolerance i haven't  made breath taking, observational leaps...( which
we all are poised for, one way or another, right?).

If any of you out there wish to discuss more, or better yet to  joint
venture, let's talk.  I love to do nonlinear flow designing and building.
I have varied skills and want to cooperate in free thinking projects.

Bo Atkinson
1-207-342-5796
Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 05:25:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10295;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:24:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:24:08 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:23:31 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199803171323.HAA07708 dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Cold comfort about asteroid
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"KmAEc1.0.mW2.sbd3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16657
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

March 17, 1998

So the mile wide asteroid misses Earth -- this time. Doesn't that just 
give it a next chance as it orbits? Where are others not yet detected? 
And what are the chances for it to hit the moon and its consequences? 
Moon rejoins earth?
Perhaps it is time to give NASA a cause for expanded existance as an 
asteroid watch together with the astronomers. 
Think dinosaurs, think prevention, think spaceship Earth. Something to 
unite on?

-AK- 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 05:45:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA15164;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:44:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:44:17 -0800
Message-Id: <199803171342.IAA08780 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Utah news
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 08:45:35 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bj3rH2.0.ki3.kud3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16658
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Rothwell wrote

>I do not think they [ENECO] are about to go belly up. I think CETI challenged 
the
>patent in a way that it would have been very expensive to overcome, and ENECO
>decided it was not worth it. I do not know the details.

ENECO is far from going belly up. Large capital is seeking out -- and 
finding -- major CF companies right now that have prototype excess heat 
devices (which are generally now in the few hundred watt range or 
higher). There is even a former senior member of a major oil company who 
has joining forces with a CF company ( you will hear about this soon 
enough when the company makes its announcement).  ENECO had the P&F 
patent nearly secured in Europs, but then CETI challenged it on grounds 
it was "too broad" -- presumably because it had been broadened to include 
ordinary water excess heat.

ENECO decided it was not worth the $1- million plus  required to 
continnue battle the criminals at the USPTO who unethically axed the P&F 
patent and forced it into the very expensive court appeals route. ENECO 
is now working on high temperature gas phase excess heat processes, as 
has been reported in IE. They are working on scale-up.

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  Tue Mar 17 05:51:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16488;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:48:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:48:18 -0800
Posted-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:45:21 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <350E032D.22AEA4A4 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:59:25 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
Organization: Orchestra
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: eprint: On the Dynamical Stability of the Hovering Magnetic Top
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jgEbn1.0.Y14.Xyd3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16659
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi,

This will be a good reference to levitator investigators. 

Anounced today, available from http://xxx.lanl.gov

(I am inserting the "eprint" keyword on subject line to easier indexing such postings to who keep archives)

Regards,

hamdi ucar


physics/9803020 [abs, src, ps, other] :

     Title: On the Dynamical Stability of the Hovering Magnetic Top
     Authors: Shahar Gov (1), Shmuel Shtrikman (1 and 2), Harry Thomas (3) ((1) Weizmann Institute of
     Science, Rehovot, Israel (2) University of California, San Diego, USA (3) University of Basel, Basel,
     Switzerland)
     Comments: 19 pages, 5 figures (fig1.eps to fig5.eps), uses epsf.sty and amssymb.sty
     Subj-class: Classical Physics; Popular Physics 

     In this paper we analyze the dynamic stability of the hovering magnetic top from first principles without
     using any preliminary assumptions. We write down the equations of motion for all six degrees of
     freedom and solve them analytically around the equilibrium solution. Using this solution we then find
     conditions which the height of the hovering top above the base, its total mass, and its spinning speed
     have to satisfy for stable hovering. The calculation presented in this paper can be used as a guide to
     the analysis and synthesis of magnetic traps for neutral particles. (118kb)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 07:04:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05731;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <350E8F9D.D309C1CA ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:58:37 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spherical  Resonator... / Reactor?
References: <3.0.32.19980317080907.0069bd9c agate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"h82VQ.0.TP1.A1f3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16661
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bo Atkinson wrote:
> 'Can't even keep up with the intriguing posts here, but it seemed like
> several threads have converged on wave geometry which interests me greatly.
> It seems that Vo cross fertilizes varied skills together for that kind of
> hybrid vigor. 

Hi Bo!  Interesting website.  Good visualization models.

One outfit that makes a good metal SLS machine is DTM:  
<http://www.dtm-corp.com/Technology/Materials/rapidstl.htm>

I am certain they would be more than happy to point you in the direction of
someone near you that has one of their machines up and running.  Give me a
better idea of what you are trying to make and I may be able to narrow things
down for you.  The National Design Engineering Show is in town this week and I
will be there tomorrow.  I can keep a eye open for you if there is something
specific you are looking for.

> If any of you out there wish to discuss more, or better yet to  joint
> venture, let's talk.  I love to do nonlinear flow designing and building.
> I have varied skills and want to cooperate in free thinking projects.

Joint venture doing what?   

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 07:04:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05601;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:58:02 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199803171458.IAA21640 dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Subject: Re: Utah news
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"CyL1A2.0.RN1.t_e3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16660
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

March 17, 1998

Jed wrote: 
>Theories cannot be patented, only specific implementations.

What I meant to ask was: Does a correct theory for CF now become more 
of an unrushed academic curiosity rather than a means to help implement 
and scale up the seeming 'hit or miss technologies' of educated guesses 
that produce CF excess heat? Or has it always been thus in the rush for 
the (untransmuted, natural, pre Champion) gold?

-AK-   

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 07:14:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03588;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:12:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:12:52 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <e8c8ae8c.350e92cb aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:12:08 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Cold comfort about asteroid
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"p2tc03.0.pt.oBf3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16662
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-17 08:25:14 EST, you write:
> From:	aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
>  Perhaps it is time to give NASA a cause for expanded existance as an 
>  asteroid watch together with the astronomers. 
>  Think dinosaurs, think prevention, think spaceship Earth. Something to 
>  unite on?
>  >  -AK- 

And remember the old saying:  "Don't put all your eggs in one basket".
Right now the human race has all it's eggs in one basket, the earth.

Regards,
Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 07:44:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12885;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:41:27 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <be18b8bf.350e98f7 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:38:29 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"megk22.0.F93.bcf3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16663
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-15 22:52:19 EST, you write:
> All,
>  I have completed the apparatus to experiment in using a high frequency
>  (82 KHz) glow discharge using K as one of the electrodes and W as
>  the other.
To clear up any confusion that may have resulted from the stated "82 Khz"
in this post, and an earlier post where I stated "around 15 Khz".
  
To produce the high voltage I am using a TV flyback autotransformer driven
by a surplus US Navy sonar test signal generator (tubes!). With the output
of the flyback transformer unloaded I got the highest output voltage at about
15 KHz. Now, with the transformer hard wired into the apperatus, highest
voltage output is at 82KHz. There is a lot of added capacitance on the HV
side that may explain the shift in resonance to a higher frequency but I would
have thought that that would lower the freq., not raise it. 
I don't really care about the shift, just curious.
7:30 AM here in Vegas and I'm off to buy the vacuum pump.

Regards,
Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 07:55:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12807;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:52:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:52:35 -0800
From: "Clinton Rawls" <clint.rawls worldnet.att.net>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: To List Administrator(s): Question about how and why this list came into being.
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:55:43 -0600
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
Message-ID: <19980317155152.AAA5165 default>
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZGIMV.0.s73.0nf3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16664
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

A question to the Vortex List administrator(s) and a suggestion to anyone
who may have solved the vortex mysteries but are keeping it secret...

I was curious... what original chain of events is the most responsible for
this list having been created?  I would suppose that one or more persons
believed very strongly that there may be someone out there in the world
that could solve (or has already solved) the problem of using the vortex
phenomenon for power generation.  People like Victor Schauberger have
probably contributed to this belief and expectation.  I know that my
beliefs have been influenced by his work.

Regarding anyone who may have solved the mystery, I'm not referring to
people who "think" they have the solution and are doing experiments that
may exhibit interesting but inconsistent results.  I am referring to those
who actually have the real answers, who know the fundamental reasons behind
currently unexplained vortex behavior, and are currently developing the
technology that will capitalize on those answers and are keeping it secret
until they can establish a large market lead over any would-be competition.
 If someone has actually solved the mysteries of the vortex, they could
very well be one of the silent list members who are just keeping watch to
see what their potential "competition" might be up to.  It could even be
the list owners themselves that are doing this (no accusation intended). 
If such a person does exist, my suggestion to him or her would be to at
least let us know that someone has in fact discovered the secrets of the
vortex and that, after you have been able to establish a market lead over
your would-be competition, you will reveal to the rest of the world your
discoveries.  One way to give us all a hint would be to send an anonymous
letter through standard mail to one or more list members who are willing to
disclose an address for such a purpose.  This would give the rest of us joy
just knowing that we will be able to benefit from Vortex Power Generation
in the not too distant future without risking your secrecy.

Then again, I may just have a wild imagination from watching too many
sci-fi movies.  But thanks for listening anyway.

Best Wishes,

Clinton Rawls

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 09:14:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01362;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:11:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:11:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980317110918.0075bc24 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:09:18 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
In-Reply-To: <01bd513a$044e8650$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PTe0j1.0.7L.Hxg3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16665
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 19:17 3/16/98 -0500, George Holz wrote:

>Your web page diagram shows the field lines caused by the
>torus, the field lines I was refering to in my last email are those
>created by the ring. Just apply the right hand rule to the current
>flowing in the ring away from the connection point. The torus
>will be repelled where its field lines are in the same direction
>as those on the adjacent side of the wire and attracted toward
>the direction where the field lines are in opposite directions

Right, but now I think you are falling into the same trap that you helped
me out of a while back.  I believe that those particular repulsion forces
are necessarily radial (since the currents that produce them are
circumferential) and thus cannot produce a torque on the ring.



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 Mar 17 09:14:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01936;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:12:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:12:53 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:12:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199803171712.JAA15321 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: Ether and Tigers and Bears.  Oh no!
Resent-Message-ID: <"nCKS_1.0.3U.Gyg3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16666
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>David Knaack wrote:
>>...
>> After thinking about it, i thought this:  What if gravity DOESN'T
>>effect light?  We all have read about gravity 'bending' space-time, so
>>perhaps the answer is simply that gravity changed that which light travels
>>through, and so only indirectly effects light.  That is to say, the force of
>>gravity does not act on light, but it can distort the path which light
>>travels.

That is all gravity really is.  A distortion to the paths that objects
follow.  It is not a pull.  If you want to deal with action, then
gravitation is a filtering of incident wave energy that leads to a thrust
away from the source of the wave energy that is frequency shifted, ie deep
space.  So gravity leads to an increase in the density of the aether ocean
universe near the "objects".  That density gradient, in turn, leads to a
slowing of wave motions through the region of higher density, and thus to
refraction.

When you think of light as smoke ring vortices, and of particles as soliton
waveforms, then it is clear that gravitation is simple a refraction.  When
you think of spacetime as yet just another waveform of a different topology
that permeates everthing, then you expect spacetime to be refracted too.

Thus, you can think of "objects" as following the curvature of spacetime if
you choose to.  Or you can think of objects as being pushed away from the
incident energy.  One leads to the other.

>I would agree.  If light travelling past a large mass such as the Sun 
>merely encounters a thicker medium, then it will refract.  A point 
>could be made for that thicker medium simply being a result of fine 
>material I suppose, but I would prefer to think of it as higher 
>ether density.  If it has not already been determined, then an experiment 
>should be done to find out whether the bending of light near the 
>Sun is the same at its poles vs its equator.  The ether density 
>supposition presupposes that the Sun's rotation would result in a 
>"flattened" density field that would extend out further at the 
>equator than at the poles for a given density, due to ether viscosity.

This is actually a very important experiment to do, but for a different
reason.  The axis of rotation is the path of least resistance to aether
flow.  Soliton to soliton bonding in the core of the sun, aka fusion, leads
to a reconfiguration of the soliton wave geometry, and to a reduction in the
amount of aether confined.

Thus, the aether emission in the core of the sun has a preferential path of
escape, the axis of rotation.  This leads to the jets we observe in T-tauri
stars, and it leads to the solar wind being double velocity along the axis
of roation.  Note, the solar wind velocity is 800 and 400 at poles and
equator, and the surface gravity is 600 km/s, centered between the two!

Anyway, I agree that the bending experiment would be good to do above the
pole, because the aether exhaust is like a jet engine, and there ought to be
an increase in stellar twinkling, and the displacement ought to be
different.  That could provide a missing key as to whether photons follow
"spacetime's" topology, or whether they deviate according to aether motion.
Spacetime will not be flowing, it is an essentially stationary structure of
wave energy (just like an acoustic standing wave structure does not blow
away in a wind tunnel, is simply distorts a bit despite the wind motion.


>
>It explains the existence of the "plane of the ecliptic", that plane 
>in which the planets revolve around the sun, and why Pluto, further 
>out, can more easily than the others stray from that path, out where 
>the "soup" is more "watery", (though it was certainly diverted by 
>something once, and would be slowly being brought back into conformity).

Yes.  think of the sun as having two jets of aether of higher velocity
headed out of the poles, and aether at lower velocity headed out of
equatorial latitudes.  Thus, there is a greater repulsion from any polar
axis' of roation tending to distort the orbit toward the eccliptic.

>
>This would also explain why the Michelson-Morley experiments failed 
>to indicate the existence of an ether.  

Their experiment is simple.  They assumed that light is a wave, and the
their apparatus was composed of particles, something different.  When you
consider the reality that particles are waveforms too, then they are going
to distort along with any aehter motion.  but more to the point, when you
realize that the earth is composed of all of those aether solitons too, then
you realize that the mass of the earth, IS, an aether wind blowing around
the sun.

When you get that, you will expect that there will be no aether wind blowing
past the surface of the earth, because the "matter" of the earth IS aether
wind effectively.

The confusion comes because everyone thinks of matter as one thing, and
aether as a different sort of thing, and light as yet another sort of thing.
When you work with only one "thing", aether, then it isn't mysterious any
more than were the retrograde motions of the planets viewed from the
Ptolemaic system of thought.


It is very simply dragged 
>along by the rotation of the earth for its own local ether field 
>at nearly the rate of movement of the earth's surface.  The only 
>fair test would be one done in space, and then only with movement 
>"against the flow".

Yes, but there is a problem.  You must use light to determine where your
"mirrors" are positioned around the planet out there in space.  And if you
are wrong, then your expectations are distorted.  It is very hard to do this
in practice.  

That said, the most accurate ranging data we have is the Venus ranging data,
and some people say that it ought to be interpreted as indicating that light
moves as a v+c profile.  ie, it gets a launch off of the planet.  They say
the data implies this situation.

but notice that if the solar system is a huge whirlpool of aether swirling
around the sun, and the planets are aether solitonic in composition, then
the light waves would translate across a shearing aether motion on their way
from Venus to earth.  Thus, it would appear as though they light waves
received a boost, or push, from the motion of Venus.  Ergo the v+c
interpretation.  So, it may be that light is indeed a photonic solitonic
waveform as I am saying, yet the motion of the aether around the sun gives
that light a boost in velocity while it is translating from Venus to Earth.
Faster near venus, slower near earth, just like sound moves at the speed of
sound as it approaches a car, and the waves are compressed or stretched and
heard inside the cars compartment in the "stationary" air inside at the
Doppler shifted frequency.



>Btw:  For 20 points each, extra credit:
>What is the number of miles/kilometers for a solar-synchronous orbit.
>Which planet's orbit falls closest to that distance.

Inside of Mercury, and thus, Mercury.  solar rotation is just 27 days
depending on where on the surface you want to synchronize too (ie it is a
gas ball and rotates at different rates depending on the lattitude)

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 09:24:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04298;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:21:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:21:02 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:21:42 -0700
From: Lynn Kurtz <kurtz imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Utah news
In-reply-to: <350E096E.6AED interlaced.net>
X-Sender: kurtz imap2.asu.edu (Unverified)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Message-id: <199803171720.KAA01673 smtp1.asu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: <199803162128_MC2-36F5-9B23 compuserve.com>
 <350DF5BA.EE911886 ipass.net>
Resent-Message-ID: <"PdPRj2.0.u21.u3h3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16667
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:26 AM 3/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Warren A. Huyck wrote:
>> 
>(snip all but the operative phrase)
>
>> Jed - you don't know what you're talking about. 
>
>Hey, Jed, you want me to hold your coat for you?  :-)
>
>Frank Stenger
>

I don't think you need to hold his coat. Jed disappears from threads he
enters rather than admit his errors. Witness the recent thread on
copyrights on spf where Jed posted an insulting incorrect rebuttal to
someone named Jay-Bee about copyrights. Lots of explanation, as well as a
request for apology, was posted, but Jed is nowhere to be found. No defense
of his position, no admission of error. He just disappears.

--Lynn
 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 09:39:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10661;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:36:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:36:25 -0800
Message-ID: <350EB41A.294B interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:34:18 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Utah news
References: <199803162128_MC2-36F5-9B23 compuserve.com>
	 <350DF5BA.EE911886 ipass.net> <199803171720.KAA01673@smtp1.asu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Y_KE1.0.yb2.HIh3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16668
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Lynn Kurtz wrote:
> 
> At 12:26 AM 3/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Warren A. Huyck wrote:
> >>
> >(snip all but the operative phrase)
> >
> >> Jed - you don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> >Hey, Jed, you want me to hold your coat for you?  :-)
> >
> >Frank Stenger
> >
> 
> I don't think you need to hold his coat. Jed disappears from threads he
> enters rather than admit his errors. Witness the recent thread on
> copyrights on spf where Jed posted an insulting incorrect rebuttal to
> someone named Jay-Bee about copyrights. Lots of explanation, as well as a
> request for apology, was posted, but Jed is nowhere to be found. No defense
> of his position, no admission of error. He just disappears.
> 
> --Lynn
> 

Er, OK then, Lynn!  You want me to hold your coat?  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 09:44:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12378;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:39:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:39:17 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007801b1345ed8f36a [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd5130$7c42e200$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:39:21 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"-sC5h3.0.x03.0Lh3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16669
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:
>The symmetry here is broken by the right hand rule applied to the ring
>current moving away from the connection point. The inside part of the
>ring nearest to the torus sees fields pointing up on one side of the
>connection point and down on the other side. Further examination
>will show that the resulting torque is in the same direction at both
>connection points. There is no problem predicting the direction of
>rotation.

OK, let's see. I agree, that on one side of the current feed point to the
ring the ring-generated magnetic field at the location of the magnetized
torus rotor points upward, and that on the other side of the same current
feed point the ring-generated magnetic field at the location of the torus
rotor points downward. The magnetization of the torus rotor is the same on
both sides of the current feed point. So, taking your analysis, the
interaction of the ring-generated and the rotor magnetic fields pushes
clockwise on one side and counter clockwise on the other side of the
current feed. Therefore, net torque is zero.

As an aside, I will comment that statements like "magnetic fields repel" or
"magnetic fields attract" are very misleading. They do neither. One can
calculate the force transmitted by a _complete_ magnetic field (one has to
include ALL the contributions to the field, including all those electron
spins in magnetized metal after they have all acted upon each other)
through the magnetic stress tensor (a part of the more complete, so-called
Maxwell stress tensor). The calculation is usually complicated, especially
in geometries of practical interest. The calculation usually involves the
near cancellation of large, oppositely-signed terms, and hence one has to
calculate all the major terms carefully.

>Is it an additional assumption to give the Amperian current element a
>three dimensional magnetic field configuration rather than a two dimensional
>field. What is the precedent in physics for a two dimensional assumed field?

I don't think the issue is 2D vs 3D. However, the assumption about the form
of the elemental field is an assumption either way. There is a strong
tendency among scientists to go with the simpler form when presented with
an unconstrained choice. Beyond that, one has to go to further experiments.
Ampere couldn't experiment with electrons in his day. There is no reason
that his _preference_ has to be taken as proven fact.

>Everyone seems to agree that the total force on a closed circuit is the
>same with either assumption. The point of disagreement is the distribution
>of forces along the wire.

Yes.

>The Graneau's hold that the forces along
>the wire are proven by many experiments, contradicted by none and
>are accurately predicted by the Amperian form of the force law.

The Graneaus' experiments are _not_ accurate! Their setups are strongly
artifact-influenced, and the Graneaus neither measure nor calculate their
artifacts.

>Commercial devices have been made which utilize the longitudinal
>forces to pump liquid metal.

All the direct electrical liquid metal pumps I know about employ the J
cross B effect.

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 Mar 17 12:20:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01656;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:15:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:15:53 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:15:44 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: eprint: On the Dynamical Stability of the Hovering Magnetic Top
In-Reply-To: <350E032D.22AEA4A4 verisoft.com.tr>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980317115224.5097D-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"EYEjt.0.lP.sdj3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16670
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Hamdi Ucar wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This will be a good reference to levitator investigators. 
> 
> Anounced today, available from http://xxx.lanl.gov


Also see :

  THE LEVITRON EXPOSE'
  http://www.levitron.com/expose.html

  M. Simon, UCLA, "Spin Stabilized Magnetic Levitation"
  http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/levitron

  M. McBride, Yale, poster session, levitron & earnshaw's theorem
  http://koerner.chem.yale.edu/levitron.html   

  Sir Michael Berry, U Briston UK, "An Adiabatic Trap for Spins"
  reprint for sale, $5, at http://www.levitron.com/parts.html

...and help spread the word about the ethical situation regarding the
current Levitron toy. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 12:29:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA04566;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:17:24 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] PC patent history
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803171521_MC2-3718-F292 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"W57gn3.0.G71.dlj3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16671
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I wrote that IBM regretted that they did not patent the PC architecture.
Warren A. Huyck responded

     Jed - you don't know what you're talking about. . . . IBM deliberately
     chose to publish all the internal specifications of their architecture
     so as to enable as many hardware manufacturers as possible to start
     building cards and adapters for the IBM architecture.

Yes, I realize that. Let me rephrase my statement. Long after the PC became
popular, some people within IBM regretted that they had not patented the PC.
They hatched a scheme that they hoped would give them a kind of retroactive
patent. They developed a new bus, called the Micro Channel, which they hoped
would become the new industry standard. They planned to let others use it
"only if licensees paid 5 percent royalties on both their new Micro Channel
clones and *on every PC, XT and AT clone they had ever built*" (Italics in
original). See: R. X. Cringely, "Accidental Empires," (Addison Wesley, 1992),
p. 286.

See? I may be wrong but I do know what I am talking about.


Lynn Kurtz writes:

     Jed disappears from threads he enters rather than admit his errors.

Hardly ever!


     Witness the recent thread on copyrights on spf where Jed posted an
     insulting incorrect rebuttal to someone named Jay-Bee about copyrights.

It was correct as far as I know. I confess I did not follow s.p.f. after I
posted that message. I have a ton of information on copyrights, but it may be
out of date.


     No defense of his position, no admission of error. He just disappears.

No defense of my position?!???? Good heavens, Lynn, you must have me confused
with someone else. I have been accused of many things in my time, but nobody
ever accused me of not writing enough or not making my point to the Nth degree
with footnotes & references galore. Ask poor Dieter Britz. In preparation for
this article I have been bombarding him with 30 KB per day of references,
background information, foreground information, questions, clarifications,
objections, quiddits, quillets, cases, tenures, and tricks.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 13:42:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26687;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:39:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:39:37 -0800
Message-ID: <01BD51BA.99539300 pm3-146.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Paper Requested
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:37:29 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD51BA.99539300"
Resent-Message-ID: <"zMvM72.0.WW6.Ksk3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16672
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD51BA.99539300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



----------
From: 	Ray Tomes[SMTP:rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz]
Sent: 	Monday, March 16, 1998 7:20 PM
To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: 	Re: Paper Requested

>As soon as I posted the preceeding message I wondered whether the times
>of 3 and 15 hours were siderial or synodic times.  Please let me know.

>-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
>   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

Sidereal.

Kyle R. Mcallister


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD51BA.99539300
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD51BA.99539300--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 15:03:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16839;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:59:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:59:09 -0800
Message-ID: <19980317225827.6793.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [193.131.12.134]
From: "John Allan" <energy_solutions hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Cc: halfox slkc.uswest.net, editor@infinte-energy.com
Subject: Russia in June?
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:58:26 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"eE4Pp1.0.074.w0m3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16673
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I would like to see if there is any interest on behalf of anyone 
travelling via the UK to St Petersburg, for the June conference, in 
doing a seminar, small conference or meeting people on the way back?

We have good connections with academic scientific groups, magazines, 
parliamentary interest and so on.  A bit short notice to pull in major 
sponsorship but we could promise good hospitality and worthwhile PR.

At present it would seem that sponsorship for a 1999 conference would be 
possible, any support at this stage would make that event more assured.  

The offer also stands to anyone passing this way regardless of the 
reason if it is good for the work.

John Allan, Energy Solutions

E: energy gold.globalcafe.co.uk
T: +44 181 533 5880

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 15:17:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05633;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803172309.SAA04416 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: MAMO energy?
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 18:12:22 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"qfGMS3.0.oN1.aDm3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16674
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

I am very busy completing work on issue #18 of Infinite Energy, so I 
didn't have time to check out this "MAMO Energy" WWW site (I was alerted 
by e-mail to it)  The site thinks itself important enough to be in 
English, German, and French!

http://members.aol.com/mamoenergy/indexeng.htm         from Paul Link in 
Germany

I fear that it is probably vacuous nonsense, or else an inducement to 
some sort of "energy from breasts" -- which is about the way it sounds! 
That could be fun...or just funny...

You guys digest it and tell me what it is all about.

Best,

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  Tue Mar 17 15:24:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07132;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350F02B1.514D skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:09:37 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>							
	 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>				
	 <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>	
	 <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>	
	 <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net> <v03007800b13314113c7d@[198.133.146.230]> <v03007800b133265c8899@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OdAg63.0.Fl1.VIm3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16675
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Over the last few weeks, we have taken a freshman physics 
problem -- the reflection of an electron by a magnetic field, 
and in my opinion irrefutably shown that the Lorentz force is 
insufficient to describe the physical situation. A longitudinal 
force is required to conserve momentum. We have also shown that 
in the case of an electron moving perpendicular to the magnetic 
field, this longitudinal force has a value of one-half of the 
Lorentz force. The relative value of the Longitudinal force is in 
fact equal to the factor k in the magnetic force equation determined 
empirically by Ampere over 150 years ago.

Now, rather than any comments about the significance of this,
or recognition of it's existence, or practical ideas about it,
or suggenstions about how something this simple could be ignored 
by human beings for so long. We get confusting comments like the 
following:

> Now, div v = 0 for this class of problems, but div(vA), the divergence of
> the tensor formed from the two vectors v and A, is not the same as (2).  To
> convince you, consider a charged particle traveling in the x-direction and
> incident upon a magnetic field B pointing in the z-direction. The vector
> potential of this B points in the negative-y-direction. The product v dot A
> is zero. Yet we know that the particle trajectory will be bent. Eq. (2)
> fails in this simple example.

It is not at all complicated. It is freshman physics. Furthermore
some of the above is not correct. For example:

> To convince you, consider a charged particle traveling in the x-direction and
> incident upon a magnetic field B pointing in the z-direction. The vector
> potential of this B points in the negative-y-direction.

We can not in general "know" the direction of the magnetic vector 
potential from the direction and magnitude of the magnetic field . 
The magnetic vector potential field contains substantially more 
information than the magnetic field. Especially the vector potential
field contains information about the relative magnitude and direction
of the sources of the field. The magnetic vector potential is MORE 
fundamental than the magnetic field. 

Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise a magnetic field in which an 
electron will not experience a longitudinal force when it tries to 
enter the field. There is always a spacial gradient in A at the area 
in space where the field begins to exist, and a non-zero value of 
of the spacial gradient v.dot.A as the electron enters the field.
In the reference frame of the electron there is an induced electric 
field (dA/dt) due to its relative motion into the A field, and a 
subsequent longitudinal force. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 15:29:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26320;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:25:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:25:33 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:29:53 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd51fc$96c25ad0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"iiN9y.0.9R6.hPm3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16676
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Michael  Schaffer wrote:
>
>OK, let's see. I agree, that on one side of the current feed point to the
>ring the ring-generated magnetic field at the location of the magnetized
>torus rotor points upward, and that on the other side of the same current
>feed point the ring-generated magnetic field at the location of the torus
>rotor points downward. The magnetization of the torus rotor is the same on
>both sides of the current feed point. So, taking your analysis, the
>interaction of the ring-generated and the rotor magnetic fields pushes
>clockwise on one side and counter clockwise on the other side of the
>current feed. Therefore, net torque is zero.

What rule are you applying to reach this conclusion, as Scott points
out below, applying the Lorentz force law results in no torque, not
cancelling torques. I reach the opposite conclusion by considering
what happens to the total magnetic field energy with torus rotation.
Field energy goes up with one rotation direction and down with the
opposite rotation direction. The torus rotates to minimize total
field energy. This seems to me to be related to the Maxwell stress
tensor you mention. My method has served me well in many practical
magnetics designs over many years.

>As an aside, I will comment that statements like "magnetic fields repel" or
>"magnetic fields attract" are very misleading. They do neither. One can
>calculate the force transmitted by a _complete_ magnetic field (one has to
>include ALL the contributions to the field, including all those electron
>spins in magnetized metal after they have all acted upon each other)
>through the magnetic stress tensor (a part of the more complete, so-called
>Maxwell stress tensor). The calculation is usually complicated, especially
>in geometries of practical interest. The calculation usually involves the
>near cancellation of large, oppositely-signed terms, and hence one has to
>calculate all the major terms carefully.

It is clearly impractical for either of us to do this calculation manually,
and
I am not aware of any FEM magnetics programs that use the Amperian
current element as their basis. I believe that Lorentz force law based
programs
will agree with your lead torque based analysis.

>I don't think the issue is 2D vs 3D. However, the assumption about the form
>of the elemental field is an assumption either way. There is a strong
>tendency among scientists to go with the simpler form when presented with
>an unconstrained choice. Beyond that, one has to go to further experiments.
>Ampere couldn't experiment with electrons in his day. There is no reason
>that his _preference_ has to be taken as proven fact.

We agree that experiment is the only way to decide on the correct model.

>The Graneaus' experiments are _not_ accurate! Their setups are strongly
>artifact-influenced, and the Graneaus neither measure nor calculate their
>artifacts.


Have you read the Graneau's actual papers? I have not yet had time to do so.
Their book is very skimpy on experimental details, but some of the
experiments
leave me at a loss to suggest plausible artifacts.

Scott Little wrote:
>Right, but now I think you are falling into the same trap that you helped
>me out of a while back.  I believe that those particular repulsion forces
>are necessarily radial (since the currents that produce them are
>circumferential) and thus cannot produce a torque on the ring.

Now we are coming to key question. The Lorentz force law supports
your view, but I feel that the partially canceling fields at the connection
point having opposite (CW/CCW) rotation directions cause a magnetic
 field gradient along the wire. To me, if a field gradient exists along the
wire and is caused by the wire, then forces along the wire must be possible
due to this gradient. I believe this an example of the conflict between
the Amperian and Lorentz models.

The longitudinal pump info:
Many longitudinal force experiments were performed by Carl
Hering(1860-1926).

>From Graneau:
Hering graduated in 1880 from the Univ.. of Pennsylvania. Subsequently, he
studied and taught for several years in Germany. He must have been brought
up with Ampere's law and the lived through the triumph of Maxwell's theory.
When Herring returned to the U.S. in 1886, electricity was becoming
plentiful.
It prompted him to develop electric furnaces for metallurgical processing.
In this work he had many opportunities to observe the motion and stirring of
liquid metal caused by the flow of large currents through pools of the
metal.
He noticed the flow of metal along the path of the current. Eventually he
utilized this flow to pump liquid metal through some of his furnaces.
(Hering,C.;"Electromagnetic forces, a search for more rational fundamentals,
a proposed revision of the laws," Journal AIEE,Vol.. 42, p. 1184, 1923)
Knowing only the Lorentz force, today's metallurgists are unable to
understand
the operation of Hering's liquid metal pump.
Hering was a distinguished engineer in Philadelphia who became president of
the American Institute of Electrical Engineers.  He was also a founder of
the
American Electrochemical Society.  Late in life he discovered, to his
amazement,
that the professors of electromagnetism taught their students nothing about
longitudinal forces which made metal flow through his furnaces.
Indignantly, he
returned to his alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, to demonstrate
the
existence of longitudinal forces, using liquid mercury in channels and in
cups.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 16:13:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02767;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:10:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:10:04 -0800
Message-Id: <01BD524E.B61FB560 miles.nhelab.iae.or.jp>
From: Melvin Miles <miles nhelab.iae.or.jp>
To: "'Vortex'" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: TWO THERMISTORS
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:17:44 +-900
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id QAA02720
Resent-Message-ID: <"7ECeU1.0.6h.Q3n3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16677
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

E-mail 03/18/98

Dear Dr. Britz,

I am quite busy preparing my final report for my work at NHE, but I have a few minutes to answer your questions.  The Fleischmann and Pons calorimetric cells that I used here at NHE in my work contained two thermistors in each cell.  I assume this is what
 they use since this system came from their laboratory in France.  I assume their drawings are simplified to show the main components, but that doesn't mean that they only use one thermistor.  From my experience the two thermistors track the changes in th
e cell temperature very closely, hence two or more thermistors are not really necessary.  The two thermistors in their cells are located at different positions in the cell but give essentially the same results.  In my work I have used two thermistors sinc
e 1989.  In my case these thermistors are placed on the outside wall of the cell in a secondary compartment.  Very similar results are obtained from both thermistors with respect to the power output of the cell.  I really believe that cold fusion scientis
ts have thoroughly covered all the topics that critics keep bringing up.  We are really not that stupid to neglect things such as recombination and inadequate mixing of the solution.  I thought these issues were resolved years ago.  I am sorry about your 
run in with Jed Rothwell, but I really don't know anything about this.  I have not heard any bad comments about you.  I think you certainly have the right to be skeptical about cold fusion.  I probably would be the same if I had not measured the effects m
yself in the laboratory.  These effects, however, are small and very difficult to reproduce.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that they are real.  The distortions written by Steve Jones, Dick Blue and others really troubles me.  Scientists have the right to 
be critical, but they also have the obligation to get the facts straight about other peoples work.  I am pleased that my reply to Steve Jones is finally going to be published by the Journal of Physical Chemistry.  I was told that this would be published i
n late M
so it will probably be late April or May.  I hope other scientists will read my reply with an opened mind.  However, I think most scientists have already decided that cold fusion is due to either errors or fraud.  I know that neither is the case for my wo
rk.

I am sorry that I neglected to reply to your e-mail last year.  I don't remember why, but perhaps I was busy getting ready to go to Japan.  I may post this letter on Vortex as well as sending it to you directly.

Thank you for your support in getting my reply published in JPC.  

Best Wishes,

Mel Miles



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 16:34:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07700;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:27:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:27:10 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <109c7d8c.350f14b2 aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:26:24 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"rPaOT3.0.6u1.QJn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16679
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,
Well I got the vacuum pump, a Dayton 4Z577A. Got a break on the price too,
$311 bucks including tax.  Another $50 bucks for  50 feet of copper tubing
and a bunch of fittings. Ready to put my plumbers hat on now.
Running the pump at vacuum now for about 3 hours to break it in. With my
air conditioning manafold guage set it reads 28 inches of vacuum which is 
pretty good here at 3000 feet msl altitude.
Gas cylinders and regulators should arrive sometime this week. Maybe 
tomorrow. If this thing doesn't fly I won't be too dissapointed, too much
anyway. I don't expect success right away. I love to tinker with "stuff",
always have.   
Updates as they happen.

Regards,
Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 16:35:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07325;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:26:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:26:19 -0800
Message-Id: <01BD5250.FB9EEDC0 miles.nhelab.iae.or.jp>
From: Melvin Miles <miles nhelab.iae.or.jp>
To: "'Vortex'" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: TWO THERMISTORS
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:33:59 +-900
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ba2Kr3.0.1o1.dIn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16678
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

E-mail 03/18/98

(Re-sending due to problems with previous transmission 

Dear Dr. Britz,

I am quite busy preparing my final report for my work at NHE, but I have a few minutes
 to answer your questions.  The Fleischmann and Pons calorimetric cells that I used here 
at NHE in my work contained two thermistors in each cell.  I assume this is what they use
 since this system came from their laboratory in France.  I assume their drawings are 
simplified to show the main components, but that doesn't mean that they only use one 
thermistor.  From my experience the two thermistors track the changes in the cell
 temperature very closely, hence two or more thermistors are not really necessary.  
The two thermistors in their cells are located at different positions in the cell but 
give essentially the same results.  In my work I have used two thermistors since 1989. 
 In my case these thermistors are placed on the outside wall of the cell in a secondary 
compartment.  Very similar results are obtained from both thermistors with respect to 
the power output of the cell.  I really believe that cold fusion scientists have 
thoroughly covered all the topics that critics keep bringing up.  We are really 
not that stupid to neglect things such as recombination and inadequate mixing 
of the solution.  I thought these issues were resolved years ago.  I am sorry 
about your run in with Jed Rothwell, but I really don't know anything about this. 
 I have not heard any bad comments about you.  I think you certainly have the 
right to be skeptical about cold fusion.  I probably would be the same if I had 
not measured the effects myself in the laboratory.  These effects, however, are 
small and very difficult to reproduce.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that they 
are real.  The distortions written by Steve Jones, Dick Blue and others really
 troubles me.  Scientists have the right to be critical, but they also have the 
obligation to get the facts straight about other peoples work.  I am pleased that 
my reply to Steve Jones is finally going to be published by the Journal of 
Physical Chemistry.  I was told that this would be published in late March 
or April, but I have not yet received the proofs so it will probably be late 
April or May.  I hope other scientists will read my reply with an opened 
mind.  However, I think most scientists have already decided that cold fusion
 is due to either errors or fraud.  I know that neither is the case for my work.

I am sorry that I neglected to reply to your e-mail last year.  I don't remember why,
 but perhaps I was busy getting ready to go to Japan.  I may post this letter on Vortex 
as well as sending it to you directly.

Thank you for your support in getting my reply published in JPC.  

Best Wishes,

Mel Miles



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 16:43:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11684;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:38:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:38:07 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b1349455daa0 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:43:37 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
Resent-Message-ID: <"QiHaR.0.Rs2.jTn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16680
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:56 AM 3/16/98, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>Electron bombardment of a Hydrogenous material such as a polyethylene or
>polypropylene plastic film (Glad sandwich or Garbage bags) mounted on a
>metal plate, or such.
>
>About any electron energy over 27.2 volts that strikes a hydrogen atom in
>the plastic MIGHT create a Virtual Photon Pair with a rest mass-energy of
>less than 17 ev (the estimated rest mass of the Neutrino).    :-)
>
>Again, dE = hbar/dt and dx = c*dt for the collision should make the
>Quasi-Neutron.
>


At 2:05 PM 3/16/98, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>
>I read over the papers and conclude that too
>much energy was involved, a possibly counter-productive.
>
>My experience with electron bombardment of quartz slides (fluorescence used
>to see the beam geometry) that secondary electron emission will set up
>enough of a field to cause a discharge through the insulator to the
>conductive plate in back, thus I think plastic films up to several mils
>thick would be OK at low EB energy. When I used copper ions at up to 60 kev
>on ion implantation research the copper
>distributed in dendritic shapes through the glass making beautiful copper
>"trees".
>


Yes, a lot of energy was involved in Conte's experiments (hopefully what
you are referring to above) due to his calculation of an (e + p --> n)
resonance at 800 KeV.

Note that anytime an electron approaches a proton there is pontentialy .5
MeV available just from the electrostatic acceleration.  I suggest that
possibly this is ironically *the major hurdle* overcome in succesful CF
and/or nuclear transmutation experiments.  Certainly it is a desirable
design objective.  The reason for this is that if some means can be devised
to bring an electron and proton into close proximity (e.g. via collapsing a
Bose Condensate) without significant remaining kinetic energy, then the e
and p should be capable of forming a combined electrostatic and magnetic
bond by orienting their spins in parallel so the magnetic fields are
directed in opposite directions.  This creates a bound e + p particle which
is not a neutron.  A similar construct, an e orbiting a p in a sub Bohr
orbital was called a protoneutron by Mitchel Jones (s.p.f, circa 9/13/95).


Creating the e + p bond is simply a matter of dissipating enough energy
during the approach of the e and p. Preferably such energy would be
dissipated in a manner available for utilization, but even that doesn't
matter because a bound e + p, having no net charge, would obviously be a
magic alchemical ingredient for defeating the coulomb barrier.  It would
appear that if an electron can be slowed to less than it's escape velocity
from the proton that Brehmsstrahlung should take care of radiating away the
remaining kinetic energy to permit formation of the final e + p bond. This
doesn't seem to happen in the volume that might be expected, so I proposed
in 1995 the "Sub-orbital Hypothesis", which suggested that ZPE, providing
the mechanism that maintains the atomic structure without radiation, may be
responsible for reinstating the atom, i.e spontaneously raising the
potential energy of the electron back to orbital status, and thereby
permanently taking energy from the vacuum in so doing.  If true, this is
good for making energy, but not good for alchemy.  The key to utilizing
this method, if feasible, was being sure the deBroglie wavelength of the
incident electrons was intially less than an angstrom, i.e. the electron
kinetic energy greater than about 2 KeV at a distance of about an angstom
from the nucleus.

What is needed for alchemy is some mechanism to greatly slow the electron
in the vicinity of the nucleus in order to increase the momentary e + p
binding time and also to increase the prospect for formation of a
sufficient electromagnetic bond to overcome the field gradient present
during a coulomb barrier penetration.  You have proposed just such a
mechanism - formation (separation) of particle pairs from the vacuum by the
strong electrostatic field between the proton and electron upon close
approach.  Such a mechanism could drain large amounts of kinetic energy
from an impinging electron.

It is thought by some that a free electron, by itself, creates such a
strong electrostatic field that the electron is phoenix like - creating
(e-,e+) pairs in it's own vicinity, and self annihilating with the
positron, in effect "transporting" itself to the location of the new
electron.  Such an effect would only be enhanced by approach to a
positively charged baryon, due to the increased field strength imposed on
the intervening vacuum, i.e. by greatly increasing the volume of vacuum
which can produce long lived pairs.  For this reason, I see the possibility
of creating heavy lepton pairs as a possible part of the scenario for p + e
bonding.

To me, this is the exciting part of your idea of pair creation causing the
formation of a Quasi-Neutron, that there is at last a mechanism proposed
that can possibly explain the at least temporary binding of the electron to
the proton for a sufficient duration to permit low energy nuclear
transmutation, namely: particle pair creation which taps the kinetic energy
of the impinging electron:

               pair creation
   (e)==>     <-(e+) x (e-)->    P


If a pair is created at point x between a nucleus p and electron e, then
the positron of the pair e+ moves towards the e and the electron of the
pair e- moves towards the p.  The e+ and e annihilate producing radiation.
Meanwile the new e- moves toward the nucleus, from a starting point closer
to the nucleus, and from a starting kinetic energy (at x) near zero.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 16:46:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13076;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:43:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:43:34 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007803b134c869c0e1 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd51fc$96c25ad0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:44:01 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"BxkPs3.0.1C3.pYn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16682
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>>The Graneaus' experiments are _not_ accurate! Their setups are strongly
>>artifact-influenced, and the Graneaus neither measure nor calculate their
>>artifacts.
>
>
>Have you read the Graneau's actual papers?

	Yes, I did.


>The longitudinal pump info:
>Many longitudinal force experiments were performed by Carl
>Hering(1860-1926).

	Anything more recent? Modern pumps work on J x B.

That stiring in post of molten metal is difficult to analyze. I worked with
it many years ago. One has to include all the hydrodynamic forces,
including forces when flows impinge on walls, and gravity when the surface
rises or falls locally. The Graneaus did not do this analysis.

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 Mar 17 16:49:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20709;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b134bc7b4992 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:43:43 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZQoEG.0.T35.6Vn3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16681
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:09 PM 3/17/98, Robert Stirniman wrote:
>Over the last few weeks, we have taken a freshman physics
>problem -- the reflection of an electron by a magnetic field,
>and in my opinion irrefutably shown that the Lorentz force is
>insufficient to describe the physical situation. A longitudinal
>force is required to conserve momentum. We have also shown that
>in the case of an electron moving perpendicular to the magnetic
>field, this longitudinal force has a value of one-half of the
>Lorentz force. The relative value of the Longitudinal force is in
>fact equal to the factor k in the magnetic force equation determined
>empirically by Ampere over 150 years ago.

This does not seem possible, at least not with respct to charges moving in
a superconductor.  Suppose you have a thin superconducting ring (torus)
containing a current.  This ring is immersed in its own field, which is
circular about the ring, i.e. around the conductor.  The B field is in the
form of counterclockwise circles about the conductor, looking in the
direction of electron motion. The Lorentz force drives the electrons away
from the superconductor ring surface, while their mututal electrostatic
repulsion drives them toward the surface.  If there were any longitudinal
component, the electrons would spontaneously be either accelerated or
decellerated longitudinally by such a force, thus increasing or decreasing
the current.  This does not happen.  It has been demonstrated that the
current can remain for years.  Therefore it is resonable to assume that the
longitudinal force, if it exits, can only exist in a direction parallel to
the lines of flux, and can only be induced on charges with some component
of motion in the direction parallel to the lines of flux.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 16:59:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16726;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:55:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:55:49 -0800
Message-ID: <350F2A08.B94025A1 ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:57:29 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <v01530500b134bc7b4992 [199.237.131.236]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PLdys.0.854.Hkn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16683
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The longitudinal force is placed on the wire and not on the electrons, further
more the direction of the longitudinal force is not dependant on the direction
of current flow, The force most likely is a repulsion or attraction of the wire
unto it's self that can be made to push a circuit element in one direction with
the right means to off balance it.
Like the magnet, remember the discussion on the Aharonov Bohm effect, well the
same thing is happening here, the current is being off balanced by the
different induction of the wires by the two routs.


John Berry


Horace Heffner wrote:

> At 3:09 PM 3/17/98, Robert Stirniman wrote:
> >Over the last few weeks, we have taken a freshman physics
> >problem -- the reflection of an electron by a magnetic field,
> >and in my opinion irrefutably shown that the Lorentz force is
> >insufficient to describe the physical situation. A longitudinal
> >force is required to conserve momentum. We have also shown that
> >in the case of an electron moving perpendicular to the magnetic
> >field, this longitudinal force has a value of one-half of the
> >Lorentz force. The relative value of the Longitudinal force is in
> >fact equal to the factor k in the magnetic force equation determined
> >empirically by Ampere over 150 years ago.
>
> This does not seem possible, at least not with respct to charges moving in
> a superconductor.  Suppose you have a thin superconducting ring (torus)
> containing a current.  This ring is immersed in its own field, which is
> circular about the ring, i.e. around the conductor.  The B field is in the
> form of counterclockwise circles about the conductor, looking in the
> direction of electron motion. The Lorentz force drives the electrons away
> from the superconductor ring surface, while their mututal electrostatic
> repulsion drives them toward the surface.  If there were any longitudinal
> component, the electrons would spontaneously be either accelerated or
> decellerated longitudinally by such a force, thus increasing or decreasing
> the current.  This does not happen.  It has been demonstrated that the
> current can remain for years.  Therefore it is resonable to assume that the
> longitudinal force, if it exits, can only exist in a direction parallel to
> the lines of flux, and can only be induced on charges with some component
> of motion in the direction parallel to the lines of flux.
>
> Regards,
>
> Horace Heffner



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 17:11:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20633;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:09:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:09:52 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b134cf124f9a [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:15:39 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"D7jMt2.0.D25.Uxn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16684
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:57 PM 3/18/98, John Berry wrote:
>The longitudinal force is placed on the wire and not on the electrons,

In my example the field is created by the electrons in the superconductor.
If such a field produces a force on the "wire" it must produce an equal and
opposite fore on the electrons, thus accelerating or decellerating them,
which does not happen - unless we are also abandoning newton's laws as
well.




> further
>more the direction of the longitudinal force is not dependant on the direction
>of current flow, The force most likely is a repulsion or attraction of the wire
>unto it's self that can be made to push a circuit element in one direction with
>the right means to off balance it.


Longitudinal means in the direction of electron motion, does it not?  The
longitudinal force is directed tangential to the major radius of the (thin)
torus.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 17:13:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20992;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:11:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:11:02 -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 mail.eskimo.com
From: Ed Wall <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: 'Saint' popularity
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:10:25 +0000
Message-ID: <19980318011023.AAA1287 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"U19JK2.0.v75.ayn3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16685
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Votexians,

I am happy to announce that 'The Saint' was the No. 1 rental from
Albertson's in Midland, TX last week.

I wonder if that 'Infinite Energy' bumper sticker is working!



Ed Wall
ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
-- Juvenal

Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
[Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 17:30:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25123;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:25:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:25:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980317202433.0074c71c world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:24:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Re: 'Saint' popularity
In-Reply-To: <19980318011023.AAA1287 HOME>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-e81D1.0.R86.y9o3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16686
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



   Ed,

 Thanks for the update.
 It was a good movie. 

 And some of the equations appear to be correct if you 
look closely.

         Mitchell

===================================================

At 01:10 AM 3/18/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Votexians,
>
>I am happy to announce that 'The Saint' was the No. 1 rental from
>Albertson's in Midland, TX last week.
>
>I wonder if that 'Infinite Energy' bumper sticker is working!
>
>
>
>Ed Wall
>ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net
>
>Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
>-- Juvenal
>
>Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
>[Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 17:46:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA30138;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:44:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:44:25 -0800
Message-ID: <350F3570.B40BCA9D ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:46:09 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <v01530501b134cf124f9a [199.237.131.223]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gkuy53.0.pM7.tRo3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16687
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Horace Heffner wrote:

> >The longitudinal force is placed on the wire and not on the electrons,
>
> In my example the field is created by the electrons in the superconductor.
> If such a field produces a force on the "wire" it must produce an equal and
> opposite force on the electrons, thus accelerating or decellerating them,
> which does not happen - unless we are also abandoning newton's laws as
> well.

Who said that the force was placed only on one conductor element?The force is most
likely between two conductor elements, equal and opposite force on both wires not on
the electrons, even if there were forces placed on the electrons it does not mean
that the voltage would rise or fall, there could be an acceleration force followed
by a deceleration force of equal magnitude.

>
>
> > further
> >more the direction of the longitudinal force is not dependant on the direction
> >of current flow, The force most likely is a repulsion or attraction of the wire
> >unto it's self that can be made to push a circuit element in one direction with
> >the right means to off balance it.
>
> Longitudinal means in the direction of electron motion, does it not?  The
> longitudinal force is directed tangential to the major radius of the (thin)
> torus.

It means on the same axis but it could be in either direction.

John Berry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 18:32:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA08978;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:28:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:28:55 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Message-ID: <a62aa381.350f30da aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:26:32 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Broken Symmetry
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hqo6x3.0.6C2.a5p3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16688
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

What happened to the cold fusion movie Broken Symmetry?

Frank Znidarsic

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 20:08:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26008;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980317234338.005a7d00 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:43:41 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"pqvw02.0.HM6.0Vq3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16689
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:38 AM 3/17/98 EST, you wrote:
>To produce the high voltage I am using a TV flyback autotransformer driven
>by a surplus US Navy sonar test signal generator (tubes!). With the output
>of the flyback transformer unloaded I got the highest output voltage at about
>15 KHz. Now, with the transformer hard wired into the apperatus, highest
>voltage output is at 82KHz. There is a lot of added capacitance on the HV
>side that may explain the shift in resonance to a higher frequency but I
would
>have thought that that would lower the freq., not raise it. 
>I don't really care about the shift, just curious.
>7:30 AM here in Vegas and I'm off to buy the vacuum pump.
>
>Regards,
>Vince
>Las Vegas
>

Likely you're hitting a harmonic there. I can attest to the fact
that as you add capacity in parallel with the secondary winding,
the frequency will go down. Quite a bit, as there is precious little
capacity between turns. My experience was also that this would
reduce the overall voltage obtainable (for the usual reasons).
Try adding a small amount of capacity and scoping the output,
you'll see just what you expect. Keep adding until you reach
the measured load capacity, then tune up. Of course,

By the way, having fooled around some with potassium for alloying
purposes, I can tell you that it's not as dangerous as you
might think. Common sense and a little respect will keep you
from needing the extinguishers, etc. I always had a great deal
of difficulty cleaning it, as Scott has seen. You might do
better to try to generate it in-situ, if purity is a concern.
I always ended up with a little residue from the
mineral oil...

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 20:13:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27231;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980317234934.005bcde8 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:49:37 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"5NHRW2.0.Bf6.iaq3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16690
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:32 AM 3/17/98 GMT, you wrote:
>Funny you should mention that. Circuits that don't "go anywhere",
>would appear to fit right in with Bearden's theories.
>And when you come to think of it, if you want energy to flow out of
>the "aether", rather than out of your power source, then just such a
>"circuit" would appear to be the way to go, in as much as a complete
>circuit would allow a current to flow, thus draining energy form your
>own power source.
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>

Errr, you did look at the pictures, yes? If you have an
understanding of what some of these circuits are, please
comment. I am frankly at a loss here. Consider, for example,
daniel20.jpg. There's not much to analyze here. A simple
DC circuit, cut in half. Kind of like that old trick of
sawing the woman in half. What's going on there, eh?

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 20:39:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA07459;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:36:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:36:56 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:46:38 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: hu (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980317224632.20240H-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"LIlfm2.0.Pq1.bzq3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16691
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:44:48 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: hu



       Five reasons to believe computers are male:

1. They have a lot of data, but are still clueless.
2. A better model is right around the corner.
3. They look attractive-until you take them home.
4. Big power surges knock them out for the rest of the night.
5. In order to get their attention, you have to turn them on.

           Five reasons to believe computers are female:

1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic.
2. Even the smallest mistakes are committed to memory.
3. The native language used to communicate with others of their kind
is incomprehensible to anyone else.
4. The message "bad command or file name" is about as informative as,
"If you don't know what's wrong, then I'm not going to tell you."
5. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself
spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 20:46:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09652;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:44:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:44:13 -0800
Message-ID: <001201bd5229$33c02890$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:49:14 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"AHEzp3.0.fM2.R4r3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16692
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace,

Welcome back!  I missed your input.

Joe Champion

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 21:34:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA10529;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980317230357.008b3610 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:03:57 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <109c7d8c.350f14b2 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"vCdyS3.0.Qa2.9or3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16693
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

While you're building, Vince, you should be thinking about some form of
calorimetry for your experiment.  It's unrealistic to expect such a big
effect that the tube melts....I think.  

How about a thermocouple on the tube somewhere and then compare the
temperatures you reach with and without the K metal (which I mailed off to
you yesterday, BTW)?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 17 21:34:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA21248;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:31:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:31:41 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980317232653.008b18d0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:26:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: longitudinal force
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"qaiBO2.0.VB5.pmr3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16694
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Just when I'm beginning to feel comfortable that Mike Schaeffer has
skillfully put this longitudinal force in the trash forever, Robert
Stirniman indicates that he is equally comfortable that we've just shown
that a longitudinal force is required to explain the motion of an electron
in a magnetic field!

Robert, I have a real hard time believing that there are any unrecognized
aspects of electromagnetism of such a fundamental nature.  There are
countless devices (e.g. motors, generators, particle accelerators, cathode
ray tubes, etc.) that have been meticulously designed using only Maxwell's
equations (i.e. the Lorentz force), which have subsequently been
constructed and tested, verifying that actual performance matches
theoretical performance to an arbitrary degree.  How could the existence of
a major electromagnetic force (~1/2 the Lorentz force), unknown to these
designers, possibly escape detection in such an incredibly detailed scrutiny?

Can you propose a relatively simple experiment which could be used to
settle the question of whether or not the longitudinal force exists?  If
so, I would be interested in conducting such an experiment.  Ideally it
would involve currents flowing in wires interacting with magnetic fields
rather than electron ballistics but I will consider anything you suggest.

Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 17 22:58:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA06285;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:56:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:56:04 -0800
Message-ID: <350F7E79.CBB29E5D ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:57:46 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
References: <3.0.32.19980317234934.005bcde8 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HpWrI3.0._X1.10t3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16695
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Note how in every single circuit (both halfs) there are switches, but in
all pictures where the lights or motors are not going batterys or coils
are taken out not the switches turned off, what use do these switches
serve?
The switch in daniel45.jpg looks wired up wrong to me?

What function can the switches possibly play?


John Berry


Keith Nagel wrote:

> At 11:32 AM 3/17/98 GMT, you wrote:
> >Funny you should mention that. Circuits that don't "go anywhere",
> >would appear to fit right in with Bearden's theories.
> >And when you come to think of it, if you want energy to flow out of
> >the "aether", rather than out of your power source, then just such a
> >"circuit" would appear to be the way to go, in as much as a complete
> >circuit would allow a current to flow, thus draining energy form your
> >own power source.
> >
> >Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
>
> Errr, you did look at the pictures, yes? If you have an
> understanding of what some of these circuits are, please
> comment. I am frankly at a loss here. Consider, for example,
> daniel20.jpg. There's not much to analyze here. A simple
> DC circuit, cut in half. Kind of like that old trick of
> sawing the woman in half. What's going on there, eh?
>
> KPN



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 23:25:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA22122;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350F76B2.6E56 loc1.tandem.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:24:34 -0800
From: Bob Horst <bhorst loc1.tandem.com>
Reply-To: bhorst loc1.tandem.com
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: ICCF details?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hSifx1.0.aP5.RLt3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16696
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I hope to attend part of ICCF in Vancouver, but will not be able to get 
away to attend all of it.  In order to maximize my 2 or 3 day trip, I 
was wondering if anyone has a more detailed agenda of who will be 
presenting when.  In particular, I would like to see Fleischmann, Miley, 
CETI, and BLP.  I would also like to talk with many Vorts, especially 
those I have never met face-to-face. 

Who else is planning to be at ICCF?  Is there interest in a Vortex 
dinner or evening get together?  What days will most people be there?

Thanks for any information you can provide.

-- Bob Horst

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 17 23:27:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA10746;
	Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:23:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:23:14 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:23:04 -0800
Message-Id: <199803180723.XAA15464 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: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"JXpKz2.0.pd2.WPt3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16697
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
>prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?
>Scott Little 

Rail guns, conductors with gaps filled with mercury.

See the book,  "Newton vs Einstein"  by Graneau

In it are several discussions on experiments they have already done
outlining why they think longitudinal forces exist.

If electrons are resonances, it makes sense to me that they would experience
a longitudinal force.  But as for why it would not normall be noticed, the
norm is that you cause the electric current to flow via closing some form of
loop or other.  If you think carefully, it is not normal to induce a
longitudinal flow of current that does not close back on itself.  you would
need some sort of resonance back and forth across a linear conductor between
two capacitors, and that would only work as a damped sinusoid.

If you close a current, you don't have a longitudinal force strictly
speaking.  The current closes back on itself and the spacetime throughout
that region becomes filled with wave resonant energy and ergo a magnetic
field as described with difficulty many times before.

The mercury gaps supposedly showed that there was a longitudinal force, and
the way in which the rails of the rail guns buckle under stress supposedly
showed it too.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 00:26:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA19002;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:21:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:21:55 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530507b13534db39a8 [199.237.131.244]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:27:44 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: (Some old) Results regarding B parallel longitudinal force.
Resent-Message-ID: <"ommL82.0.le4.XGu3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16698
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

            Results regarding B parallel longitudinal force.

                      Horace Heffner - 4/20/96

There can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement
through an orthogonal magnetic field.  This conclusion is due to a simple
experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is the placing
of a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally
to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm.  It is then
cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring,
making it a magnet. If the subject force existed, it would either create a
runaway current in the ring, or suppress the current. The current induced
in the ring generates a magnetic field orthogonal to it's own motion, which
would generate either a reinforcing or retarding longitudinal force upon
charges in the current. In either case, an effect which has never observed
should occur. Either there should be a runaway current (reinforcing force)
or the superconduction should be immediately suppressed (retarding force).
This does not happen.  Therefore, if a longitudinal EM force exists, it is
due to motion parallel to magnetic lines of flux.  It is therefore of
interest to design an experiment to determine if such a force exists, and
if it is of a magnitude such that simple practical devices can be built
using such a force.

Below is depicted a possible configuration for testing for a parallel
magnetic field induced longitudinal force.  A group of permanent magnets
are arranged in a circle with their adjacent poles attracting. This is done
to restrict the lines of flux to a nearly toroidal configuration.  A coil
of wire is formed (dimpled) over the top of the magnets and dips down into
the gaps between the magnets so that much of the conductive path around the
coil is parallel to the lines of flux. Call this a dimpled coil
confiuragtion (DCC).


Here is a simplified drawing of a dimpled coil configuration:


TOP VIEW:

                    --------
                   |        |
                   |        |
                   |S      N|
                   |        |
                   |        |
     -----------0--------------x------->------
     |             |        |                |
     |             |        |                |
     |             |S      N|                |
     |             |        |                S
     |             |        |                N
     N             |        |                |
     S              --------                 |
     |                                       |
     |                                       |
     |                                       |
     |                                       |
     ------------------NS-----<--------------


Note - "dimples" over magnets repeated around ring.


SIDE VIEW:

                 ------>-------
                |   --------   |
                |  |        |  |
                |  |        |  |
                |  |        |  |
                |  |        |  |
                |  |        |  |
     x-----------  |S      N|  -------------o
                   |        |
                   |        |
                   |        |
                   |        |
                   |        |
                   |        |
                    --------


x - denotes wire into page, o - denotes wire out of page

If the coil is superconducting, there should quickly and spontaneously be a
runaway current in the coil in the direction in which the force is
operative.  this is due to thermal electron motion and local background EM
fields.   If the force is directionless a runaway should still occur as one
local regime overwhelms all others in its runaway current growth.

In a non-superconducting dimpled coil, there should be a slightly higher
resistance in one direction than the other if the force is directional,
i.e. dependent on the sign of B with respect to v, when they are parallel.


A DCC was fabricated to see if the suggested nonsymmetric effect on the
inpedence of such a coil would be readily detectable at low voltages and
currents.  This was done using four 1" x 1" x 0.5"  35 MGO magnets, where B
runs through the 0.5" thickness similar to the drawing above.

Four 0.5" thick 1" wide and 1" deep slots were milled into a 10" x 6" x 2"
foam block to hold the magnets in place.  The slots were positioned so the
centers of the magnets (i.e the magnetic field B) were aligned tangent to a
2 1/2" cicle.  A 1/4" wide groove was milled centered on the 2 1/2" circle
connecting the magnets.  The magnets were wrapped with electricians tape to
prevent chips from flying in the case of an accidental attraction and to
prevent the insulation of the fine wire coil from being cut.  The magnets
were inserted into the slots oriented so they were attracting, i.e. with
opposing poles unalike, as in the drawing above.

A 50 turn coil of what appeared to be labelled no. 40 wire (it was measured
to be .0032" thick including insulation) was wrapped on a 4" thermos cap.
The cap had to be destroyed to get the wire off.  The coil resistance was
measured at 59.9 ohms.  The wire coil was then layed over the magnets and
pressed down into the circular groove between the magnets. The slack was
shared equally in wire arches above each of the magnets.  The wire in the
grooves was them held in place by compressing very soft plastic foam
"packing worms" into the grooves above the wire. Wire leads from the coil
were then taken to 1 1/2" plastic machine screws screwed into the each side
of the foam block. There at the macjhine screw and nut, they were soldered
to some no. 22 bell wire, which was then run to an additional plastic
machine screw for support to prevent motion in the vicinity of the fine
wire joint.  The two bell wire leads were then taken to a DPDT switch wired
for fast lead reversal.

The wire resistance was measured again.  It was 60.0 in either direction. I
had closed a window a few minutes earlier so thought the difference in
resistance might be from a temperature increase.  I blew warm air over the
DCC and the resistance jumped to 60.2 ohms.

Another 10" x 6" x 2" foam block was machined to accept the wire arches
above the magnets and taped on top of the first block to prevent accidental
tool attractions etc., and to stabliize the temperature.

The resistance remained 60.1 ohms in both directions, thus the results are
negative.

A 1 kHz square wave was fed into the coil and the output square wave was
unchanged from an input wave except for an appx. 1 volt 1.25 MHz decaying
oscillation at the leading edges visible for roughly 8 us.

A DC power supply was connected and varied from 3 to 25 V while monitoring
both voltage and current for directional differences while toggling the
DPDT switch to reverse current flow direction. No assymetries were found.
The output voltage was monitored by oscilloscope also. A waveform could be
seen due to self induction from the coil field reversal, but no asymmetry
was apparent.

The results of this test were negative as measured to better than 1 part in
300.  If such a force exists, it appears that it will only be found using
superconducting coils or some completely different form of test using near
light speed electrons.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 00:34:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA00833;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Posted-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:26:53 +0300 (MEST)
Message-ID: <350F6CCC.3C686596 verisoft.com.tr>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:42:20 +0200
From: Hamdi Ucar <hamdix verisoft.com.tr>
Organization: Orchestra
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: hu (fwd)(off topic)
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980317224632.20240H-100000 college>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JCfsM3.0.xC.IPu3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16699
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
> 
>        Five reasons to believe computers are male:
> 
<snip> very good five reasons

 
>            Five reasons to believe computers are female:

<snip> very good five reasons>

Probably they are gay!, specially after having making to much intercourse with MS.

Thank you John, It was good start for Wen. morning.

hamdi ucar


 
> 1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic.
> 2. Even the smallest mistakes are committed to memory.
> 3. The native language used to communicate with others of their kind
> is incomprehensible to anyone else.
> 4. The message "bad command or file name" is about as informative as,
> "If you don't know what's wrong, then I'm not going to tell you."
> 5. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself
> spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 01:20:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA30014;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:18:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:18:57 -0800
Message-Id: <v0153050bb1353f2ca643 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:24:47 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"rFls1.0.uK7.06v3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16700
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Horace,
>
>Welcome back!  I missed your input.
>
>Joe Champion

Thanks Joe.  I missed you vorts, but took a much needed break.  Should not
have come back yet, but got too curious.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 04:09:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA28242;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:06:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:06:32 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980318070419.006865a8 agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:05:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Spherical  Resonator... / Reactor?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VzpRX3.0.Cv6.7Zx3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16701
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi John,

Thanks for ><http://www.dtm-corp.com/Technology/Materials/rapidstl.htm>

>.....
>The National Design Engineering Show is in town this week and I
>will be there tomorrow.  I can keep a eye open for you if there is something
>specific you are looking for.

Seems like their "RapidSteel" product (of DTM), may have decent magnetic
qualities. The electrical resistance specs would be interesting, (not found
at web site). I suppose i should say i'm not in the loop, rather more like:
on the pristine edge of suburbia, interested in making contacts. (I'm broke).

>Joint venture doing what?   
>
>-- 
>John E. Steck

Please note i wrote "to joint venture" as a possibility open to inputs. If
it is interesting, the experiment would be to 3d print such a resonator ,
to see what it can do. (Plenty of test procedures in mind). I have some
cheaper routes to explore also, but the 3D printing promises to offer
uniformity of electrical/ magnetic fields.  Coil Winding International
Magazine gives a green light to "integrated steel windings",
"electromagnetic devices without non-ferrous metals", (Volume 2i, Issue 2,
pg 26).

My guess is the 3d print shop would want $10K+.  I've heard getting the STL
files right can take weeks for something like this. I do have the software
and a CD writer.  It's a  question of price/ resolution.

Structurally speaking, we humans have been stuck on "extrusion" and
"laminar" processes for manufacturing.  To push the envelope, we need to
work with isotropic structures as well. My resonator/ reactor design
addresses this needlessly neglected area.

Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 05:15:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA24116;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01b701bd526e$da9c52c0$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: WIMP Decay in Transmutations?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:07:07 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"6AahQ3.0.iu5.UXy3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16702
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The Superstring Circle Particle Model treats the particles "stacked" in a
nucleus as:

5A -2Z  Circle Particles plus Z external electrons:

2A "up" or + circle-particles

2A - Z "down" or - circle particles

A - Z neutrinos (+-)


Neutron, [+-(+-)+-]

Proton, [+-+]  (external e- )

Antiproton, [-+-]  (external e+)

In a nucleus with Z greater than 26-30,  Supernova or Neutron Star-built
heavy nuclei
the paired (+-) "Heavy Neutrinos" 624 Mev WIMPS?
could come off by the hundreds from a fissioning nucleus without any readily
detectable radioactive signature.

Since these "Dark Matter" particles are captured by stars and incorporate
them in the heavy nuclei before they explode as a Supernova
it figures that transmutation will release them.  :-)

Regards,   Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 05:33:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA11057;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:31:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:31:55 -0800
Message-ID: <000e01bd527a$8175a320$3046d3d0 default>
From: "Mike Carrell" <mikec snip.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:27:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"2cuPu3.0.hi2.Apy3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16703
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Ross Tessien's citation of the work of the Graneaus I will add Aspden's
Law of Electrodynamics which shows that where a current involves charge
carriers of unequal mass, very strong longitudinal forces can exist. You
will find references to this in his Aether Science essays on his web site.

The Graneaus cite experiments in which high voltage capacitors discharged
through wires will cause them to _fracture_ (not neck down via Lorentz
forces, nor melt). Microscopic examination of the surfaces of the ends of
the segments show that the wire was pulled apart. Their books cite a whole
series of experimental evidences for the longitudinal forces.

The fact that practical devices have been built around the Lorentz forces is
not proof that that formulation is comprehensive, nor that these forces
don't exist. If you read the Graneaus' books and Aspden's work you will see
that starting with Faraday there were several paths to take, not one.

The experimental evidence for the longitudinal force is one cornerstone of
the Graneaus' attack on Relativity as incomplete.

Mike Carrell



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
<snip>
>Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
>prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?
>
>
>Scott Little
>EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 18 06:02:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA29155;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980318135818.00687280 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, 18 Mar 1998 08:58:18 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny freeway.net>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Resent-Message-ID: <"v6u4W.0.S77.5Dz3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16704
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

You only see the circuit on the surface and not below the board.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 06:10:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17996;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:07:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:07:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199803181407.JAA29420 mail.enter.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <chronos mailman.enter.net>
From: "Robert G. Flower" <chronos mail.enter.net>
Organization: Applied Science Associates
To: Scott Little <little eden.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:37:09 -0500
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Reply-to: chronos enter.net
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19980317232653.008b18d0 mail.eden.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52)
Resent-Message-ID: <"UUlwt1.0.3P4.XKz3r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16705
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 17 Mar 98 at 23:26, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: 

> To:            vortex-l eskimo.com
> From:          Scott Little <little eden.com>
> Subject:       longitudinal force

> Can you propose a relatively simple experiment which could be used to
> settle the question of whether or not the longitudinal force exists?  If
> so, I would be interested in conducting such an experiment.  Ideally it
> would involve currents flowing in wires interacting with magnetic fields
> rather than electron ballistics but I will consider anything you suggest.
> 
> Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
> prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?


A) replications of the Graneau's modern version of Ampere's original 
"hairpin" experiment

B) replications of Remi Saumont's improved versions of the Graneau 
and Ampere experiments

These experiments are designed to measure the force of one part of a
circuit on another part of the same circuit.  The circuits are made
"deformable" by the use mercury cups to allow one leg of the circuit
to move with respect to another part. 

Apparatus is no more complex than mechanical or electronic balances,
and reasonably precise electronics instruments.

References:

1) "Newtonian Electrodynamics" by Peter Graneau and Neal Graneau. 
World Scientific, 1996.  ISBN 981-02-2681-0

2) "Ampere Force: Experimental Tests" by Remi Saumont. pp. 620-635 in 
Ref. 4

3) "The Netwonian Electrodynamics and its Experimental Foundation" by 
Peter Graneau.  pp. 636 - 666 in Ref. 4

4) Advanced Electromagnetics: Foundations, Theory and Experiment" 
edited by Terence Barrett and Dale Grimes.  World Scientific, 1996. 
ISBN 981-02-2095-2.


First step is to obtain these books and copies of the many journal 
papers cited therein. It is important to actually replicate the 
experiments as reported.  



Best regards,

Bob Flower

=============================================
Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates
> Scientific Software & Instrumentation <
> Quality Control Engineering <
=============================================

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 06:55:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08645;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:52:56 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <f8b5b392.350fdf47 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:50:44 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"7gxys2.0.-62.5_z3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16706
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-18 00:32:53 EST, you write:
> should be thinking about some form of calorimetry for your experiment.  It's
unrealistic to expect such a big effect that the tube melts....I think.  
>  
>  How about a thermocouple on the tube somewhere and then compare the
>  temperatures you reach with and without the K metal    <snip>...

Yes Scott, I have been rethinking this.  I the heat to cobble this together I
have been throwing science to the winds and thats not the thing to do. I have
a double thermocouple encased in a graphite shoe that was used as temperature
control sensor for a large laser printers fuser roll. It would be easy to
grind the shoe to fit the curvature of the quartz tube and mount it to the
tube somehow.  Mechanical?  Glue?  What?  Any ideas? 
The shoe has two sensors embedded in it. It was removed from the printer
because the mounting spring broke but the sensor part of it is in good shape. 
Back to Graingers today for more copper tubing fittings. I ran the vacuum pump
for 4 hours last night to give it a good break in. 

Regards,
Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 08:02:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA20680;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:58:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:58:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <350FEE27.103B interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:54:15 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <3.0.5.32.19980317232653.008b18d0 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LjZ_p1.0.z25.Uy-3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16707
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
(snip)

> Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
> prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?
> 

It's not that simple, Scott!  People like us are "unclean" because we
haven't studied the sacred writings of Peter Graneau.  Hell, I haven't
studied the original writings of Lorentz either but it still seems to
me that this list could come up with a simple test to check for the
longitudinal force!
Horace presented some good stuff using superconductors but can't we
come up with a room-temperature test that all can agree on?
In our old discussions on this subject, we considered sliding
conductors that could elongate or retract in response to a longitudinal
force.  How about:

1. One half inch copper water pipe (1/2 in. ID) sliding over 1/2 inch
copper tubing (1/2 in. OD).  Open up the inter-tube clearance so that
a wetting film of Hg would fill the gap and permit the tubes to slide
over one another.
I like coaxial designs because of their self shielding and ease of
analysis.
If a shorted, coaxial line is made with sliding tubes forming both
the inner and the outer conductor, the Lorentz force tending to expand
the tubes is easily calculated.  A long "lead-in" portion of the 
grounded end of the coax would serve to isolate the test region from the
current source (An auto storage battery or one-turn transformer
winding should do for the current source.).
The test end of the coax could be on a float in a water tank with
a sensitive "end-thrust" gage to measure the elongational force on the
coax.  In such a coaxial rig, the external magnetic fields would be
very small and the Lorentz portion of force is easy to calculate.
Now, come on, longitudinal force lovers - would the force show up in
this rig or do we need an extensive modification to show the force?
We may need to vibrate the grounded end of the coax with a piezoelectric
driver to prevent "stiction" between the tubes.


grounded outer tube
_______________________________________		sliding outer tube
		)______________________(_________________________
								 |
								 |
_______________________________________				 |
grounded ^      )______________________(_________________________|
inner tube 							 |
		sliding inner tube^		shorting disk>>> |>force
		 ________________________________________________|
________________)______________________(			 |
								 |
								 |
		_________________________________________________|
________________)______________________( <--\
					     \
<<to current source     		     typical wetting Hg film


Another idea would be to orient the coax in the vertical direction and
suspend the moving part with a sensitive spring.  The rig would be
nulled by adjusting the spring at zero current and calibrated with
known weights.
Problems:
	1. The capillary forces of the Hg meniscus would need to be
	   studied and considered.
	2. A "wetted" condition, I believe, would be unstable and would
	   tend to draw the tubes into contact on one side.  Is this
	   correct?  Perhaps a conductor that does not wet with Hg
	   would provide a convex meniscus and be stable?  Thoughts?
	   Carbon does not wet with Hg, does it?
	   However, a non-wetting film of Hg would expell itself from
	   the annulus region, would it not?
	3. The biggest problem is if the longitudinal force would
	   cancel out in the inner and outer tubes net force.  Any
	   input from LF proponents?

If hairpin loop type rigs are used, I think large pools of conducting
fluid carrying current should be avoided if possible -
magnetohydrodynamics is hard enough to write, much less analyze!!
I'm open to other suggestions......

Scott, Horace, I'm feeling a "deja vu all over again" kind of thing
here!!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 08:15:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23096;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:05:20 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] College application
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803181109_MC2-3738-79A8 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"M33WG.0.he5.j8_3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16708
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I enjoyed the "Five Reasons" posted by John Schnurer. As long as we are
posting witty material from the web, here is something my daughter sent me.
The kid who wrote this application should be accepted and hired too. NYU
should let him teach Freshman English.

- Jed


This is an actual essay written by a college applicant to NYU. The author was
accepted and is now attending NYU.

3A. IN ORDER FOR THE ADMISSIONS STAFF OF OUR COLLEGE TO GET TO KNOW YOU, THE
APPLICANT, BETTER, WE ASK THAT YOU ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: ARE THERE
ANY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD, OR ACCOMPLISHMENTS YOU HAVE
REALIZED, THAT HAVE HELPED TO DEFINE YOU AS A PERSON?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have been
known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more efficient
in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I
write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.

Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.

I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing, I can pilot
bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook Thirty -Minute
Brownies in twenty minutes. I am an expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and
an outlaw in Peru.

Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended a
small village in the Amazan Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants.

I play bluegrass cello, I was scouted by the Mets, I am the subject of
numerous documentaries. When I'm bored, I build large suspension bridges in my
yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On Wednesdays, after school, I repair
electrical appliances free of charge.

I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. Critics
worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening wear. I don't
perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller
number nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I toured New Jersey
with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstation. I bat .400

My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in international botany
circles. Children trust me.

I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy. I once
read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day and still had
time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I know the exact
location of every food item in the supermarket. I have performed several
covert operations with the CIA. I sleep once a week; when I do sleep, I sleep
in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated with a
group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. The laws of physics do not
apply to me.

I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends,
to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I
discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. I have made
extraordinary four course meals using only a mouli and a toaster oven.

I breed prizewinning clams. I have won bullfights in San Juan, cliff-diving
competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling bees at the Kremlin. I have played
Hamlet, I have performed open-heart surgery, and I have spoken with Elvis.

But I have not yet gone to college.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 08:42:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29323;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01ef01bd528b$aaf8b640$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Homogeneous Reactor Fission Products?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:33:27 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"G9SJW1.0.4A7.zY_3r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16709
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The Homogeneous Reactor Experiment No.1 (HE-1)
was ran at Oak Ridge Labs, 1952-1954.

It used a water solution of enriched Uranyl Sulfate (90%) in water 35gr/kg
H20.

It would be interesting to see what the fission
products were in the presence of the Hydrogenous water as opposed to other
fuel compounds.

These could be similar to the claimed transmutation "ash".

Robert E.?

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 09:37:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA07835;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:24:49 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Message-ID: <eeb6e391.35100250 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:20:14 EST
To: 72240.1256 compuserve.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com,
        editor infinite-energy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: jed asked
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Resent-Message-ID: <"iMDOv3.0.Aw1.TD04r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16710
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jed Askes:


Okay . . . here is my question. Why? What bothers these people? Looking at the
numbers, I do not see that heavy element fusion is much more unlikely. If you
can do anything to disturb the nucleus with CF, and you can somehow overcome
the Coulomb barrier to fuse deuterons together (or accomplish something like
that, anyway), why is it so much more difficult to imagine that a deuteron
might fuse with atom in the surrounding lattice? Am I missing something? I
suspect these people may be hung up on the mechanical or practical
difficulties of heavy element fusion as it would be done in a Tokamak. The
..........................................................................

Znidarsic replies

The couldombic barrier is a problem.  If the barrier is overcome with shear
force a high energy reaction will still be produced resulting in signatures.
CF fusion does not produce the expected radioactive signatures.

The answer lies in the fact that cold fusion occurs in a fifth state of
matter..the condensed superconductive state.  The electrical permeability in a
condensaation goes to infinity.  No voltage gradient or potential gradient can
exit.,

I published a paper on this in Fusion Facts

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html">Yusmar Johnstown
Znidarsic</A> 

Ref to other links and publications list.

Other evidence is:
..........................................................
OBSERVATIONS OF STRONG RESISTIVITY REDUCTION IN A PALLADIUM
THIN LONG WIRE USING ULTRA-HIGH FREQUENCY PULSED ELECTROLYSIS
AT D/]Pd > 1.

F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi, D. Di Gioacchino, S. Pace,
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, via E.Fermi 40, 00044
Frascati (Italy);

P. Marini, V. Di Stefano, EURESYS, Rome (Italy);
A.Mancini,ORIMS.r.L.,viaConcordia65,6210OMacerata(Italy).

We have tested thin and long pure Palladium wires (diameter 
of 100 Jim, length of 160 cm), using medium-power (peak 
current  up to 4A) ultra-highfrequency electrolysis, 
(trapezoidal-like pulse shape: width  about 20 ns,
repetition rate 27 MHz, rise time < 4ns) in a 0.25 mN
 LIODD20 solution. The experimental set-up consists of 
a PTFE cylinder (4 cm of diameter), a Pdwire turned 
around it and a Pt wire (I mm of diameter) turned in
 the same way at I cm (constant distance) from the Pd
 wire.  This device is located ina graduated cylindrical
 glass (chemical grade) filled with the electrolytic
solution.  A specifically designed electronic circuit has
 been developed toproduce an ultra-high frequency
 high-voltage electrolysis.  Read out circuit
are linked to a PC to acquire cyclically (every 2 
seconds) few selected signals from the sensors.  The device
 is kept at constant-as-possible temperature (about 20 
Celsius) by massive cooling. We have measured (with a 
special a.c. read-out circuit) the differences of
potential along the wire, after switching off the 
electrolytic power supply (in order to avoid false 
reading due to ultra-high exciting frequency.)
Awire segment (1/4 of total, the most cathodic) showed
 a very low resistance behavior in some tests (corresponding
 to R/Ro values much less than 0.05 and in a case less 
than 0.01): the typology of this effect occurred in different
ways.  In one case the low resistance was persistent for
 several minutes (18) and returned to the expected value
 in few seconds (10).  In an other case the low resistance 
lasted for few minutes (3) and returned to thenormality 
in a short time (much less than 5 s).  In other tests the low
resistance lasted a few seconds and slowly (many minutes)
 returned to theexpected value. Taking in account the 
R/Ro Vs D/Pd curve reported in literature and extrapolating 
it (the R/Ro values found are never reached before) we assume
to have overcome the D/Pd value of 1 (supposing that this
 value is not an asymptotic physical limit). The reproducibility 
of this effect is still under study. Work supported by: INFN,
 ORIM (Italy); NEDO-NHE (Japan).
Palladium wire kindly providedfrom: ORIM.
..............................................................................
.
............................................................................

4043809 : High temperature superconductors and method 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVENTORS:Ruvalds; John J., Charlottesville, VA 22901
ASSIGNEES:none ISSUED:Aug. 23, 1977 FILED: May 24, 1976SERIAL NUMBER: 
689252 MAINT. STATUS: INTL. CLASS (Ed. 2):C22C 19/03; C22C 30/02; U.S. 
CLASS:075-134.N; 075-134.C; 075-134.F; 075-159; 075-165; 075-170; 
075-173.R; 075-173.C; 423-644; FIELD OF SEARCH:055-16,74 ; 423-644 ; 
075-170,159,165,134 F,134 C,134 N,173 R,173 C ; AGENTS:Pennie & Edmonds; 

ABSTRACT:   This invention comprises a superconductive compound having 
the formula: Ni1-x Mx Zy wherein M is a metal which will destroy the 
magnetic character of nickel (preferably copper, silver or gold); Z is 
hydrogen or deuterium; x is 0.1 to 0.9; and y, correspondingly, 0.9 to 
0.1, and method of conducting electric current with no resistance at 
relatively high temperature of T>1° K comprising a conductor consisting 
essentially of the superconducting compound noted above. 

U.S. REFERENCES:  Show the 1 patent that references this one Patent No.
Inventor Issued Title2739256 *Elsey3 /1956  2785046 *Butler3 /1957  
3382106 *Jung et al.5 /1968  3438819 *Hicks4 /1969  3720752Van Houten3 
/1973  3776508Katz12 /1973 PROCESS FOR MASSIVELY HYDRIDING 
ZIRCONIUM-URANIUM FUEL ELEMENTS3776855Raymond et al.12 /1973  3793435
Reilly et al.2 /1974  3825418Reilly et al.7 /1974  3829552Reed8 /1974  
  * some details unavailable
Exemplary Claim(s): Show all 12 claims 
What is claimed is:
•1. A superconductive compound having the formula: Ni1-x Mx Zy wherein M 
is a metal which will destroy the magnetic character of nickel; Z is 
hydrogen or deuterium; x is 0.1 to 0.9; and y, correspondingly 0.9 to 
0.1. •2. A superconductive compound having the formula: Ni1-x Mx Zy
 wherein M is a metal selected from copper, silver, gold or mixtures 
thereof; Z is hydrogen or deuterium; x is 0.1 to 0.9; and y, 
correspondingly, 0.9 to 0.1. 


RELATED U.S. APPLICATIONS: none 


FOREIGN APPLICATION PRIORITY DATA: none
FOREIGN REFERENCES: none


OTHER REFERENCES: 
•W. L. McMillan, "Transition Temperature of Strong-Coupled 
Superconductors", Physical Review, vol. 167, pp. 331-167 (1968). •T. 
Skoskiewicz, "Superconductivity in the Palladium-Hydrogen and 
Palladium-Nickel-Hydrogen Systems", Phys. Stat. Sol. (a), vol. 11, K123 
(1972). •B. Stritzker, "High Superconducting Transition Temperatures in 
the Palladium-Noble Metal-Hydrogen System", Z. Physik, vol. 268, pp. 
261-264 (1974). •D. A. Papaconstantopoulos and B. M. Klein, 
"Superconductivity in the Palladium-Hydrogen System", Physical Review 
Letters, vol. 35, pp. 110-113 (1975). 
PRIMARY/ASSISTANT EXAMINERS: Rutledge; L. Dewayne; Weise; E. L.
 
Frank Znidarsic

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 09:52:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11487;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318124526.0095ca20 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:45:26 -0500
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Production?
Cc: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>, <rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov>
In-Reply-To: <011701bd50d5$471a3d40$2d8cbfa8 default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"eAMYD.0.Lp2.8X04r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16711
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 05:15 AM 3/16/98 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>As a first step in the PeP production of a Deuteron, might it be possible
>that a "Quasi-Neutron" is produced from the collision of an electron with a
>Proton,which concurrently produces a Pair from a Virtual Photon , ie., a
>Neutrino? resulting in a bound state.
 
   Actually, you can have hydrogen burning which proceeds via:

    p+ + e- --> (virtual) n + neutrino
    p + n --> d + gamma (radiative capture)

   The problem is that at temperatures where the first reaction is likely,
the deuterium produced in the second reaction is very short lived.
However, if there is any mixing between hydrogen and the deeper layers of
large stars where  nucleii beyond He4 are found, then the virtual neutrons
will get snapped up pretty quick. (As will protons for that matter.) So
stars which have proceeded to helium burning have a short life, and a
violent one.  (Another way to look at it is that there is a temperature
range where deuterium decomposes and cools the interior of a star.  So
until the hydrogen is all gone, the temperature that can be reached is limited.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 09:55:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16788;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:49:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:49:30 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318125059.0095d5a0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:50:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Potassium
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980316092157.00b184ec mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IJRTl1.0.664.ca04r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16712
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:21 AM 3/16/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
 
>In less than a minute the paper towel caught fire where the little
>scrapings were furiously oxidizing on it.
>
>Then I noticed that the 1/16" slab had melted!  K's m.p. is
>63C...apparently the heat from oxidation of the surface was sufficient to
>melt the relatively thin piece.  Fortunately it just sat there on a
>non-combustible surface and oxidized quietly.
 
   I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Potassium is nice in that it
is predictable.  In these circumstances it will always melt and burn--if
you want a clean surface, work in argon.  Sodium is much worse because it
is unpredictable--sometimes it burns quietly, sometimes it just smolders,
and other times it explodes.

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 09:59:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18959;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:56:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:56:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318125826.00ba6510 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:58:26 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Potassium
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <350D58F9.6220 interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980316092157.00b184ec mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"kTETJ1.0.8e4.Zh04r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16713
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:53 AM 3/16/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>How about using a 15 --> 20 gallon fish aquarium for a "glove box"?
>Lay the aquarium on one side, cover the open top (now side) with a
>loose sheet of plastic with rubber gloves taped in for access.
>Tape in a few tubes for purge-gas, purge-vent, etc.  Magnetic strip
>based access hatch closure?  Did Vince say he was going to get some
>argon gas? - good purge!  N2 cheaper?  CO2 even cheaper?  Or would
>K displace C from CO2? Chemists? (I'm sure it would displace SOMETHING
>from a chemist!)

    Even Magnesium will continue to burn in CO2, nitrogen, or water.
Potassium can burn in water, but it sometimes explodes.  Potassium won't
spontaneously combust in nitrogen or CO2, but it will oxidize.  (Yes,
oxidize is the right word, even if the final compound is a nitride.)

    Potassium will displace hydrogen from a chemist, and if the damage from
the potassium isn't painful enough, that hydrogen can burn. 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 09:59:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA19252;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:57:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:57:53 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:59:15 -0500 (GMT)
From: Carlos Henry Castano <chcastan perseus.unalmed.edu.co>
To: grupo de discusion <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ICCF details?
In-Reply-To: <350F76B2.6E56 loc1.tandem.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980318075620.8059A-100000 perseus.unalmed.edu.co>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cZVkC.0.Wi4.Vi04r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16714
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Bob Horst wrote:
> Who else is planning to be at ICCF?  Is there interest in a Vortex 
> dinner or evening get together?

Can you take any photographs and paste this in any site of Internet?

Carlos Henry Casta~o Giraldo
Lab. Electroquimica
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 10:12:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15411;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD685 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:07:01 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"3LmTN2.0.hm3.6t04r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16715
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vince
	Think of using the Zinc Oxide thermal paste (used for mounting
power transistors) between the graphite shoe and the quartz tube. Then
you only need a good mechanical fit between them and a couple of screws
to hold things together.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	VCockeram[SMTP:VCockeram aol.com]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 18, 1998 6:50 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
> 
> In a message dated 98-03-18 00:32:53 EST, you write:
> > should be thinking about some form of calorimetry for your
> experiment.  It's
> unrealistic to expect such a big effect that the tube melts....I
> think.  
> >  
> >  How about a thermocouple on the tube somewhere and then compare the
> >  temperatures you reach with and without the K metal    <snip>...
> 
> Yes Scott, I have been rethinking this.  I the heat to cobble this
> together I
> have been throwing science to the winds and thats not the thing to do.
> I have
> a double thermocouple encased in a graphite shoe that was used as
> temperature
> control sensor for a large laser printers fuser roll. It would be easy
> to
> grind the shoe to fit the curvature of the quartz tube and mount it to
> the
> tube somehow.  Mechanical?  Glue?  What?  Any ideas? 
> The shoe has two sensors embedded in it. It was removed from the
> printer
> because the mounting spring broke but the sensor part of it is in good
> shape. 
> Back to Graingers today for more copper tubing fittings. I ran the
> vacuum pump
> for 4 hours last night to give it a good break in. 
> 
> Regards,
> Vince
> Las Vegas
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 10:14:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15740;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318131128.00b6bc00 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:11:28 -0500
To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Generator?
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b13326b70aa3 [199.237.131.235]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mj2Rl3.0.ir3.Jv04r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16716
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:44 AM 3/16/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>I really like your Quasi-Neutron idea, but wonder about the possibility of
>using even more energy to create ordinary leptons (instead of LL's) in the
>process.  In a wild and wooly private collaboration with Prof. Elio Conte
>in 1996, which I agreed to keep confident for a while to let him publish
>(that time interval is long gone, and haven't heard from Elio Conte or seen
>a publication either) the discuission led to a similar experiment as you
>propose, performed by Conte et al, with (preliminarily and possibly
>erroneous) positive results!  The motivation was his p + e --> n quantum
>theory, but the experiment was similar. Here is the relevant
>correspondence, including some of my typical blunders and wild
>speculations:
 
    I don't think the results are erroneous, in fact you may have missed
some postings I recently made that are very similar.  (Except that I have
been focusing on using silver to produce more energetic betas...)  

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 11:07:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06480;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:04:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:04:39 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b134f343d07f [199.237.131.244]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:10:24 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"UV77v.0.6b1.5h14r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16717
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In response to John Berry's post included below:

John,

I may be confused, but you appear to be talking about something (copy of
referenced post below at very bottom) other than my thought experiment as
related to Robert Stirniman's post, and as related to the notion of some
kind of generally applicable modification to the Lorentz law.  Are you
still talking about a toroidal superconducting ring with a current (out in
space with nothing else around?)  It is axially symmetric and in
equilibrium. The only current is around the ring.  There is no lateral
current.  (It may be possible to hypothesize a spiral current in the torus
though, but that has not been addressed.)  In any event, by virtue of being
symmetric and in equilibrium (possibly for years), the electrons in motion
by inirtia, there can be no instabilities (radiation would kill the
current), and there can be no unbalanced forces on the electrons in the
longitudinal direction, as current would then not be stable.

If a lateral force exists on the electrons (i.e. parallel to the magnetic
field through which the electron travels) then a spiral flow and spiral
magnetic field would develop.  This would then (a) be detectable as an
increasingly srong spiral current and field (doesn't happen) and (b) then
make longitudinal a vector component of the net electron motion relative to
the now oblique field B, thus providing a runaway longitudinal force
(doesn't happen).


Let me review:

At 3:09 PM 3/17/98, Robert Stirniman wrote:
>Over the last few weeks, we have taken a freshman physics
>problem -- the reflection of an electron by a magnetic field,
>and in my opinion irrefutably shown that the Lorentz force is
>insufficient to describe the physical situation. A longitudinal
>force is required to conserve momentum. We have also shown that
>in the case of an electron moving perpendicular to the magnetic
>field, this longitudinal force has a value of one-half of the
>Lorentz force. The relative value of the Longitudinal force is in
>fact equal to the factor k in the magnetic force equation determined
>empirically by Ampere over 150 years ago.

I then wrote the following, proposing a thin superconducting ring as a
demonstration of the impossibility of a general longitudinal force:

"This does not seem possible, at least not with respct to charges moving in
a superconductor.  Suppose you have a thin superconducting ring (torus)
containing a current.  This ring is immersed in its own field, which is
circular about the ring, i.e. around the conductor.  The B field is in the
form of counterclockwise circles about the conductor, looking in the
direction of electron motion. The Lorentz force drives the electrons away
from the superconductor ring surface, while their mututal electrostatic
repulsion drives them toward the surface.  If there were any longitudinal
component, the electrons would spontaneously be either accelerated or
decellerated longitudinally by such a force, thus increasing or decreasing
the current.  This does not happen.  It has been demonstrated that the
current can remain for years.  Therefore it is resonable to assume that the
longitudinal force, if it exits, can only exist in a direction parallel to
the lines of flux, and can only be induced on charges with some component
of motion in the direction parallel to the lines of flux."

At 1:57 PM 3/18/98, John Berry wrote:
>The longitudinal force is placed on the wire and not on the electrons, further
>more the direction of the longitudinal force is not dependant on the direction
>of current flow, The force most likely is a repulsion or attraction of the wire
>unto it's self that can be made to push a circuit element in one direction with
>the right means to off balance it.
>Like the magnet, remember the discussion on the Aharonov Bohm effect, well the
>same thing is happening here, the current is being off balanced by the
>different induction of the wires by the two routs.

I wrote:

"In my example the field is created by the electrons in the superconductor.
If such a field produces a force on the "wire" it must produce an equal and
opposite fore on the electrons, thus accelerating or decellerating them,
which does not happen - unless we are also abandoning newton's laws as
well."

[snip]

Longitudinal means in the direction of electron motion, does it not?  The
longitudinal force is directed tangential to the major radius of the (thin)
torus."

At 2:46 PM 3/18/98, John Berry wrote:
[snip]
>
>Who said that the force was placed only on one conductor element?The force
>is most
>likely between two conductor elements, equal and opposite force on both
>wires not on
>the electrons, even if there were forces placed on the electrons it does
>not mean
>that the voltage would rise or fall, there could be an acceleration force
>followed
>by a deceleration force of equal magnitude.
>
>>
>>
>> > further
>> >more the direction of the longitudinal force is not dependant on the
>>direction
>> >of current flow, The force most likely is a repulsion or attraction of
>>the wire
>> >unto it's self that can be made to push a circuit element in one
>>direction with
>> >the right means to off balance it.
>>
>> Longitudinal means in the direction of electron motion, does it not?  The
>> longitudinal force is directed tangential to the major radius of the (thin)
>> torus.
>
>It means on the same axis but it could be in either direction.
>
>John Berry

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 11:26:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11211;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:22:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:22:38 -0800
Message-Id: <199803181921.OAA24559 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: ICCF details?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 14:23:54 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fPkDl2.0.vk2.xx14r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16718
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Can you take any photographs and paste this in any site of Internet?
>
>Carlos Henry Casta~o Giraldo
>Lab. Electroquimica
>Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin.

Subscribe to Infinite Energy and you'll get all the photos and data you 
could want! We have subscribers in Mexico and Argentina -- two of our 37 
countries, but none from Colombia - as far as I know..


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 Mar 18 12:10:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23026;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:04:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:04:08 -0800
Message-ID: <023401bd52a8$75d4b6e0$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Production?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:59:09 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"O72FX.0.Zd5.pY24r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16719
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert I. Eachus <eachus mitre.org>
To: Frederick J. Sparber <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
Cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>; rl_brodzinski@pnl.gov
<rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: Quasi-Neutron Production?

Robert I. Eachus wrote:


>At 05:15 AM 3/16/98 -0700, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>>As a first step in the PeP production of a Deuteron, might it be possible
>>that a "Quasi-Neutron" is produced from the collision of an electron with
a
>>Proton,which concurrently produces a Pair from a Virtual Photon , ie., a
>>Neutrino? resulting in a bound state.
>
>   Actually, you can have hydrogen burning which proceeds via:
>
>    p+ + e- --> (virtual) n + neutrino
>    p + n --> d + gamma (radiative capture)
>
>   The problem is that at temperatures where the first reaction is likely,
>the deuterium produced in the second reaction is very short lived.
>However, if there is any mixing between hydrogen and the deeper layers of
>large stars where  nucleii beyond He4 are found, then the virtual neutrons
>will get snapped up pretty quick. (As will protons for that matter.) So
>stars which have proceeded to helium burning have a short life, and a
>violent one.

Sure. The "virtual neutron" as you call it,
is now looking at R = 2*kq^2/Eo*[(qV/Eo)+1]
for formation of a "Hydrogenic" helium nucleus with a net charge q. Then for
the second "virtual neutron" to form:
 R = kq^2/Eo*[(qV/Eo)+1] making a oHe4 neutral particle. Two of these can
combine with a 2He4
make 6C12. Or one can combine with 6C12 and
make 8O16 as long as things are hot enough to
create the 54.4 ev He++ ions in the first place.

  (Another way to look at it is that there is a temperature
>range where deuterium decomposes and cools the interior of a star.  So
>until the hydrogen is all gone, the temperature that can be reached is
limited.

What's a few hundred-thousand degrees here and there?   :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>                                        Robert I. Eachus
>
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 12:43:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08229;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318143715.00b34848 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:37:15 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <f8b5b392.350fdf47 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"RBvDW3.0.V02.p134r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16720
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:50 3/18/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:

>control sensor for a large laser printers fuser roll. It would be easy to
>grind the shoe to fit the curvature of the quartz tube and mount it to the
>tube somehow.  Mechanical?

Yes, do the grinding, then strap it onto the tube with Cu or SS wire, small
enuf dia to conform nicely.  Use pliers to twist the wire up nice and tight
to snug the thing against the tube.



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 Mar 18 13:05:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11404;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <024a01bd52ae$c47aa100$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Off Topic, Medical Humor
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:44:38 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"-kapk3.0.vn2.cE34r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16721
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

My wife's younger sister (mother of three) was
undergoing a gynecological exam by a young male doctor with a nurse in
attendance. The doctor noticing that she was quite stressed, asked her about
her career as a social worker.

"Do you enjoy your job",he asked? Nervously, she replied,"yes,do you enjoy
yours"?

The poor guy lost it in a fit of hysterical laughter and had to leave the
exam room.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 14:20:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28405;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:16:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:16:50 -0800
Message-ID: <35104630.3FDA skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:09:52 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: (Some old) Results regarding B parallel longitudinal force.
References: <v01530507b13534db39a8 [199.237.131.244]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PFPf11.0.Sx6.DV44r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16722
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> There can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement
> through an orthogonal magnetic field.  This conclusion is due to a simple
> experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is the placing
> of a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally
> to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm.  It is then
> cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring,
> making it a magnet. 

Hi Horace. Nice to see you back. 

You have presented a fascinating problem. First maybe we should clear 
up one thing in the title of this thread. The longitudinal force is 
NEVER parallel to the B field. In the case of parralel motion to a B 
field there is no longitudinal force, also no Lorentz force. The 
longitudinal force can range in relative value from zero to one-half 
of the Lorentz force, and reaches a maximum of one-half when motion 
is perpendicular to the B field and there is maxium relative spacial 
gradient in the A field. 

In this problem, all motion is perpendicular to the B field. The A field
is circular -- so is the superconducting current loop. Whether the wire
is a superconductor or not, a current is induced in the wire as it is 
removed from the B field. With a superconductor it is not damped out
by resistivity, and maintains a value such that the flux which was in
the loop remains constant. 

It may not be possible to demonstrate a physical manifestation of the
longitudinal force in a rigid conductor loop. The force always seems to
integrate out to zero around the loop. Hence all experiments which 
demonstrate this force use moving conductors -- via sliding contacts
or liquid metal conductors. Also the force can be demonstrated to 
exist in the case of an isolated element of current -- such as an
isolated moving charge (i.e. electron reflected by magnetic field). 

In any case, I believe it is possible to show that the longitudinal 
force MUST exist within the conductor loop in your experiment. 

The Lorentz force can not impart momentum. It can change the direction
of motion of a moving charge, but it can never change the magnitude of
velocity. Prior to moving the superconductor loop, all electrons are
at rest. After moving the loop from the B field, the electrons are
moving in the loop. They have been accelerated. A longitudinal force 
is REQUIRED to accelerate the electrons.  

The longitudinal force is generated as you remove the loop. By pulling
the loop out of the B field with velocity v -- an E-field is induced
within the loop due to motion through the spacial gradient of the 
A field. The apparent induced E field (dA/dt) in the reference frame
of the electron is given by  E = (v dot del)A, where v is the 
mechanical velocity with which you remove the loop from the B field.

Note that the force is equal and opposite on both sides of the loop,
and that the final, terminal velocity of the electrons does not 
depend on how quickly you remove the loop from the B field. The
induced electric field (dA/dt) depends on velocity, but the 
variation in acceleration of the electrons is balanced equally 
by the time it takes to remove the loop. Terminal velocity 
(acceleration times time) is constant. Terminal velocity of the
electrons in the loop only depends on the relative magnitude of 
the A field -- the amount of flux in the loop. 

You may want to argue that it is the Lorentz force acting on
the mechanical velocity used to remove the loop, which induces the
terminal veloctiy of the electrons. Try it. By using only the
Lorentz force, you will find that you can not achieve an electron 
terminal velocity which is independent of how quickly you remove
the loop from the field. The Lorentz force can not change the
velocity of a moving charge. It can only change the direction
of motion. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 14:22:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29110;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:18:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:18:56 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:16:49 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd52bb$8be0cf10$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"hLm4Q2.0.O67.EX44r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16723
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Scott asks:
>Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
>prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?


Actually, Michael Schaffer has proposed a good test by controlling
the radial position of the contact point for a slip ring connection
on the Marinov motor ring electrode. His analysis says that rotation
direction should be controllable if Lorentz forces are the only
factor at work here. I agree, but believe the longitudinal forces
will dominate and ring rotation will be largely unchanged as
the connection point is moved. Unfortunately this setup
is somewhat more complex mechanically than the basic
motor. So far only Jeff Kooistra has tried rotating rings.
Bob Flower's suggested experiments look interesting.
It looks like another book purchase is in order.


Michael Schaffer wrote:
>Anything more recent? Modern pumps work on J x B.

Unfortunately no, perhaps someone else knows if any
longitudinal force pump implementations are still in use.

>That stirring in post of molten metal is difficult to analyze. I worked
with
>it many years ago. One has to include all the hydrodynamic forces,
>including forces when flows impinge on walls, and gravity when the surface
>rises or falls locally. The Graneaus did not do this analysis.

I agree that this experiment is difficult to analyze quantitatively.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 14:24:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA30204;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:21:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:21:44 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b135e20f2968 [12.64.66.221]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b134cf124f9a [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:51:26 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"2EQyE2.0.cN7.qZ44r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16725
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  In my example the field is created by the electrons
   >  in the superconductor. If such a field produces a
   >  force on the "wire" it must produce an equal and
   >  opposite fore on the electrons, thus accelerating or
   >  decellerating them, which does not happen - unless
   >  we are also abandoning newton's laws as well.

Maybe electron flow in a superconductor doesn't create this effect for some
reason. Conduction modes, magnetic field generation (no field inside there
where the actual flow occurs), and space properties within the SC are all
quite different from "normal" conductors.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 14:25:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA30090;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:21:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:21:30 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b135dd03f9f9 [12.64.66.5]>
In-Reply-To: <350FEE27.103B interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980317232653.008b18d0 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:31:48 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"9xWcC1.0.yL7.dZ44r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16724
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  Open up the inter-tube clearance so that a wetting
   >  film of Hg would fill the gap and permit the tubes to
   >  slide over one another.

Just a side note on the experimental details:

Couldn't solder and a propane or bunsen burner flame under the tubes be
substituted successfully in place of the toxic and expensive mercury? In
some of the Graneau experiments which used deeper pans of metal, this
wouldn't be appropriate because specific fluid metal convections are an
important part of the observations that lead to their conclusions, and heat
flows would confuse that. But for sliding tubes, it should be ok.

And as far as the circuit is concerned, doesn't it have to be a straight
line to confound those who would sum the curving magnetic field following
the conducting path over the entire loop of the circuit? For instance, use
one very large positive charge reservoir and a large negative reservoir
with your tubes in between. Not sure if that's practical though...probably
not enough capacity.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 14:29:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28911;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:25:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:25:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: ICCF details?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:17:24 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd52bb$a07b9ea0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"GhMrW1.0.W37.Hd44r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16726
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Bob Horst wrote:
I hope to attend part of ICCF in Vancouver, but will not be able to get 
>away to attend all of it.  In order to maximize my 2 or 3 day trip, I 
>was wondering if anyone has a more detailed agenda of who will be 
>presenting when.  In particular, I would like to see Fleischmann, Miley, 
>CETI, and BLP.  
The schedule details are available on the web at:
http://www.iccf-7.org/

It doesn't look like BLP will be there.

>Who else is planning to be at ICCF?  
I am planning to attend but only have a hotel reservation so far. 
I think Scott is participating in the Mon. evening panel. 

>Is there interest in a Vortex  dinner or evening get together? 
Yes

> What days will most people be there?
4/18 Sun. to 4/24 Fri. for me.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 16:29:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19699;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35106500.3720 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:21:21 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <3.0.5.32.19980317232653.008b18d0 mail.eden.com> <l03102800b135dd03f9f9@[12.64.66.5]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"z0JxB2.0.hp4.AL64r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16727
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Frank -
> 
>    >  Open up the inter-tube clearance so that a wetting
>    >  film of Hg would fill the gap and permit the tubes to
>    >  slide over one another.
> 
> Just a side note on the experimental details:
> 
> Couldn't solder and a propane or bunsen burner flame under the tubes be
> substituted successfully in place of the toxic and expensive mercury?

Good point, Rick!  Even better if we could come up with a scheme using
something like salt water for the sliding joint.  We would then have
the messy electrolysis gas to deal with, but it might be doable - since
we would hope to make a measurement in a short time.

In
> some of the Graneau experiments which used deeper pans of metal, this
> wouldn't be appropriate because specific fluid metal convections are an
> important part of the observations that lead to their conclusions, and heat
> flows would confuse that. But for sliding tubes, it should be ok.

One trouble with currents in large pools of liquid is that normal
Lorentz pinch forces along a current path can cause a squeeze effect
to move the fluid in the direction of current flow.  I think that such
things are transient and are pressure driven rather than directly EM
driven - that is, the EM squeeze is radial but the fluid squishes out
axially.
> 
> And as far as the circuit is concerned, doesn't it have to be a straight
> line to confound those who would sum the curving magnetic field following
> the conducting path over the entire loop of the circuit? For instance, use
> one very large positive charge reservoir and a large negative reservoir
> with your tubes in between. Not sure if that's practical though...probably
> not enough capacity.
> 

I see what you're getting at, Rick and I too would worry about having
enough capacity in such a system.  A lightning stroke might have 5
coulombs of charge transferred from cloud to ground.  Even that kind
of charge storage would support a wimpy 5 amps for 1 second.

I don't know if the longitudinal force would be evident in a coaxial
configuration but I like them because they have such a simple, contained
and symmetrical magnetic field.  Sigh, I always seem to hit a wall
on this problem and it's very frustrating because it's so easy to 
show the plane old Lorentz force between two wires (think garage, wire
plus car battery!).

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 18:01:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25936;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:58:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:58:10 -0800
Message-ID: <35107B84.1EB7 darknet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:57:24 -0500
From: Steve <darklord darknet.net>
Reply-To: darklord darknet.net
Organization: DarkNet Online/Digital Fusion
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jdecker keelynet.com
CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: article relating to Bose-Einstein condensates
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------555B25C93D9D"
Resent-Message-ID: <"MkXUO1.0.1L6.mk74r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16728
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.

--------------555B25C93D9D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Jerry and vortex,  

	I came across an article that I found was interesting, even more so
because it is very similar to some ideas I had along these lines. 

Question: does the temperature of a mass affect it's resonance
frequency? I'm guessing it does, and if so, then would matter at 0
Kelvin have no resonance frequency at all? 

ttyl
-Steve
-- 
     darklord darknet.net | UIN: 5113616    
   DarkNet Online: http://www.darknet.net
Digital Fusion: http://www.darknet.net/fusion

--------------555B25C93D9D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="cold.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="cold.htm"
Content-Base: "file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/cold.htm"

<BASE HREF="file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/cold.htm">





<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">



<HTML>

<HEAD>

<font color="#FF0000" size="5" face="Arial, Helvetica"><b>MIT Physicists Achieve Advances In Manipulating Ultracold Matter</b></font>

<p>CAMBRIDGE, Mass -- MIT physicists have accomplished two long-standing goals in the manipulation of Bose-Einstein condensates, a recently discovered form of ultracold matter. They are now able to trap condensates with light, and &#34;tune&#34; a condens
ate&#39;s behavior with magnetic fields. 

<P>

Both advances open new possibilities for scientific study and for the manipulation of ultracold atoms. They can also be used for further development of the atom laser, a device that is analogous to the well-known optical laser but emits atoms instead of l
ight. A prototype of the atom laser was demonstrated by the same MIT team last year. 

<P>

In the current work the researchers first developed a new trap to confine Bose-Einstein condensates that holds the atoms by purely optical forces exerted by an optical laser beam. &#34;This realizes &#39;optical tweezers&#39; for condensates. We can now m
ove a condensate around simply by steering a weak optical laser beam,&#34; said Professor Wolfgang Ketterle, leader of the team, who holds appointments in the Department of Physics and the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE). 

<P>

The new trap allows the researchers to apply arbitrary magnetic fields and study the behavior of Bose-Einstein condensates. That led to the first observation of a long-predicted phenomenon associated with ultracold atoms, a Feshbach resonance. This phenom
enon, essentially the temporary formation of molecules, dramatically changes the properties of a condensate and can be used to study and manipulate ultracold atoms. 

<P>

Feshbach resonances have another MIT connection: they are named after MIT Institute Professor Emeritus Herman Feshbach who predicted this effect decades ago. Feshbach resonances have been seen in other systems, but this is the first time they have been ob
served in ultracold atoms. &#34;This is a beautiful experiment and that team of people has really done a splendid job,&#34; said Professor Feshbach with respect to the Ketterle work. 

<P>

The all-optical trap and the observation of Feshbach resonances were reported in the March 9 issue of Physical Review Letters and the March 12 issue of Nature, respectively. Professor Ketterle&#39;s collaborators were Dan M. Stamper-Kurn, Shin Inouye, Mic
hael R. Andrews, and Ananth P. Chikkatur, all graduate students in physics, and Drs. Hans-Joachim Miesner and Joern Stenger, RLE visiting scientists. 

<P>

WHAT IS A BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATE 

<P>

Bose-Einstein condensates form when atoms are cooled to around one millionth of a degree Kelvin (that&#39;s more than a million times colder than interstellar space). At such low temperatures the atomic matter waves overlap, and the atoms lose their indiv
idual identities. They essentially &#34;march in lockstep&#34; as a single giant matter wave. Bose-Einstein condensation was first observed in 1995 by a team at the University of Colorado at Boulder and shortly afterwards by an MIT group led by Professor 
Ketterle. The discovery led to many efforts worldwide to study and control this new form of matter. 

<P>

About a year ago the MIT team was able to extract a coherent beam of atoms from a Bose-Einstein condensate, demonstrating the first atom laser (see MIT Tech Talk 1/29/97). This laser could have a variety of applications in fundamental and applied research
. For example, it could allow the precise manipulation of atomic matter, including extremely accurate deposition of atoms on surfaces. 

<P>

A major impediment to precision measurements and manipulation, however, was the use of magnetic fields to insulate the condensate from the room-temperature walls of the apparatus it was formed in. &#34;Such magnetic fields affect the motion of atoms and i
nterfere with ultra-precise manipulations,&#34; Professor Ketterle said. 

<P>

A NOVEL TRAP 

<P>

That limitation has now been eliminated. The Ketterle team succeeded in confining a Bose-Einstein condensate with light rather than a magnetic field. Key to the new setup is an infrared laser beam that &#34;sucks&#34; the condensate into its focus, simila
r to how a toy magnet attracts a piece of iron. &#34;The laser field polarizes the atoms by separating the positive and negative charges a tiny bit, thus creating an electric dipole, which is trapped in the alternating electric field of the laser beam,&#3
4; Professor Ketterle said. 

<P>

These results came as a surprise. &#34;We expected the laser beam to heat up the ultracold atoms and destroy the condensate, but nothing happened. The condensate survived,&#34; said Mr. Stamper-Kurn. This was in contrast to earlier work on optical confine
ment of ultracold atoms which showed strong heating due to unavoidable laser beam jitter, laser power fluctuations, and spontaneous scattering of photons. However, the condensate was so cold that extremely small laser powers of only a few milliwatts were 
sufficient to trap it, minimizing the heating. 

<P>

The new trap realizes &#34;optical tweezers&#34; for Bose-Einstein condensates, which can now be moved around simply by steering a laser beam that is comparable in power to a common laser pointer. This opens many new possibilities for future research, suc
h as studying the interactions of condensates with surfaces or with electromagnetic radiation in cavities. 

<P>

FESHBACH RESONANCE 

<P>

The optical trap also opened the door for experimenting with magnetic fields and their effects on condensates. &#34;Trapping the atoms magnetically limited our exploration of magnetic fields,&#34; said Mr. Andrews. &#34;Now we can play with magnetic field
s at will.&#34; 

<P>

The researchers were doing just that when they saw the first evidence for a Feshbach resonance on November 19, 1997. More specifically, they exposed a Bose-Einstein condensate of sodium atoms in the new optical trap to a variable magnetic field. 

<P>

When two atoms collide, they usually just &#34;touch&#34; each other and separate immediately. However, at a certain value of the magnetic field, the colliding atoms &#34;stick&#34; together, form a molecule for a while and then separate again. This effec
t, the Feshbach resonance, was predicted for ultracold atoms by Boudewijn Verhaar and collaborators in the Netherlands. It was named after Professor Feshbach, who discussed a similar effect in nuclear reactions in 1962. 

<P>

According to Professor Ketterle, atomic physicists have eagerly searched for this effect because it profoundly changes the properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate and can be used to &#34;design&#34; its properties. The interactions between atoms did inde
ed dramatically change when the magnetic field was swept across the resonance. &#34;The forces between the atoms below the resonance were ten times stronger than above,&#34; said Mr. Inouye. The MIT team recently learned that Professor Dan Heinzen and col
laborators at the University of Texas at Austin have observed a Feshbach resonance in a cold thermal cloud of rubidium using spectroscopic techniques. 

<P>

The researchers&#39; conclusion? &#34;We should be able to make the forces between atoms strong or weak, repulsive or attractive, merely by minute changes of the magnetic field,&#34; said Dr. Stenger. &#34;This is ultimate quantum control of a macroscopic
 sample of atoms.&#34; 

<P>

The work was supported by the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, the Army Research Office, and the Packard Foundation. </p>

</BODY>

</HTML>


--------------555B25C93D9D--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 19:13:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19371;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:11:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:11:00 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980318225647.005c0bc0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:56:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OB4P22.0.Xk4.1p84r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16729
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:58 AM 3/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>You only see the circuit on the surface and not below the board.

My understanding is the "board" is a plexiglass plate. A white board
lies underneath. He is shown holding a clear plate with the circuit
on it ( daniel44.jpg ). What you see is supposedly what you get.

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 19:18:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA21509;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:16:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:16:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980318230157.005c1918 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:02:01 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lIrup.0.wF5.ot84r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16730
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:57 PM 3/18/98 +1300, you wrote:
>Note how in every single circuit (both halfs) there are switches, but in
>all pictures where the lights or motors are not going batterys or coils
>are taken out not the switches turned off, what use do these switches
>serve?
>The switch in daniel45.jpg looks wired up wrong to me?
>
>What function can the switches possibly play?
>
>
>John Berry
>

Well, it would be switching in and out that small loop of wire.
If it were a circuit tuned to a high frequency, it might be
enough to shift the resonant frequency, or cause a change in
mode. Just a guess on my part.

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 19:28:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA24838;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:25:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:25:20 -0800
Message-ID: <35109005.2A53 darknet.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:24:53 -0500
From: Steve <darklord darknet.net>
Reply-To: darklord darknet.net
Organization: DarkNet Online/Digital Fusion
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: chronos enter.net
CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: article relating to Bose-Einstein condensates
References: <199803190311.WAA11057 mail.enter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"oiuUf3.0.t36.S094r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16731
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Thanks for this info. Do you have the original URL address for this
> report?

Hi Bob,

Sure.. the article was from Science Daily, and is located at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/story.asp?filename=980318075134

ttyl
-Steve
-- 
     darklord darknet.net | UIN: 5113616    
   DarkNet Online: http://www.darknet.net
Digital Fusion: http://www.darknet.net/fusion

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 19:38:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA24356;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:35:13 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:12:07 +0000
Message-ID: <19980319031205.AAA18405 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"HQVm92.0.Oy5.k994r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16732
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:54 AM 3/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Scott Little wrote:
>> 
>(snip)
>
>> Does anyone else have any ideas for a simple, definitive, experiment to
>> prove/disprove the existence of the longitudinal force?
>> 

F. Stenger wrote:
>
>It's not that simple, Scott!  People like us are "unclean" because we
>haven't studied the sacred writings of Peter Graneau.  Hell, I haven't
>studied the original writings of Lorentz either but it still seems to
>me that this list could come up with a simple test to check for the
>longitudinal force!

<snip of proposed sliding coaxial conductor experiment.>

As Graneau emphasized, the longitunal force, in pushing elements apart, also
pushes them together.  In other words, current elements ABC have A repelling
B, and B repelling C.  However, that means B is compressed against C and A
by forces generated between B & A and B & C, respectively.  So, no net
repulsion in a conductor is not   apparent.   I believe in your setup the
only repulsion measurable would be miniscule because current segments would
include both coaxial conductors.  If you run current up, you run risks of
splattering mercury.

No need to be sarcastic.  "Newton vs. Einstein" contains a simple experiment
(if somewhat high energy) that Scott could use his massive capacitor to
replicate.  Graneau described stacking a number of copper short cylinder
segments axially, compressed together with a spring on one end.  Upon the
discharge of a large stored charge, the components moved apart, arcing.  He
suggested this as readily reproduced.   It seems that one could measure the
displacement, and so, forces; repeat with different dimension segments in an
effort to characterize.

My EM is pretty weak, but I know of nothing that would force the segments
apart from Maxwell or Lorentz.  The resistance across the joints between
elements could be drastically reduced with a compound like the one used in
high current wiring applications.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 19:56:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26984;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:51:22 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <e8ccf4cb.351095a6 aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:48:52 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"sYdr91.0.Ub6.lO94r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16733
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-18 15:40:21 EST, you write:
> Use pliers to twist the wire up nice and tight
>  to snug the thing against the tube.
>  Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little

Yes, this will work. I have some nice .020 ss wire hanging on the pegboard.
I also have a jar of thermal grease laying around somewhere. Thanks to
Hank Scudder for that suggestion.
Worked on the vacuum plumbing this afternoon. I'm getting good at
sweating copper. Of course, that opinion may change when I check for 
leaks.  Gotta get off my butt and take pictures of all this stuff. 
I hope I don't need a higher vacuum than 25 microns. Sigh...if it turns out
that I do I at least have a good fore pump.
Proceeding slowly by steadly.

Regards,
Vince
Las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 20:23:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06036;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:22:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:22:10 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:15:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: hu (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980318231550.2259D-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"zEY673.0.6U1.mr94r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16734
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:02:47 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: hu

******

The top 39 things you would NEVER hear a Southerner say ever, no matter
how much they've had to drink, no matter how far from the South they've
wandered and no matter how much the skunks are threatening...


39. "I'll take Shakespeare for 1000, Alex"
38. Duct tape won't fix that.
37. Lisa Marie was lucky to catch Michael.
36. Come to think of it, I'll have a Heineken.
35. We don't keep firearms in this house.
34. Has anybody seen the sideburns trimmer?
33. You can't feed that to the dog.
32. I thought Graceland was tacky.
31. No kids in the back of the pick-up, it's not  safe.
30. Wrasslin's fake.
29. Honey, did you mail that donation to Greenpeace?
28. We're vegetarians.
27. Do you think my hair is too big?
26. I'll have grapefruit instead of biscuits and  gravy.
25. Honey, do these bonsai trees need watering?
24. Who's Richard Petty?
23. Give me the small bag of pork rinds.
22. Deer heads detract from the decor.
21. Spitting is such a nasty habit.
20. I just couldn't find a thing at Wal-Mart today.
19. Trim the fat off that steak.
18. Cappuccino tastes better that espresso.
17. The tires on that truck are too big.
16. I'll have the arugula and ridicchio salad.
15. I've got it all on a floppy disk.
14. Unsweetened tea tastes better.
13. Would you like your fish poached or broiled?
12. My fiancee, Paula Jo, is registered at Tiffany's.
11. I've got two cases of Zima for the Super Bowl.
10. Little Debbie snack cakes have too many fat  grams.
9. Checkmate.
8. She's too old to be wearing a bikini.
7. Does the salad bar have bean sprouts?
6. Hey, here's an episode of "Hee Haw" that  we haven't seen.
5. I don't have a favorite college team.
4. Be sure to bring my salad dressing on the  side.
3. I believe you cooked those green beans  too long.
2. Those shorts ought to be a little longer,  Darla.
And the #1 thing you would NEVER hear a Southerner say is --
1. Elvis who? 
                              



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 20:28:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02734;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:26:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Clinton Rawls" <clint.rawls worldnet.att.net>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Is Vortex Mystery Solved?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:27:06 -0600
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
Message-ID: <19980319042259.AAA25740 default>
Resent-Message-ID: <"e8IFP3.0.eg.Xv94r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16736
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I apparently used the wrong subject line to get your attention so I decided
to send the second part of my note again under the more interesting
title...

A suggestion to anyone who may have solved the vortex mysteries but are
keeping it secret...

I believe that there may be someone out there in the world that could solve
(or has already solved) the problem of using the vortex phenomenon for
power generation.  People like Victor Schauberger have probably contributed
to this belief and expectation.  I know that my beliefs have been
influenced by his work.

Regarding anyone who may have solved the mystery of the vortex phenomenon,
I am not referring to people who "think" they have the solution and are
doing experiments that may exhibit interesting but inconsistent results.  I
am referring to those who actually have the real answers, who know the
fundamental reasons behind currently unexplained vortex behavior, and are
currently developing the technology that will capitalize on those answers
and are keeping it secret until they can establish a large market lead over
any would-be competition.  If someone has actually solved the mysteries of
the vortex, they could very well be one of the silent list members who are
just keeping watch to see what their potential "competition" might be up
to.  It could even be the list owners themselves that are doing this (no
accusation intended).  If such a person does exist, my suggestion to him or
her would be to at least let us know that someone has in fact discovered
the secrets of the vortex and that, after you have been able to establish a
market lead over your would-be competition, you will reveal to the rest of
the world your discoveries.  One way to give us all a hint would be to send
an anonymous letter through standard mail to one or more list members who
are willing to disclose an address for such a purpose.  This would give the
rest of us joy just knowing that we will be able to benefit from Vortex
Power Generation in the not too distant future without risking your
secrecy.

Then again, I may just have a wild imagination from watching too many
sci-fi movies.  But thanks for listening anyway.

Best Wishes,

Clinton Rawls

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 20:28:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02505;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:16:46 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: hu (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980318231630.2259G-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"MgJEd3.0.3d.qt94r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16735
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:59:35 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: hu



This is an actual essay written by a college applicant to NYU. The author was
accepted and is now attending NYU.

3A. IN ORDER FOR THE ADMISSIONS STAFF OF OUR COLLEGE TO GET TO KNOW YOU, THE
APPLICANT, BETTER, WE ASK THAT YOU ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: ARE THERE
ANY SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD, OR ACCOMPLISHMENTS YOU HAVE
REALIZED, THAT HAVE HELPED TO DEFINE YOU AS A PERSON?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have been
known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more efficient
in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I
write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.

Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.

I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing, I can pilot
bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook Thirty -Minute
Brownies in twenty minutes. I am an expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and
an outlaw in Peru.

Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended a
small village in the Amazan Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants.

I play bluegrass cello, I was scouted by the Mets, I am the subject of
numerous documentaries. When I'm bored, I build large suspension bridges in my
yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On Wednesdays, after school, I repair
electrical appliances free of charge.

I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. Critics
worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening wear. I don't
perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller
number nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I toured New Jersey
with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstation. I bat .400

My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in international botany
circles. Children trust me.

I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy. I once
read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day and still had
time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I know the exact
location of every food item in the supermarket. I have performed several
covert operations with the CIA. I sleep once a week; when I do sleep, I sleep
in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated with a
group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. The laws of physics do not
apply to me.

I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends,
to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I
discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. I have made
extraordinary four course meals using only a mouli and a toaster oven.

I breed prizewinning clams. I have won bullfights in San Juan, cliff-diving
competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling bees at the Kremlin. I have played
Hamlet, I have performed open-heart surgery, and I have spoken with Elvis.

But I have not yet gone to college.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 18 20:29:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02839;
	Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35109E34.7D3 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:25:24 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <19980319031205.AAA18405 HOME>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TkcIJ2.0.9i.xv94r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16737
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:
> 
(snip)

 Graneau described stacking a number of copper short cylinder
> segments axially, compressed together with a spring on one end.  Upon the
> discharge of a large stored charge, the components moved apart, arcing.  He
> suggested this as readily reproduced. 

Sorry, I let the sarcasm get away from me, Ed - shows the level of my
frustration on this topic.
I do know from experience that if you stack up conductor segments as
Graneau suggested, and surge thousands of amps thru them, what you get
is a small thermal explosion at each contact surface.  When I discharge
my capacitor bank at currents in excess of 100 kamp, I get copius metal
vapor transfer in the threaded joints I use to couple conductors.
I think the force of the small contact explosions would completly
cloud any other force in the conductor.  We need a quiet, low energy
test setup using perhaps hundreds of amps that would not go through
local explosions or other complex actions that would make analysis
difficult.  In the coaxial rig I mentioned (which I'm not really all
that hot about, BTW) the regular Lorentz force acting outward on the
shorting disk would push the conductors apart - easy to calculate the
force from this effect.  However, if the proposed longitudinal forces
cancel out in the two sections, then I'm dead in the water - no test.
Bottom line, I don't like pulse tests - I would much rather see a
moderate current, steady-state test of the sort that gives easy
access to the Lorentz force.  Can somebody show me a simple
free-body-diagram of a conductor and/or additional magnetic field
such that I could design a test to reveal this longitudinal force?
Lack of this is the source of frustration for me.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 03:06:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA08853;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:03:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:03:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b136a815b013 [12.64.66.191]>
In-Reply-To: <19980319031205.AAA18405 HOME>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:02:09 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"rV8dL3.0.DA2.PkF4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16738
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:

   >  As Graneau emphasized, the longitunal force, in
   >  pushing elements apart, also pushes them together.

I'm visualizing a force like hydraulic pressure, but acting in only one
dimension (along the current path), and not three like ordinary hydraulic
pressure does. A current circulating in a ring would want to push the ring
apart longitudinally at any given point, so the ring material also ends up
undergoing 1D compression at the same time. No lateral pressures though.
That sound about right?

Doesn't this mean that the bi-directional nature of the force indicates it
doesn't care about the current direction - it's as good one way as the
other? Therefore, no propelling or accelerating electric charges around in
a superconductor, for instance.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 06:39:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA27515;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:38:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:38:12 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35112DC4.728F4654 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:37:56 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spherical  Resonator... / Reactor?
References: <3.0.32.19980318070419.006865a8 agate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rzORp.0.rj6.KtI4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16739
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bo Atkinson wrote:
> My guess is the 3d print shop would want $10K+.  I've heard getting the STL
> files right can take weeks for something like this. I do have the software
> and a CD writer.  It's a  question of price/ resolution.

Most SLS and SLA processing is costed out by area foot print, volume of the
part, resolution, and setup/cleanup labor.  Unless you are proposing a large
part, 10k seems extremely excessive.  

-  Complexity only gets factored in if bridging structures or pylon structures
are needed to build the geometry.  
-  Material cost is only an issue when you get off the beaten path and into
exotics or experimentals. 
-  Processing time is based on machine speed and workload so there is not hard
and fast rule there.  
-  Getting the STL file correct is not really your concern either as most shops
prefer to generate the processing code themselves to optimize the variables for
their equipment to hold critical tolerances.  

The hardest part in the process IMO is generating the needed 3D model
information and I am sure there are many here that would be more than glad to
help you out if asked.  8^)

Basically, if you need to keep your cost down, keep your part size and
footprint down.  If you need a specific resolution or structural quality spec
it out when you place your order.  Most houses have a simple formula to
generate quotes, they just need to plug in the above mentioned variables to
spit out a price.

Just my 2 cents.


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 07:16:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05204;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:14:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:14:29 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b1360b90fc1d [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:20:15 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: (Some old) Results regarding B parallel longitudinal force.
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cg_Gc1.0.6H1.IPJ4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16740
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:09 PM 3/18/98, Robert Stirniman wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>> There can be no longitudinal force on a charged particle due to movement
>> through an orthogonal magnetic field.  This conclusion is due to a simple
>> experiment which has been done many times. That experiment is the placing
>> of a non-superconducting ring between the poles of a C magnet orthogonally
>> to the magnetic field, while the super-conductor is warm.  It is then
>> cooled and removed from the field which induces a current in the ring,
>> making it a magnet.
>
>Hi Horace. Nice to see you back.

Thanks!

>
>You have presented a fascinating problem. First maybe we should clear
>up one thing in the title of this thread. The longitudinal force is
>NEVER parallel to the B field.


OK. The subject experiment was just meant to cover all the bases.  Vectors
have at least two components, so the subject experiment elimnates one, at
least at the 50 percent of Lorentz level, thus permitting the focus on the
other.


>In the case of parralel motion to a B
>field there is no longitudinal force, also no Lorentz force. The
>longitudinal force can range in relative value from zero to one-half
>of the Lorentz force, and reaches a maximum of one-half when motion
>is perpendicular to the B field and there is maxium relative spacial
>gradient in the A field.
>
>In this problem, all motion is perpendicular to the B field. The A field
>is circular -- so is the superconducting current loop. Whether the wire
>is a superconductor or not, a current is induced in the wire as it is
>removed from the B field. With a superconductor it is not damped out
>by resistivity, and maintains a value such that the flux which was in
>the loop remains constant.
>
>It may not be possible to demonstrate a physical manifestation of the
>longitudinal force in a rigid conductor loop. The force always seems to
>integrate out to zero around the loop. Hence all experiments which
>demonstrate this force use moving conductors -- via sliding contacts
>or liquid metal conductors. Also the force can be demonstrated to
>exist in the case of an isolated element of current -- such as an
>isolated moving charge (i.e. electron reflected by magnetic field).
>
>In any case, I believe it is possible to show that the longitudinal
>force MUST exist within the conductor loop in your experiment.
>
>The Lorentz force can not impart momentum. It can change the direction
>of motion of a moving charge, but it can never change the magnitude of
>velocity.


This goes against my understanding.  As I undersatand it the Lorentz law is:

 F = (q0 E) + (q0 V) x B

where V is the velocity vector.  All velocity is relative.  An appropriate
velocity of B relative to a charge q0 results in a force F and thus a
velocity change of the particle.  It doesn't matter if B moves or the
particle.  If I recall correctly the bevatron worked on this principle. The
bevatron's collapsing magnetic field accelerated the particle beam as if it
were in a single turn secondary coil of a transformer.

We have batted around the Marinov motor before.  If there is any way to use
the principle in a practicle way I am very interested.  However, like many
others, I don't see how to do that, and am still incredulous.  From what I
have seen of the Marinov motor, the ring is driven by surface effects at
the brushes. (See other post I just made.) I might be willing to build one.



>Prior to moving the superconductor loop, all electrons are
>at rest. After moving the loop from the B field, the electrons are
>moving in the loop. They have been accelerated. A longitudinal force
>is REQUIRED to accelerate the electrons.
>
>The longitudinal force is generated as you remove the loop. By pulling
>the loop out of the B field with velocity v -- an E-field is induced
>within the loop due to motion through the spacial gradient of the
>A field. The apparent induced E field (dA/dt) in the reference frame
>of the electron is given by  E = (v dot del)A, where v is the
>mechanical velocity with which you remove the loop from the B field.
>
>Note that the force is equal and opposite on both sides of the loop,
>and that the final, terminal velocity of the electrons does not
>depend on how quickly you remove the loop from the B field. The
>induced electric field (dA/dt) depends on velocity, but the
>variation in acceleration of the electrons is balanced equally
>by the time it takes to remove the loop. Terminal velocity
>(acceleration times time) is constant. Terminal velocity of the
>electrons in the loop only depends on the relative magnitude of
>the A field -- the amount of flux in the loop.
>
>You may want to argue that it is the Lorentz force acting on
>the mechanical velocity used to remove the loop, which induces the
>terminal veloctiy of the electrons. Try it. By using only the
>Lorentz force, you will find that you can not achieve an electron
>terminal velocity which is independent of how quickly you remove
>the loop from the field. The Lorentz force can not change the
>velocity of a moving charge. It can only change the direction
>of motion.

UH OH, work to do!  8^) This computation sounds like it is more up Michael
J. Schaffer's alley, ... but maybe he has had his fill of the Marinoff
motor?  8^)

>
>Regards,
>Robert Stirniman

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 07:16:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05248;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:14:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:14:36 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b136dfeaa9bd [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:20:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"whwe72.0.aH1.MPJ4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16741
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:25 PM 3/18/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>I do know from experience that if you stack up conductor segments as
>Graneau suggested, and surge thousands of amps thru them, what you get
>is a small thermal explosion at each contact surface.  When I discharge
>my capacitor bank at currents in excess of 100 kamp, I get copius metal
>vapor transfer in the threaded joints I use to couple conductors.
>I think the force of the small contact explosions would completly
>cloud any other force in the conductor.  We need a quiet, low energy
>test setup using perhaps hundreds of amps that would not go through
>local explosions or other complex actions that would make analysis
>difficult.  In the coaxial rig I mentioned (which I'm not really all
>that hot about, BTW) the regular Lorentz force acting outward on the
>shorting disk would push the conductors apart - easy to calculate the
>force from this effect.  However, if the proposed longitudinal forces
>cancel out in the two sections, then I'm dead in the water - no test.
>Bottom line, I don't like pulse tests - I would much rather see a
>moderate current, steady-state test of the sort that gives easy
>access to the Lorentz force.  Can somebody show me a simple
>free-body-diagram of a conductor and/or additional magnetic field
>such that I could design a test to reveal this longitudinal force?
>Lack of this is the source of frustration for me.
>
>Frank Stenger

The Marinov motor is supposed to be just that, isn't it?  It is supposed to
demonstrate the longitudinal force.  I does seem complex to analyze though,
especially in the vicinity of the brushes.

I have a thought for a kind of mid-range compromise regime.  That idea is
to use a high enogh voltage to avoid brush contact but enough amperage to
measure the effect (hopefully.)  The main disadvantage to this approach is
the resulting high power requirements.  Another disadvantage is that, like
the mercury pool version of the Marinov motor, MHD effects in the ionized
air at the contact or "brush" points may cause rotation (discussion of this
included below.)  However, an air version would need no container, and the
MHD effects would be localized to the brush area only.  Also, the field can
be adjusted so the brush area has almost no field.  The main problem would
be low current. I might be able to build one that has close to a 1 amp
current.  I don't know if this would be adequate. Would definitely require
good bearings.  A vacuum arc based system, at maybe 1 or 2 Torr, might be
an improvement, as the MHD effects would be further reduced, and less
voltage required to sustain the brush arcs.

Here is a prior discussion of the Marinov motor:

vortex 4/9/96:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[snip]
>    You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes.  You then
>flip one of the sections and let the two stick together.  The magnetic
>force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own.
>this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up.
>A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet.   This
>ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury.  Then
>two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of
>the magnet cut.  Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed
>through the electrodes and the ring rotates.
[snip]
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton

If I visualize this correctly:

I suspect that if you replace the copper ring with an insulated (but
similarly dense) ring, it will still rotate.  That is because the surface
mercury itself should rotate around the magnet due to MHD type forces.  If
the negative pole is on the north side of the core, then four vortices (how
appropriate) should be created, one on the north side and one on the south
side of the magnet bar, one at each magnet boundary. For opposing vortices,
their main axis is colinear through the magnet bar purpendicular to the
axis of the bar, but they rotate in opposite directions. If the negative
pole is opposite the N pole of the bar, there will be an upwelling as the
electrons move through the field to the right of the N pole, and a
downwelling as they move to the left of the N pole. As the transition into
the returning field lines in the neighborhood of the S pole the fluid
motion is reversed. There is a downwelling on the right (as seen from the N
pole direction) and an upwelling on the left.  This means, as seen from the
N pole side, the N pole vortex rotates conterclockwise, and the S pole
vortex clockwise.

The (secondary) vortecies at the magnet boundaries rotate in a manner that
opposes the surface motion of the N and S pole vertices.  Their motion is
weak because it is not directly driven by MHD forces, because the electrons
in the vicinity are flowing much more purpendicular to the magnetic field
lines.  Their motion is mainly an indirect result of the motion of the
primary vortices.  The larger the container the assembly is placed in, you
would expect the less the secondary vortex motion, and the less continuity
in flow direction within them.

The net rotation of the surface mercury is therefore clockwise when the -
electrode is opposite the N pole.  Reversing the current, so the + terminal
is at the N pole side of the bar should reverse all the rotational
directions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 07:26:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09352;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:23:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:23:47 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980319102519.00c55e60 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:25:19 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <e8ccf4cb.351095a6 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZjIQD1.0.wH2.1YJ4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16742
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:48 PM 3/18/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:
>I hope I don't need a higher vacuum than 25 microns. Sigh...if it turns out
>that I do I at least have a good fore pump.
>Proceeding slowly by steadly.
 
   To do glow or plasma discharge right you will probably want a pressure
in the 1 to 3 torr range.  The reason you need to be able to pump well
below that is to make sure that the gas is the discharge tube is the gas
you want, not what was leftover when you pumped it out.  My guess is that
your first tries with hydrogen will give you a very visible glow, pump the
tube out again, vent in more hydrogen and you should get rid of most of the
oxygen and sodium lines.  

   Danger Will Robinson, Danger Will Robinson...  If you do get a good H2
discharge in a clean quartz tube, you had better be wearing UV protective
lenses.  A welders mask AND a pair of saftey goggles with UV protection is
not too much if you get into the kilowatt power range.  (And don't forget
the sunscreen on your hands.  Welder's flash is no joke, but a bad sunburn
can be almost as painful.  By the way, your susceptability to Welder's
flash will depend on your eye color.  Blue is the most susceptable, black
the least.)

   Next warning--never run a gas discharge tube in a direct circut with the
power line.  This problem can be ignored with low power discharges, but
with a high power discharge you can form a pinch, then all bets are off.  I
have seen pinches with a (very short duration) effective impedence of
negative one hundred ohms or more.  That can mean that the circut--all the
way back to the transformer on the pole outside your house--is an effective
short.  That welder's mask you are going to be wearing will help, but best
is to have a transformer of your own in the circut.  It will saturate, and
blow fuses, but it will limit the damage.  (Yes, that effective negative
resistance is real--but unstable.  As the current increases the pinch
tightens and if you follow through the math, you extract energy from the
plasma.  But it quickly takes more energy to compress the plasma in the
pinch than you are extracting from the plasma.  That is why you want lots
of inductance in the circut when you want stable behavior, and low
inductance when you are trying to create pinches.

   Okay, now that that is out of the way, with your potassium at work much
of the glow should be in the violet.  (Actually, one last precaution.  Put
flouresent paint on the walls, or wear starched shirts.  You want to get an
instinctive feel for how much UV you are generating.)

                                        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 Mar 19 07:42:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10261;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980319103738.00c4fdd0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:37:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <35109E34.7D3 interlaced.net>
References: <19980319031205.AAA18405 HOME>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"f9G_V2.0.AW2.1lJ4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16743
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:25 PM 3/18/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>  When I discharge my capacitor bank at currents in excess of 100 kamp, I get
> copius metal vapor transfer in the threaded joints I use to couple
conductors.
 
   Hey, you are starting to play with real current now. ;-)  Seriously,
there is a conductive grease we used for such problems, but only on
temproary connections.
 
   For permanent connections we would "tin" the copper, usually with a high
lead content or pure lead solder, then heat the joints with a brazing
torch.  There were a couple of joints where we used silver solder, but it
didn't work that much better.  (Ended up just welding the copper in that
case.  This was a short length of copper braid required to deal with the
thermal expansion.)


                                        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 Mar 19 07:48:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11546;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <02d301bd534d$263f1ee0$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Lost in Space?
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:38:56 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"7BRJX3.0.Eq2.MrJ4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16744
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>Danger Will Robinson,Danger Will Robinson!

Best darn Robot (or is it Ro-Bert?)in the Galaxy!   :-)

A Penny for your thoughts, Penny.

Regards,     Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 07:59:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17693;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:57:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:57:24 -0800
Message-ID: <02f101bd534f$289028e0$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Lost in Space Links (http://lostinspace.buffnet.net/linksm.html)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:51:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02EB_01BD5314.3643B460"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fHHAw.0.HK4.Y1K4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16746
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_02EB_01BD5314.3643B460
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There are only about 15 Thousand Web sites
tied to LOST IN SPACE, Robert!   :-)

http://lostinspace.buffnet.net/linksm.html


------=_NextPart_000_02EB_01BD5314.3643B460
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Lost in Space Links.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Lost in Space Links.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://lostinspace.buffnet.net/linksm.html
Modified=C09CAC9A4E53BD0101

------=_NextPart_000_02EB_01BD5314.3643B460--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 08:09:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13994;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35113F32.5F89 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:52:18 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <l03102800b136a815b013 [12.64.66.191]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cbKHt3.0.aQ3.O0K4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16745
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 

> Doesn't this mean that the bi-directional nature of the force indicates it
> doesn't care about the current direction - it's as good one way as the
> other? Therefore, no propelling or accelerating electric charges around in
> a superconductor, for instance.
> 
Well, Rick, certainly the self-field of a single conductor does reverse
along with the current, so, in this respect current direction doesn't
matter in the Lorentz pinch type forces.  A good example that shows the
complex nature of the problem is illustrated by the following necked
conductor sketch.

(The fabricator of this literature can not be responsible for the
specific effect this description may have on your particular brain.
Its effectiveness in your brain may differ from that in others and if
the reader has bothersome side-effects from this material, its perusal
should be imediately discontinued and your personal EM expert should
be consulted.)

.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	
________________________			________________________
current ------->	\		       /  current --------->
	radial-inward-->   \	.	.   / <---radial-outward
	current comps.       ______________       current components
				neck
	conductor centerline
____________________________\____________ __ ___________________________

I only show the top half of the conductor because it's less work for me.

My point is, as current flows left-to-right in the conductor, when it
passes through the neck the current must have RADIAL INWARD components
as it enters the neck and RADIAL OUTWARD components as it exits the
neck region.  Now, I think, for axial symmetry, the self-magnetic-field
of the conductor, including the neck, is still rings of flux around and
inside the conductor with no longitudinal components.  The flux is
out of the page on top and into the page on the bottom (not shown).
If you cross the radial components of current with the self-field, I
think you can see that these radial components PUSH LONGITUDINALLY AWAY
from the neck - to the left on the entrance and to the right on the
exit.  So, some of the Lorentz force components put the neck region in
tension.  This effect is common in plasma pinches and is part of the
"sausage instability" observed in such pinches.  It will also happen
in a liquid metal conductor ANYWHERE RADIAL COMPONENTS ARE PRESENT AS
PART OF A LINEAR CURRENT FLOW.
To say it another way, if a linear conductor is not uniform in the
direction of current flow, any radial current components can result in
net longitudinal forces in the conductor - completely explained by
J X B forces.  It seems to me that this is typical of the big problems
associated with trying to come up with a good experiment to separate
out these J X B longitudinal forces from some "other" longitudinal
force.
This current necking also happens between "slugs" of conductor stacked
up and hit with a large current pulse - because electrical contact will
always be a partial thing unless the slugs are soldered together or
something.
This necking effect also needs to be considered in the sliding-tube
type of rig I talked about on an earlier post - since one tube is
necessaryly bigger than the other.  I guess if a tube segment were
the smallest one between two larger tubes, the forces described above
would cancel out, but then, what would that mean for the "other"
proposed force?
Now, don't have a cow if I'm wrong about the above analysis - it all
comes from my read of the limited book-learning I have on EM theory.
It's just that for me, simple is always better unless simple won't do
the job.  So, do we really need the "other" force?  I still don't see
why!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 08:37:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20699;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351148BE.D9 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:33:02 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: high-current joints
References: <19980319031205.AAA18405 HOME> <3.0.1.32.19980319103738.00c4fdd0@spectre.mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Sfa8O2.0.L35.3aK4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16747
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
(snip)

>    Hey, you are starting to play with real current now. ;-)  Seriously,
> there is a conductive grease we used for such problems, but only on
> temproary connections.
> 
>    For permanent connections we would "tin" the copper, usually with a high
> lead content or pure lead solder, then heat the joints with a brazing
> torch.  There were a couple of joints where we used silver solder, but it
> didn't work that much better.  (Ended up just welding the copper in that
> case.  This was a short length of copper braid required to deal with the
> thermal expansion.)

Thank's for the tips, Robert!
On one shot of the capacitor bank, Frank Znidarsic and I measured (using
dv/dt of the bank voltage) a current peak of 200 kamps during a slow
pulse lasting about 500 to 600 microseconds. (97,600 MFD electrolytics
at 1100 VDC).
The thing that amazed me was how well my little joints (hey, no gutter
talk here!) took the pulse.  I had two joints to join a copper fuse
made of 4 gage copper wire, threaded with a #12 screw thread, into the
main conductor made from 3/8 OD solid aluminum rod.  I threaded the
copper into the aluminum rod and locked the thread with a #12 brass
nut.  After the test, the fuse neck (about 3 mm dia, I think) had
blown but the threaded copper-aluminum joints came apart easily and
as good as new!  The only effect seemed to be a flashing of aluminum on
the copper threads.  I assumed that during the pulse, I must have had
local hot spots generate aluminum vapor between the threads which made
sort of an aluminum-vapor thyratron across the thread clearances between
contact points.  How would you read this, Robert?  Does this theory
make sense?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 08:48:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA32046;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:45:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:45:06 -0800
Message-ID: <35114B9C.326B interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:45:16 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <v01530501b136dfeaa9bd [199.237.131.236]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"51as6.0.Nq7.EkK4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16748
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip)

> I have a thought for a kind of mid-range compromise regime.  That idea is
> to use a high enogh voltage to avoid brush contact but enough amperage to
> measure the effect (hopefully.)

Horace, I have an AC-DC motor-generator that can do about 250 VDC
at no load and is rated at 30 amps.  The old AC drive motor I have
for it is limited to about 4 KW output on my 240 volt garage lines.

If you can come up with a simple scheme to use this I might be inspired
to set up a test with it.  Remember, I'm lazy and I do want to shoot my
capacitor bank again when my garage gets warm enough!
It may need to be a short test because a 10 or 20 amp DC arc will do
a fair arc welding job on thin material.

Frank S.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 09:10:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26304;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:03:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:29:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: free water, even I'm increduluous
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980319162628.3523A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"9wA1w.0.qQ6.V_K4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16749
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo,

This business about the free water volume, it's *mole fractions* not
*volume*. That calculation I did where I predict a lot of water, I don't
think is correct. Intuitively, how can a few grains of hygroscopic
material sunddenly make the whole hygroscopic? The water surrounding it is
in effect pure water.

No there, is water, but not much. Would it flow, probably notz. I'm going
back to absolutes and more thermodynamic modelling. This I know, water
does condense on the vesicles and does flow out. The equilibrium thermd.
says there isn`t much water. I have trouble believing that steady state
conditions will be greater than this. I'll spend, perhaps, one more
weekend looking at it. I don't think the device would display much free
energy if at all. It is more likely to assist in conventional water desal. 
approaches. 

I don't have much new theory to guide me in the design of experiments, so
these I shall postpone. I shall look to other phenomena to try and prove
stuff about second law: there's Bauer's web site on the capacitor and
Larry's stuff about fluid dynamics - but he won't publish (correct me if
I'm wrong). I'm not even sure about that stuff on the second law I
published in IE13/14 - might there be some mistake? 

Time to take a break from this and clear the head.
Back to ABSOLUTES, what I do know for sure.
Wishing you well,
Remi.



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 09:14:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA07789;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:11:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:11:13 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980319121222.00c3e9b0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:12:22 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980319102519.00c55e60 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <e8ccf4cb.351095a6 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YVrgO.0.fu1.c6L4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16752
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:25 AM 3/19/98 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

>    Yes, that effective negative
>resistance is real--but unstable.  As the current increases the pinch
>tightens and if you follow through the math, you extract energy from the
>plasma.  But it quickly takes more energy to compress the plasma in the
>pinch than you are extracting from the plasma.  That is why you want lots
>of inductance in the circut when you want stable behavior, and low
>inductance when you are trying to create pinches.

   (Actually, I understand what goes on, but that is very misleading...  In
this group I had better go a bit further.  The energy all comes from the
world outside but there is a process which can suck in huge amounts of
energy, if the external circut is non-linear in the wrong way.)

    The energy is stored in the pinch by compressing the plasma, and you
can compress it a LOT.  You start with a (wall stabilized) plasma filling
the tube.  As the current increases, the self-induced magnetic field
compresses the plasma.  As the thread of plasma gets thinner, the pressure
increases dramatically, BUT the current density and cross section get
smaller.  If all things work neatly--and at low (~1000 Amps or so)
currents, you can keep them neat--as the current pulse decreases, the
expanding plasma puts energy back into the current, and in effect, dumps it
back into your external capacitor.
This stored (electrical) energy in the tube can be as much as the energy
you dumped in initally.  Under ideal conditions I have recovered more than
a kilojoule.

     The problem I was warning about occurs when the pinch starts to
expand.  This creates a reverse voltage, and if you have the wrong type of
driving circut, this causes MORE current to flow through the arc.  (The
transformer--some transformer--saturates magnetically, and the current can
increase much faster than it can decrease.) Of course, that compresses the
plasma further. Once you get into this ratchet state there are only three
things that can stop it:

    1) No more external current available.  You see this all the time if
your camera has a built in flash, or in any circut with a capacitor in
direct circut with the tube.

    2) One point in the plasma is less dense than annother to start with,
or through random fluctuations, a narrower part of the pinch forms.
Charged particles are driven away from this neck, and quickly (nanoseconds)
the plasma "pinches off" when there are not enough charged particles to
carry the current through that area.

    3) A kink form in the plasma and it burns through the quartz tube.
(Yes, I've done it.  You want to keep external conductors well away from
the tube.)

    In any case all the remaining stored energy is released.  In case two,
this can be considerable and dangerous.  (Or very useful--some explosive
forming systems use a short spark gap and most exploding wire systems only
use the wire to initiate an arc.  The advantage comes from the brissiance
of the explosion.  no matter how long it takes to pump power in, the energy
is released in nanoseconds.)

                                        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 Mar 19 09:16:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA27283;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <032601bd5359$108e5500$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Neutrino Charge, Superstring Circle Phase?
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:03:34 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ayoCm2.0.Cg6.K5L4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16750
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross Tessian's point about particle charge being a phase relationship where
for Superstring Circle Particles charge (+/-)is merely a 180 degree phase
difference.

If the (+/-)Phase-Charge of a Neutrino Pair is off 180 degrees from each
other, but 90 degrees out of phase with regular particles they would behave
as neutral particles with Spin 1/2 explaining neutrino-antineutrino
"oscillations" and other bizarre behavior.   :-)

They should have Radius, R = kq*^2/Eo etc..and a rest mass of about 0.5 to
1.75 ev that can change in coupling with more energetic "strings": Spin =
MvR = hbar etc.., with the phase difference taken into account.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 09:20:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA07731;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:11:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:11:05 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:10:09 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5359$df26d220$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"r4_GY.0.bu1.c6L4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16751
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was about to congratulate Robert Stirniman on his insight
into the theory of the longitudinal force when I realized that
I do not have a clear idea of exactly where in existing EM theory
the spacial gradient v.dot.A and induced electric field (dA/dt)
are already used.
Help please - Robert, Michael, anyone.

Robert Stirniman wrote:
>Over the last few weeks, we have taken a freshman physics
>problem -- the reflection of an electron by a magnetic field,
>and in my opinion irrefutably shown that the Lorentz force is
>insufficient to describe the physical situation. A longitudinal
>force is required to conserve momentum. We have also shown that
>in the case of an electron moving perpendicular to the magnetic
>field, this longitudinal force has a value of one-half of the
>Lorentz force. The relative value of the Longitudinal force is in
>fact equal to the factor k in the magnetic force equation determined
>empirically by Ampere over 150 years ago.
>Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise a magnetic field in which an
>electron will not experience a longitudinal force when it tries to
>enter the field. There is always a spacial gradient in A at the area
>in space where the field begins to exist, and a non-zero value of
> the spacial gradient v.dot.A as the electron enters the field.
>In the reference frame of the electron there is an induced electric
>field (dA/dt) due to its relative motion into the A field, and a
>subsequent longitudinal force.

Robert, I believe the comments you made about Horace's
superconducting ring proposal are correct and the argument
can be made that in fact all electromagnetic motors are dependent
upon the longitudinal force. Many physics textbooks state that the
Lorentz force, since it is perpendicular to the direction of electron
motion can do no work. The work done is then attributed with
amazing facility in various unlikely ways. I have seen this point cause
confusion many times on Vortex and elsewhere. After all, we have all
observed that magnetic fields and electric motors do work (force x
distance).

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 10:32:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11900;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b1370f61cc15 [199.237.131.238]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:33:51 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"OAHDE3.0.ov2.0GM4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16753
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:45 AM 3/19/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Horace, I have an AC-DC motor-generator that can do about 250 VDC
>at no load and is rated at 30 amps.  The old AC drive motor I have
>for it is limited to about 4 KW output on my 240 volt garage lines.

Yea, I saw Frank Z's video of it!

250 V is pretty low, so an arc would have to be struck. I was thinking
about around 4000 V at about 1 A, which I may have sufficient parts to do
on a continuous basis, which would permit the arc to be self starting, even
at atmospheric pressure.  But now you mention it, maybe carbon "brushes"
would sustain a pretty good arc - so it's just a matter of getting it
started.  If the ring isn't initially moving, though, then 30 A would burn
a hole in it pretty fast!

I think it would be nice to have something that could go from a standing
start though. Also, maybe increasing the magnetic field strength is an
alternative to more current.  The following design should condense a strong
field over a narrow segment of the ring:


     --------------------------------------------
     |            iron                          |
     --------------------------------------------
     ----N----                          ----S----
     |       |                          |       |
     ----S----                          ----N----

         O                B                 O

     ----N----                          ----S----
     |       |                          |       |
     ----S----                          ----N----
     --------------------------------------------
     |            iron                          |
     --------------------------------------------




 O - the ring
 B - bearings supporting insulating plastic turntable
     (not shown) to support ring.

     (brush points also at point B, but not in this cross section)

This would avoid a strong field in the vicinity of the ring.  With
1"x1"x1/2" 35 MGO magnets, and a 1" gap, field strength should be at least
0.1 T.

Additional idea - suppose magnet assembly were supported on one end of a
scale, and current run up on one side and down on the other:

     --------------------------------------------
     |            iron                          |
     --------------------------------------------
     ----N----                          ----S----
     |       |                          |       |
     ----S----                          ----N----

         O                B                 X

     ----N----                          ----S----
     |       |                          |       |
     ----S----                          ----N----
     --------------------------------------------
     |            iron                          |
     --------------------------------------------




 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - current down (into page)


Then there would be no need for brushes.  Unfortunately the magnetic field
from the wire would cause the magnet array to twist.  COuld be
counterbalanced by another identical but mirror image array?

What do you think?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 10:44:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03894;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:40:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:40:47 -0800
Message-ID: <351166B2.16E8 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:40:50 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <01bd5359$df26d220$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LOZZK.0.my.jQM4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16755
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:
> 
(snip)

 After all, we have all
> observed that magnetic fields and electric motors do work (force x
> distance).
> 
George, I was just out in the garage running my 1930's vintage
Westinghouse, compound, variable-speed, 7.5 HP DC motor.  It starts
from a standing stop just fine and all the armature wires pass through
the radial flux parallel to the shaft.  Now, the transverse Lorentz
force acting on these wires cranks the shaft around just fine!  What's
the problem?

I was just checking it out as a generator in case Horace comes up with a
test I can't refuse.
When I run it as a generator, the electrons in the wire are pushed
along by the qv X B force - parallel to the motor axis in this case,
and work is done on the electrons just fine.  Again, what's the
problem?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 10:45:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14382;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35116229.3623 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:21:29 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: free water, even I'm increduluous
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980319162628.3523A-100000 exeter>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UKv853.0.YW3.-RM4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16754
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Cornwall RO wrote:
> 
 I don't think the device would display much free
> energy if at all. It is more likely to assist in conventional water desal.
> approaches.
> 
Hey, Remi, SARENDIPITY!!  We probably need free water as much as we need
free energy.  Onward and upward!

Frank Stenger


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 10:49:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14579;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351166CC.38570C49 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:41:16 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: free water, even I'm increduluous
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980319162628.3523A-100000 exeter>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fMs0B.0.gZ3.CTM4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16756
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Cornwall RO wrote:
> Back to ABSOLUTES, what I do know for sure.

There was a time when I believed in such things......  8^)

Sorry to hear things didn't work out as expected.

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 11:01:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17018;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b1371897314e [199.237.131.225]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:00:31 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"o_IVj3.0.m94.ogM4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16757
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If the longitudinal force existed, then:

(1) various types of mass spectrometers should give differing results for mass.

(2) it would not be possible for a charged particle to traverse a
quadrupole field in a straight line.

(3) particle accelerator experiments would show differing energies for bent
beams vs straight beams.

(4) The large electro-magnets used to select particles from a beam that are
of a specific energy would themselves add energy to the beam.  The magnet
faces of such devices are circular. If 50 percent energy were being added
to the beam then the magnet faces would have to be of a spiraling geometry.

(5) The resonant frequency of magnetrons would be dependent on the amount
of time the electrons are in the magnetic field.

(6) Magnetron tubes should be overuinty devices.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 11:12:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18524;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b1371cfb3947 [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:12:49 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"cOUft1.0.HX4.cqM4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16758
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's another variation:


     --------------------------------------------
     |            iron                          |
     --------------------------------------------
     ----N----                          ----S----
     |       |                          |       |
     ----S----                          ----N----

         O                                  X
         X                                  O

     ----N----                          ----S----
     |       |                          |       |
     ----S----                          ----N----
     --------------------------------------------
     |            iron                          |
     --------------------------------------------

 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - current down (into page)





The top pair of X and O represents wire loop 1, the other wire pair
represents loop 2. In this configuration the forces on the magnets are
balanced, but the forces on the two fire loops are not, if the longitudinal
force exists. It is then possible to support at least one of the loops on
the end of a balance beam and measure the longitudinal force.  Is this
correct?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 11:14:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13659;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:11:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:11:28 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b1371f79cf5b [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:17:23 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"KUM0V3.0.AL3.StM4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16759
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:

>
>(5) The resonant frequency of magnetrons would be dependent on the amount
>of time the electrons are in the magnetic field.


OopS! I retract that - as cyclotron frequency is not dependent upon velocity.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 11:25:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19827;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:16:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:16:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35116EA2.5140 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:14:42 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Horace-longitudinal force
References: <v01530500b1370f61cc15 [199.237.131.238]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"EB06O2.0.dr4.ixM4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16760
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip)

> Additional idea - suppose magnet assembly were supported on one end of a
> scale, and current run up on one side and down on the other:
> 
>      --------------------------------------------
>      |            iron                          |
>      --------------------------------------------
>      ----N----                          ----S----
>      |       |                          |       |
>      ----S----                          ----N----
> 
>          O                B                 X
> 
>      ----N----                          ----S----
>      |       |                          |       |
>      ----S----                          ----N----
>      --------------------------------------------
>      |            iron                          |
>      --------------------------------------------
> 
>  O - Current up (out of page)
>  X - current down (into page)
> 
> Then there would be no need for brushes.  Unfortunately the magnetic field
> from the wire would cause the magnet array to twist.  COuld be
> counterbalanced by another identical but mirror image array?
> 
> What do you think?
>
 
Now you're talking, Horace!

Hey, I have a 1000 gram lab scale with a non-magnetic stainless steel
alloy top platform.  The scale suspension is relatively insensitive to
side loads.  At its best, it will resolve 2g.  Now, don't we need just
a single gap to show a "longitudinal" force?  Surely, if there is a
longitudinal force in the wire, it must reverse thrust the B field
as you imply above.
Can't we just let a single magnetic gap overhang the edge of the scale
while the magnet is supported by the scale.  Then, first orient the
current wire to measure the regular J X B force just to be sure we
know what magnitude of force we're getting.  Then orient the wire to
look for the longitudinal force as a fraction of the J X B force.
Horace, whatever the details, I like this scheme!  But WE NOW NEED
INPUT FROM LONGITUDINAL FORCE FANS THAT THIS TEST OR SOME VARIATION
is a good test.  Any input, LF fans??

BTW, can't we use a multi-turn, large loop of wire to reduce the current
requirements?  Let's chew this setup over!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 11:36:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20253;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:32:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:32:04 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b137217546b8 [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:37:51 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"MGV-k3.0.7y4.kAN4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16761
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If the longitudinal force exists then a coil of wire placed in a
perpendicular magnetic field, i.e. between the pole of two magnet faces,
should have less resistance in one direction than the other.  True?

If such a coil were a superconducting coil of wire then it should
spontaneously develop a current.  The current could be used in a separate
coil of the superconductor to build a gigantic field.  A small portion of
the superconductor could then be reduced to below Tc in order to shunt the
energy in the big coil elsewhere, and the process can then can be repeated.

A plasma in a magnetic field should spontaneously heat up at a dramatic rate.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 12:08:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA28473;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530504b13725873b8a [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:05:37 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Horace-longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"OBFiR2.0.fy6.GcN4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16762
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:14 PM 3/19/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Hey, I have a 1000 gram lab scale with a non-magnetic stainless steel
>alloy top platform.  The scale suspension is relatively insensitive to
>side loads.  At its best, it will resolve 2g.  Now, don't we need just
>a single gap to show a "longitudinal" force?  Surely, if there is a
>longitudinal force in the wire, it must reverse thrust the B field
>as you imply above.
>Can't we just let a single magnetic gap overhang the edge of the scale
>while the magnet is supported by the scale.  Then, first orient the
>current wire to measure the regular J X B force just to be sure we
>know what magnitude of force we're getting.  Then orient the wire to
>look for the longitudinal force as a fraction of the J X B force.

Great! Since your scale is insensitive to lateral motion this sounds really
good to me.  I can't imagine a more simple test - just wire and magnet.


>Horace, whatever the details, I like this scheme!  But WE NOW NEED
>INPUT FROM LONGITUDINAL FORCE FANS THAT THIS TEST OR SOME VARIATION
>is a good test.  Any input, LF fans??
>
>BTW, can't we use a multi-turn, large loop of wire to reduce the current
>requirements?  Let's chew this setup over!
>
>Frank Stenger

If the loop goes through the magnet (assumed to be a C magnet) in a
straight segment then it seems the only non-lateral non-twisting force
might be towards (or away) from the center of the large loop, i.e. by the
fields of the magnet and loop attracting or repelling.  As you imply, such
a force should be small if the loop is large.  Seems like your scale should
resolve more than 1 g?

Something like the below might work with only a battery, loop of wire, and
piece of wood with a razor blade for fulcrum bearing:

      Loop
  ---------------
  |             |
  |             |
  |             |        Balance beam
  |             |
  |             M==========================W
  |             |         X   ^    X
  |             |         X        X
  |             |
  |             |
  ---------------

M - a horizontal C magnet
W - counterweight
X - masses attached to beam to put center of gravity below fulcrum point.
(Could put hump in center of beam as alternative)


Alternately, turn everything above on it's side and make the balance beam
into a pendulum. Calibrate by measuring deflection with known current.

Definitely need some input from the LF experts as to correctness of concept.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 12:43:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA07987;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:40:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:40:32 -0800
Message-ID: <035e01bd5376$b12b6760$3d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Neutrino Mischief?
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:35:48 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"wcvOR.0.hy1.zAO4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16763
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

17Cl35, 5A - 2Z = 175 String-Circle "quarks"
        2A  "up"  (+)   = 70
        2A - Z "dn" (-) = 53
        A - Z neutrons-neutrinos = 18

A neutrino is absorbed by the 17Cl35 converting
it to 18Ar35:

18Ar35, 5A - 2Z = 175 String-Circle "quarks"
        2A  "up" (+)    = 70
        2A - Z "dn" (-) = 52
        A - Z neutrons-neutrinos = 17

In less than an hour the 18Ar35 captures an
external electron and reverts to 17Cl35 gaining
a "dn" (-) "quark"  and a neutron-neutrino,that were "lost" when it gained a
neutrino!

What's "Up", with the neutrinos?    :-)

Would this support the thought that they have a
a charge (q* = CV = 1.602E-19 Coulombs)phase-shifted (90 degrees)from the
charge of the regular "quarks" when they feel like it, along with Spin 1/2?

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 12:46:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08627;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:43:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:43:33 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD68C xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: longitudinal force
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:42:47 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"b62Wu2.0.a62.pDO4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16764
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

There are silver powder compositions (Cool Amp) which you brush onto the
copper connectors, and lower the contact resistance.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Robert I. Eachus[SMTP:eachus mitre.org]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:37 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: longitudinal force
> 
> At 11:25 PM 3/18/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> >  When I discharge my capacitor bank at currents in excess of 100
> kamp, I get
> > copius metal vapor transfer in the threaded joints I use to couple
> conductors.
>  
>    Hey, you are starting to play with real current now. ;-)
> Seriously,
> there is a conductive grease we used for such problems, but only on
> temproary connections.
>  
>    For permanent connections we would "tin" the copper, usually with a
> high
> lead content or pure lead solder, then heat the joints with a brazing
> torch.  There were a couple of joints where we used silver solder, but
> it
> didn't work that much better.  (Ended up just welding the copper in
> that
> case.  This was a short length of copper braid required to deal with
> the
> thermal expansion.)
> 
> 
>                                         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 Mar 19 12:49:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08894;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:44:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:44:25 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:43:00 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5377$9b1d3c40$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"wOYr33.0.fA2.bEO4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16765
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank Stenger wrote:
>George, I was just out in the garage running my 1930's vintage
>Westinghouse, compound, variable-speed, 7.5 HP DC motor.  It starts
>from a standing stop just fine and all the armature wires pass through
>the radial flux parallel to the shaft.  Now, the transverse Lorentz
>force acting on these wires cranks the shaft around just fine!  What's
>the problem?
>
Hi Frank, 
I'm not proposing that the idea makes any practical sort of sense,
but some college physics texts make a point of the Lorentz
force not being able to do any work. I'll bring one to the office
tomorrow so I can reproduce the actual wording. Its actually
quite humorous.

Horace Heffner  wrote:
>If the longitudinal force exists then a coil of wire placed in a
>perpendicular magnetic field, i.e. between the pole of two magnet faces,
>should have less resistance in one direction than the other.  True?

Hi Horace, good to see you back on vortex. All of these longitudinal
force questions are quite complex. The force always integrates to
zero around any closed loop. Thus no net potential is normally
available that is caused by the longitudinal force. I have done
experiments somewhat similar to various of your earlier suggestions
and have never measured even microvolts of net potential. The 
problem is similar to the V x B drift problem in that potentials may
be developed, but they cancel in the measuring loop as well. The
mechanical forces may integrate to zero around the loop, but
they can be measured since they can deform the conductors.

The Marinov motor provides net torque by developing a field
gradient along the wire that is caused by the opposing current
flow directions at the connection points. Yes, I think the torque
can be increased by using torus magnet arrangements similar
to those you propose. Actually I don't think you need a torus
at all, just fields in the right direction with the right gradient.
I believe that the wire needs to be placed so that the torus
fields have a high radial gradient at the wire. IOW, put the
wire at the edge of the strong field region, not in the 
center as you show.

Now that Jeff Kooistra has obtained strong net torque
and ring rotation with brushes and a foil ring / cylinder,
I believe that longitudinal force is now clearly demonstrated.
No lead I x B artifacts are present and only longitudinal
currents are flowing.
 
George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 13:08:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13849;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:02:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:02:17 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Marinov Motor news flash from Jeff Kooistra
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:59:55 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5379$f82da0d0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"O1AJQ2.0.JO3.NVO4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16766
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry, I didn't realize that this wasn't yet on vortex. I hope Gene
and I don't post copies simultaneously. If you haven't yet subscribed
to IE magazine, don't read this.  ;-)

Gene,
        Hope this comes in time for the next issue.  Despite the necessity
to run up and down the basement stairs to check on the kids, I finally got
to try to get a thin conducting shell to rotate just as my ring did.
        This is important--despite what I did with the torus as I described
in my "Not a Homopolar" paper, the doubt remains that somehow the universe
will conspire to defeat us if we substitute a shell for a ring and reduce
the size of the Lorentz hook.
        OK, fine.  So I took my original rotating ring apparatus, which
weighs in at a substantial fraction of a pound (I'll see if I can put it on
a pan balance tonight) and attached to it a cardboard cylinder with a
two-thickness of aluminum foil  wrapped around it once on the exterior.  I
stacked the deck against myself--this unit is 1) heavier than the original
ring set up, and 2) has the entire conductor at the distance of the OUTER
diameter of the original copper ring.  
        I learned several things:
        1:  Aluminum foil brushes still suck.
        2: Copper brushes from coaxial cable also suck.
        3: Nevertheless, when you can actually get good contact with the
brushes on the conducting ring, the shell gives the "same" strong
rotational response as the ring (the ring has a radial component width of
3/8th of an inch, yielding a total Lorentzian L of 3/4th of an inch .  The
aluminum foil thickness is next to nothing (not measurable on my cheap
caliper)).  By "same" I mean that you really can't tell much
difference--the ring and the shell both give about the same strong
rotational jerks until the brushes spotweld or lose contact--it certainly
is NOT the case that reducing L to near vanishing reduces the effect.
Jeff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 13:11:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16362;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:07:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:07:50 -0800
Message-ID: <19980319210708.14112.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [193.131.12.133]
From: "John Allan" <energy_solutions hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Congress 98, Russia in June
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:07:04 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"0b53q1.0.Y_3.baO4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16767
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The St Petersburg Conference Congress 98 is on June 22-27.

Subjects

1) Substance, Electromagnetism and Gravitation.
2) Elements, Structure of Earth and Universe System.
3) Non-traditionl Sources of Energy.

Sponsors:

Russian Academy of Science
Petrovsky Academy of Sciences
Scientific Reserch Insitute and others

details:

Tatyana Doganovskaya

exico mail.nevalink.ru
T: 7 812 277 0037
F: 7 812 277 1256

Co-ordinator:

Dr M Varin
Postal box N3
193036 St Petersburg
Russia



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 13:28:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA21404;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:25:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:25:09 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530506b1373ed12c7e [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:31:08 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: RE: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"_SSHP3.0.EE5.pqO4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16768
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:42 PM 3/19/98, Scudder, Henry J wrote:
>There are silver powder compositions (Cool Amp) which you brush onto the
>copper connectors, and lower the contact resistance.
>
>Hank

Not as good, but plain old graphite gunslick might work too.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 14:04:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18218;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:55:27 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803192155.NAA09099 slave2.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: In Heaven....
Resent-Message-ID: <"fyVJu1.0.TS4.pIP4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16769
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

	
>Subject: In Heaven....
>Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:44:58 +-900
>X-Status: 
>
>An engineer dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks
>> >his dossier and says, "Ah, you're an engineer--you're in the wrong
>> >place." So the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in.
>> >Pretty soon the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort
>> >in hell, and starts designing and building improvements.
>> >
>> >After a while they've got air conditioning and flush toilets and 
>> >escalators, and the engineer is a pretty popular guy.
>> >
>> >One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer,
>> >
>> >"So, how's it going down there in hell?" Satan replies, "Hey, things
>> >are going great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and
>> >escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to
>> >come up with next! God replies, "What??? You've got an engineer?
>> >That's a mistake--he should never have gotten down there; send him
>> >back up here!"
>> >
>> >Satan says, "No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm 
>> >keeping him." God replies "Send him back up here or I'll sue."
>> >
>> >"Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?"
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 14:28:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22821;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <01BD5352.65B61F60 oemcomputer>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: hu (fwd)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:38:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD5352.65B61F60"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JhHCK.0.La5.OeP4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16770
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD5352.65B61F60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



----------
From: 	John Schnurer[SMTP:herman antioch-college.edu]
Sent: 	Wednesday, March 18, 1998 10:15 PM
To: 	vortex
Subject: 	hu (fwd)

Well, I'm from the Mississippi gulf coast, but...

>38. Duct tape won't fix that.

Said it.

>33. You can't feed that to the dog.

      Ditto

>31. No kids in the back of the pick-up, it's not  safe.

Yep.

>30. Wrasslin's fake.

Same here too.

>23. Give me the small bag of pork rinds.

Don't like 'em.

>18. Cappuccino tastes better that espresso.

It does. Although, I prefer Mocha...

>15. I've got it all on a floppy disk.

Well, I've got it on DAT tapes, and my hard drive...

>14. Unsweetened tea tastes better.

It does.

>9. Checkmate.

Said that one MANY times.

>5. I don't have a favorite college team.

      Well, actually I don't...

Guess I'm a yankee in the wrong place:-)

Best Regards,
Kyle R. Mcallister



------ =_NextPart_000_01BD5352.65B61F60
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD5352.65B61F60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 15:22:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02665;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:15:37 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803192315.PAA15351 slave2.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: ICCF details?
Resent-Message-ID: <"vXr1I.0.Yf.EUQ4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16771
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ahoy there,

        There is a link at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.infinite-energy.com
that will vector you over to the conference website.  They have a listing of
all the presentations, posters, cookie time schedules, all that stuff.
Anyone in the Seattle area want to car-pool up there for a day?  I wouldn't
mind crashing it, er, I mean attending.  Can't pay the entry fee though,
have to use the service entrance again. -Knuke



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 15:36:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05088;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:33:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:33:25 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <3511AAC8.606D4B1F ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:31:20 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: ZPE to Electrical Energy Patent
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VNDFh1.0.LF1.2jQ4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16772
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vorts-

Took the time to smell the roses over at keelynet and found this posted in the
new additions.  I don't recall seeing it posted here yet.  Please excuse the
oversight if it has been discussed already:

<http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5590031>

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 16:17:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA28590;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:11:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:11:41 -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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Horace Returns
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:11:03 +0000
Message-ID: <19980320001101.AAA19349 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"M-vNb1.0.e-6.yGR4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16773
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:24 AM 3/18/98 -0900, you wrote:
>>Horace,
>>
>>Welcome back!  I missed your input.
>>
>>Joe Champion
>
>Thanks Joe.  I missed you vorts, but took a much needed break.  Should not
>have come back yet, but got too curious.
>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          
>
>
Is there a recognized therapy for Vortex addiction?

Ed Wall


Ed Wall
ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
-- Juvenal

Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
[Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 16:46:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02862;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:40:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:40:06 -0800
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:38:26 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199803200038.SAA10203 dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Subject: CF presentation before the annual APS at LA
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
To: 76570.2270 compuserve.com
To: mica world.std.com
To: halfox slkc.uswest.net
To: rgeorge hooked.com
To: chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil
To: tchubb aol.com
To: 72240.1256 compuserve.com
To: jlogajan skypoint.com
To: little eden.com
To: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro
Resent-Message-ID: <"3hSyx2.0.Xi.ahR4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16774
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

March 19, 1998 Thursday

There were three oral presentations made today before the Annual 
American Physical Society meeting held this time in Los Angeles from 
March 16 - 20, 1998. The meeting continues including Friday.

This is the first time the APS has alloted time for presentations of 
matters concerning Cold Fusion.

The three making the presentations were:

1. Russ George of E-Quest Technology
11:12 AM
U26 2  Experimental Evidence of Radiationless Aneutronic Nuclear Fusion 
in Metal Deuterides.
Supported by EPRI and SRI international
<this is in reference to his sonofusion effect and results>

2. Talbot Chubb, Scott Chub of Oakton International Corporation
11:24 AM
U26 3  Deuteride-Induced Strong Force Reaction
<theory of CF reaction in Arata's double structured palladium cathode>

3. Scott Chubb, Talbot Chub of Oakton International Corporation
11:36 AM
U26 4 Theoritical Framework for radiationless Aneutronic Nuclear 
Reaction in Metal Deuterides.
<furthur theory combining sonofusion and Arata aneutronic results>

The presentations are now a matter of record of the APS. Let us see if 
this now turns into an annual event for Cold Fusion.

The APS has a "Bulletin of the American Physical Society" vol. 43, no. 
1 March, 1998 (catalog of abstracts) of over a thousand pages (cheap 
paper stock) listing all of the activities and all of the simultaneous 
oral presentations being presented during the five days of the meeting. 
Looks like a telephone book. No way can an individual cover even a 
fraction of all the events and presentations, much less absorb the 
posters and exhibits thoroughly. An hectic affair. There were over a 
dozen lecture halls where oral presentations being made simultaneously, 
most with twelve minute time allotments for presentations. The turnout 
at the hall where the cold fusion presentations were made had at most, 
forty in attendance ---which filled up not quite half of the room 
capacity. Other sessions were not overflowing either.

Those in attendance for CF at the presentations were:
yours truely, Russ George, Talbot Chub, Scott Talbot, and Tom Passel.

Tom Passel and I took some pictures. I gathered several copies of the 
"Bulletin of the American Physical Society" volume 43 no. 1, March 1998 
to send along to IE and others for perusal. It should be of historical 
interest as an event that happened, finally, for cold fusion. Rumors 
has it that there were intense opposition to the presentations being 
included and catalogued. And there were stronger prevaling pressures 
that had it included.
Time marches on.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 17:31:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA23231;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:25:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:25:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b137735a3a71 [199.237.131.250]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:30:02 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Another motor design
Resent-Message-ID: <"W-bKq2.0.og5.RMS4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16775
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's another variation of the longitudinal force test.:



  OOOO   ----N----                           ----N----   XXXX
  OOOO   |       |======A======B======A======|       |   XXXX
  OOOO   ----S----                           ----S----   XXXX


 A - Long non-conducting armature bar
 B - Ball bearing
 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - Current down (into page)


The advantage of this is that the long armature arm permits very high
torque on the bearing from a small force on the magnets.  The B field is
laterally diminishing through the external coil windings X and O as
specified by George Holz.  The coil permits a high NxI.

If a single wire and magnet work then this must work as it is simply two of
the same at a distance.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 18:01:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27531;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:54:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:54:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b1377d318a37 [199.237.131.238]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:58:40 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: A variation on Marinov's motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"34F6v1.0.zj6.3nS4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16776
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's another variation of Marinov's motor:



  OOOO   ----N----                           ----S----   OOOO
  OOOO   |       |======A======B======A======|       |   OOOO
  OOOO   ----S----                           ----N----   OOOO


 A - Long non-conducting armature bar
 B - Ball bearing
 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - Current down (into page)


Current changes direction when magnets change sides.  This is a brushless
variation of Marinov's motor, maintaining complete analogy, except the
magnet assembly rotates.  The "coil" is made by wrapping two wire bundles
about the armature cage OO like so:

  ---    ----
  |  \  /   |
  |   ||    |
  |  (OO)   |
  |   ||    |
  |  /  \   |===== power
  |  |  |   |
  |  \  /   |
  |   \/    |
  |   /\    |
  ----  -----

The above diagram is out of scale due to character graphics.  The current
would have to be switched by photocell when the aramture is vertical, at
top and bottom of the armature cage, in diagram above.

An alternative is to have the magnets rotate (flip) twice per cycle,
eliminating the need for current changes. Since one magnet counterbalances
the magnetic torque of the other, flipping the magnets should take no
energy.  For this reason, the coil could then be superconducting and the
motor would run without energy input.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 18:12:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25427;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:05:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:05:05 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b13778696ab1 [199.237.131.237]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:53:00 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Another motor design
Resent-Message-ID: <"gmLY71.0.4D6.FxS4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16777
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's another variation of the longitudinal force test.:



  OOOO   ----N----                           ----S----   OOOO
  OOOO   |       |======A======B======A======|       |   OOOO
  OOOO   ----S----                           ----N----   OOOO


 A - Long non-conducting armature bar
 B - Ball bearing
 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - Current down (into page)


Current changes direction when magnets change sides.  This is a brushless
variation of Marinov's motor, maintaining complete analogy.  The "coil" is
made by wrapping two wire bundles about the armature cage OO like so:

  ---    ----
  |  \  /   |
  |   ||    |
  |  (OO)   |
  |   ||    |
  |  /  \   |===== power
  |  |  |   |
  |  \  /   |
  |   \/    |
  |   /\    |
  ----  -----

The above diagram is out of scale due to character graphics.  The current
would have to be switched by photocell when the aramture is vertical, at
top and bottom of the armature cage, in diagram above.

An alternative is to have the magnets rotate (flip) twice per cycle,
eliminating the need for brushes. Since one magnet counterbalnces the
magnetic torque of the other, flipping the magnets should take no energy.
For this reason, the coil could then be superconducting and the motor would
run without energy input.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 19:14:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08464;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:11:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:11:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980319211012.008b4c90 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:10:12 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: long. force definition needed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Rszpe2.0.142.4vT4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16778
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Lot's of good-sounding ideas coming up...but I, for one, don't know whether
they would actually test the long. force hypothesis.   This is because I
don't know the expression for the long. force.  I'm not even sure the I and
B components need to be orthogonal for the long. force...

The Lorentz force is given by F = I X B

What is the corresponding formula for Ampere's long. force?


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 19 20:02:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA16335;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:58:46 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:54:43 +0000
Message-ID: <19980320035441.AAA422 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"-EVsv3.0.u-3.fbU4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16779
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Ed Wall wrote:
>
>   >  As Graneau emphasized, the longitunal force, in
>   >  pushing elements apart, also pushes them together.
>
>I'm visualizing a force like hydraulic pressure, but acting in only one
>dimension (along the current path), and not three like ordinary hydraulic
>pressure does. A current circulating in a ring would want to push the ring
>apart longitudinally at any given point, so the ring material also ends up
>undergoing 1D compression at the same time. No lateral pressures though.
>That sound about right?

Graneau does not refer to latitunal force.  While infinitessimal segments of
fluid under compression do all 'push' on each other, if the fluid is being
pushed (by a piston, say), there is a net greater force on one side of each
segment. 

Another Graneau experiment with huge current surge through a small wire
explodes the wire.  It does not vaporize or melt.  It shatters.  As to the
shape of the splinters, do these data support the notion that the repulsion
is more longitudinal than latitunal?
>
>Doesn't this mean that the bi-directional nature of the force indicates it
>doesn't care about the current direction - it's as good one way as the
>other?

Excellent point about which I do not remember reading anything in 'Newton
vs. Einstein."  My book is on loan.  What do you remember?

> Therefore, no propelling or accelerating electric charges around in
>a superconductor, for instance.

And no relation to the Maranov motor that I can see, although I read Horace
Heffner:

"The Marinov motor is supposed to be just that, isn't it?  It is supposed to
demonstrate the longitudinal force.  I does seem complex to analyze though,
especially in the vicinity of the brushes."

Maybe I'm being a bit dense, but if there is some force field effect
parallel to the path of current, the symmetry of the current flowing around
both sides of the toroidal rotor should produce torques that are equal and
opposite if the current source and sink are 180 degrees apart, yes?  The
EMologists have lost me, and I can't blame that on them.

Ed Wall




Ed Wall
ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
-- Juvenal

Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
[Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 20:02:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA16349;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:58:43 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:54:46 +0000
Message-ID: <19980320035441.AAB422 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZFZqd2.0.K_3.ibU4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16780
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank Stenger wrote:
>
>Sorry, I let the sarcasm get away from me, Ed - shows the level of my
>frustration on this topic.

It's ok.  I appreciate your seriousness.

>I do know from experience that if you stack up conductor segments as
>Graneau suggested, and surge thousands of amps thru them, what you get
>is a small thermal explosion at each contact surface. 

What would you think of comparing the forces generated by two identical
stacks, one with high current conductive compound and the other without, in
the joints.  I suppose that could be interpreted to tell you more about the
explosive properties of the compound vs. non-compound, but wouldn't you
expect more force to be generated with the compound than with no compound,
simply because of energy needed to vaporize Cu vs. the compound?  If the
result is that both stacks generate forces of proximate magnitudes, that
supports existence of longitudinal force.

Does a puddle of Hg tend to elongate when current passes through it?

Ed


Ed Wall
ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
-- Juvenal

Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
[Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 21:10:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA26952;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:03:12 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <4e2913a6.3511f670 aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:54:05 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"dmIyM1.0.0b6.DYV4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16781
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-19 10:25:12 EST, you write:
>  At 10:48 PM 3/18/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:
>  >I hope I don't need a higher vacuum than 25 microns. 

>     To do glow or plasma discharge right you will probably want a pressure
>  in the 1 to 3 torr range.

Never get that low with this pump. Oh well, I'm going with what I have.
 
> My guess is that  your first tries with hydrogen will give you a very
visible >glow, pump the  tube out again, vent in more hydrogen and you should
get >rid of most of the oxygen and sodium lines.

I plan on multiple purges with argon, at least 10 times before I even light
the arc. Then another set  of purges with the arc on in argon before the H2.  
  
> If you do get a good H2 discharge in a clean quartz tube, you 
> had better be  wearing UV protective lenses.  A welders mask AND a pair > of
saftey goggles with UV protection is not too much if you get into the 
> kilowatt power range.  (And don't forget the sunscreen on your hands. 
> Welder's flash is no joke.  

Yep, been there. It was a hot summer day in Worms, Germany, 1965, I was
welding together a backstop for the Army little league baseball team. I was
wearing a T shirt. I ended up with a real painful case of serious flash burn 
on both forearms. Once burned, twice shy.
Umm....kilowatt power range?....no way with my milliwatt flyback transformer
power supply. The reactor tube (quartz) has a 1/4 inch OD  and is 5 inches
long. The arc length is about 1 inch in length.

> By the way, your susceptability to Welder's  flash will depend on your eye
color.  Blue is the most susceptable, black  the least.)

No black eyes at present, just the normal blue. <g>
  
>     Next warning--never run a gas discharge tube in a direct circut with the
>  power line.

Power to the arc is as follows:   US Navy surplus signal generator model
SG-425/WQM-4 driving a TV flyback transformer removed from a Heathkit
27 (25?) inch color TV.  I am using an AC arc (want H ions and K ions well
mixed). I would be really surprised if this combination would put out 20
milliamps at 15KV.

>  This problem can be ignored with low power discharges, but
>  with a high power discharge you can form a pinch, then all bets are off.

  <snip interesting plasma stuff>

>     Okay, now that that is out of the way, with your potassium at work much
>  of the glow should be in the violet.  (Actually, one last precaution.  Put
>  flouresent paint on the walls, or wear starched shirts.
  
> Robert I. Eachus

I'll bust up an old flourescent lamp I've been meaning to throw out and put 
a shard of the lamp near the reactor tube when it's operating. Why do I keep
an old burned out flourescent lamp around? Jeez, I don't know but I'm glad,
now I don't have to bust up a good one! <g>

Now back to builders square: The vacuum plumbing was completed this
evening. It almost looks like the opening of Monty Pythons Flying Circus.
I spent more time putting all the piping valves and fittings together than 
building the reactor tube, test stand and power supply but it was worth
the effort. I flushed it out with 1,1,1 Triclorethelyene followed by 100%
isopropal alcohol. Blew it out with compressed air then I put it under vacuum
and heated the plumbing to around 250 C  (sizzle hot wet finger). Keeping
it under pumped vacuum until the argon arrives. Will then flow Ar thru and
seal it up at atmospheric pressure.  The reactor tube will be flushed with
Ar then heated under vacuum then Ar admitted to 1 Atm and connected
to the plumbing.  Then the fun begins.  Will try (if these damn thermisters
work) to measure reactor wall temperatures with the arc first in argon
(measuring during every purge) and ditto for the hydrogen purge. After I 
put all my notes in order, I start the entire process again with a lump of
potassium metal in the bottom end of the tube.  
This is great fun!
Thanks for the safety tips

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas

  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 22:20:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA06482;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35120945.13A5 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:14:29 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ed Wall-longitudinal force
References: <19980320035441.AAB422 HOME>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Eugs6.0.Bb1.aeW4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16782
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed Wall wrote:
> 
(snip)

> What would you think of comparing the forces generated by two identical
> stacks, one with high current conductive compound and the other without, in
> the joints.  I suppose that could be interpreted to tell you more about the
> explosive properties of the compound vs. non-compound, but wouldn't you
> expect more force to be generated with the compound than with no compound,
> simply because of energy needed to vaporize Cu vs. the compound?  If the
> result is that both stacks generate forces of proximate magnitudes, that
> supports existence of longitudinal force.
> 
> Does a puddle of Hg tend to elongate when current passes through it?
> 
Ed, it seems to me that there is just too much going on in the above
"stack" tests to provide a clear picture.  In an earlier post I tried
to show how the common Lorentz force could wind up producing a
longitudinal tension or compression in a linear conductor in which
there is any necking or bulging of the current path.  The pinch force
which is always present in any linear conductor is very unstable and,
in a fluid conductor (plasma, liquid metal, etc.) leads to the well-
known sausage instability wherein a neck tends to neck faster and faster
and a bulge tends to rapidly expand.  The radial components of current
can, by normal Lorentz-force effects, produce longitudinal tension in
the necks and compression in the bulges.  This is why I think that
any test that does not preserve the uniformity of current cross-section
is a poor test.  It is just too clouded by these Lorentz-caused
longitudinal forces.
As far as I know, a puddle of Hg will start to contract if a large
enough current flows through it.  But, if the current is not a purely
linear one (no radial components) it will be under complex Lorentz
forces and get out the magnetohydrodynamic equations and hope for
a really good numerical analysis program to solve the motions involved.
And, if the current starts out uniform (linear), it is unstable and
the liquid conductor will soon disrupt into instability.  It's a real
mess!  That's why I keep hoping for a test of the types Horace has been
proposing that we could all agree upon would be correct to show the
longitudinal force in an unambiguous manner.

I agree with Scott L. in that it would be great to have a defining
expression for the pure longitudinal force such as we have for the
Lorentz force (i.e., F = i*l X B).  If we had such an expression, it
would help us agree on a valid test for the force.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 23:05:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA19239;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:00:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:00:07 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b137bdaea3af [199.237.131.238]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:06:02 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Ed Wall-longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"eIMuB3.0.Si4.sFX4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16783
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


>
>I agree with Scott L. in that it would be great to have a defining
>expression for the pure longitudinal force such as we have for the
>Lorentz force (i.e., F = i*l X B).  If we had such an expression, it
>would help us agree on a valid test for the force.
>
>Frank Stenger

Ditto to the above.  Frank and Scott want to get analytical and that is a
really good idea at this point IMHO.  I am remiss in jumping in
brainstorming (as usual. Sorry!) It's been a while since I looked at this
stuff, and it seems I presently have had a misunderstanding not present
prior.  After much searching I found Marinov's definition (which may not
match some other definitions.)   It is from an ad (paid for by Marinov it
appears.)  I will enter it as soon as I can.

Here is the first clue I should have noted, the excellent description of
the Marinov motor by Larry Wharton from 4/9/96:

vortex 4/9/96:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[snip]
>    You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes.  You then
>flip one of the sections and let the two stick together.  The magnetic
>force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own.
>this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up.
>A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet.   This
>ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury.  Then
>two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of
>the magnet cut.  Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed
>through the electrodes and the ring rotates.
[snip]
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton


The key words I missed above are "right angles to the plane of the magnet
cut".  It appears that the current must pass through a diminishing or
increasing magnetic field B (increasing/decreasing in intensity in the
direction of motion, i.e. that means then  A/@t<>0 , where "@" means
partial derivitive) to create the longitudinal force!  This makes at least
most of my prior examples wrong, and clearly shows why you can't integrate
around a closed path and get other than zero energy (B always returns to
itself, as does A.)

Here is a cross section drawing of (my understanding of) the Marinov motor
as described above:



             ----- -----
             | S | | N |
             |   | |   |
             |   | |   |
             |   | |   |       B
             |   | |   |       |
             |   | |   |       v
             |   | |   |
 R1-->O      |   | |   |       O<--R2
             |   | |   |
    ^        |   | |   |
    |        |   | |   |
    B        |   | |   |
             |   | |   |
             |   | |   |
             |   | |   |
             |   | |   |
             | N | | S |
             ----- -----

  Ri - Brush i
  O  - Ring cross section
  B  - Magnetic field vector


note that brush B1 is in the location of maximum S intensity (B directed
upwards) for the ring, while brush B2 is in location of maximum N intensity
(B directed down.)



Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 19 23:14:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA21801;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:12:43 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:12:43 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b137c70ed795 [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:18:43 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: A variation on Marinov's motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"CNXmE.0.SK5.gRX4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16784
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here's another variation of Marinov's motor (corrected, sorry!):



  OOOO   ----N----                           ----S----   OOOO
  OOOO   |       |======A======B======A======|       |   OOOO
  OOOO   ----S----                           ----N----   OOOO


 A - Long non-conducting armature bar
 B - Ball bearing
 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - Current down (into page)

          Fig 1 - Cross section, side view


Current changes direction when magnets change sides.  This is a brushless
variation of Marinov's motor, maintaining complete analogy, except the
magnet assembly rotates.  The "coil" is made by wrapping two wire bundles
about the armature cage OO like so:

  ---    ----
  |  \  /   |
  |   ||    |
  |  (OO)   |
  |   ||    |
  |  /  \   ====== power
  |  |  |   |
  |  \  /   |
  |   \/    |
  |   /\    |
  ----  -----

        Fig. 2 - Wiring, top view

The above diagram is out of scale due to character graphics.  The current
would have to be switched by photocell when the aramture is horizontal, at
the left and right sides of the armature cage, in diagram above.

The armature cage would not be circular, however, but elongated in the
vertical direction in Fig. 2.  The purpose of this is create a maximum
field intensity from the wire at the current flip points at the left and
right of the armature cage in Fig. 2.

An alternative is to have the magnets rotate (flip) twice per cycle, at the
side points where field intensity is greatest, eliminating the need for
current changes in the wiring. Since one magnet counterbalances the
magnetic torque of the other, flipping the magnets should take no energy.
For this reason, the coil could then be superconducting and the motor would
run without energy input.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 00:03:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA16431;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b137c9c0799e [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:06:20 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Lorentz-Marinoff Equation
Resent-Message-ID: <"QiVw21.0.f04.j9Y4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16785
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

                     MARINOV:ANNUS HORRIBILIS

The following is an excerpt from an ad by Marinov of the same title as
above.  Bold letters (vectors) are changed here to capitals. The partial
derivitive symbol is denoted here as  . Note however that the letter
capital S below is a scalar. Pi = 3.14159... and u0 is "mu sub zero."
There are some references here to photos which are not legible to me.


Marinov writes: "The Lorentz equation is wrong.  If there are two electric
charges q, q' moving with velocities V, V' and the vector-distance from q'
to q is R, according to the Lorentz equation the force with which q'V' acts
on qV is given by the following Grassman formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}        (1)

Numerous experiments done by other authors (Hering's experiments are from
the beginning of the century!) and by me showed that the force acting on qV
can not only be transverse to its velocity, as required by (1), but also
longitudinal.  Any rational man when seeing at least one falsifying
experiment rejects the respective formula (Popper), however for thousands
and thousands of Betonkoepfe even hundred experiments were not enough.  In
the photograph there is one such falsifying experiment which (as well as
the other) can be carried out by children: A cylindrical magnet is cut
along one of its axial planes and the one half is turned up-down (the
magnetic forces themselves do the rotation).  Around this magnet, there is
a trough filled with mercury in which the copper ring which can be seen at
right swims (the children take the salt solution and suspend the ring on
threads).  After sending current of some tens of amperes from the battery
at left, which is regulated by the rheostat, the ring begins to rotate.
That's all!"

"The Lorentz-Marinov equation is the right one.  As according to (1) Fg' is
not equal and oppositely directed to Fg, I obtained Marinov formula by the
most simple and natural symmetrization of (1) (take into account that R =
-R')

   Fm = (Fg - Fg')/2 = (U0 q q'){V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}     (2)

Proceeding from (2) and assuming phi <> 0,  A/@t <> 0, I obtained the most
simple calculations that the force with which an electric system acts on a
test charge q moving with velocity V is

   F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)

where phi, A are the electric and magnetic potentials generated by the
system at the point of the charge's location, Bior = rotA is the Lorentz
magnetic intensity, Swhit = -divA/2 is the Whittaker magnetic intensity and


   Bmar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V x V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]   (4)

   Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

are the Marinov vector and scalar magnetic intensities.  B = Bior + Bmar is
called the vector magnetic intensity and S = Swit + Smar is called the
scalar magnetic intensity, (3) is called the Lorentz-Marinov equation.  If
neglecting the last term and under B we understand Bior, we obtain the
Lorentz equation which I call the Lorentz-Grassman equation.  That's the
whole theory!"

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 05:22:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA00530;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:18:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:18:51 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:50:26 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: free water, even I'm increduluous
In-Reply-To: <35116229.3623 interlaced.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980320123659.29512B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cv3N52.0.C8.voc4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16786
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> > 
>  I don't think the device would display much free
> > energy if at all. It is more likely to assist in conventional water desal.
> > approaches.
> > 
> Hey, Remi, SARENDIPITY!!  We probably need free water as much as we need
> free energy.  Onward and upward!
> 
> Frank Stenger
> 
Yeah Frank,

I don't know what is right or wrong about it. Point of view keeps
oscilating widely. Time to take a break of maybe a few weeks (months) from
this and learn some more theory. It's all so contradictory - one minute
one expert says mmh yes, then another one will honest say 'I don't know'.

No theory to guide experiment, so don't do experiment unless very good
spread in experimental paramenters - requires much diligence and research.

Regarding Mitchel Swartz erm. it's long winded but there are some people
(not just 'amateurs' and engineering but some good physicists -ie indepth
scolars who really know a subject) who think the second law is faulty.
Seems to do with phase changes and constant temp. processes, it seems
possible to create a 'phase changing catalysts' that condenses water
vapour with spontaneous temp rise and availablitly of potential energy.

It's going to take time and study. It prbably won't happen 'overnight'. By
the way if Dieter Bauer and Larry Warton are out there, how's it going?
Especially Bauer, you actually made a capacitor showing apparent heat
reuse.

I'm going to take things easy for a bit and put this on the backburner,
it's getting the better of me and I'm neglecting people - family, friends
and colleagues. 

I'll probably just lurk, not really up to contributing too much at
present.
Remi.

No matter how great the achievement, it ain't worth being 'difficult' and
'creative'. So much more to life.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 05:27:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14208;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980320082050.006e6b00 agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:21:50 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Spinductor / Retroductor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"ha5C62.0.wT3.Huc4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16787
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:37 AM 3/19/98 -0600, John E. Steck  wrote:  
(Re: Spherical  Resonator... / Reactor?)

>...............
>The hardest part in the process IMO is generating the needed 3D model
>information and I am sure there are many here that would be more than glad to
>help you out if asked.  8^)
>..................

Agreed, and 3D model generation  is my strong point, (using one of your
fine Motorola chips ;)   But the URL you gave in an  earlier post did not
include electrical conductivity as a spec. Their powdered iron material
product  was bonded with polymer. This suggests poor electrical
conductivity. Fused metal 3D printing is my struggle, in obtaining, it
costs a lot  .

The reason it's so good at spinning is that  the geometry is super
orthogonal , (the secret of the vortex). And that underlines the need for
proper-good conductive path balancing. We want to avoid flux leakage.
Minimally magnetic material is preferable for the conductor. The apparent
void should  be magnetic. Actually the limited graphics at
http://www.agate.net/~insearch/concentrSpirSphereFlats.html 
show few "turns".  Many more turns would be well worth exploration. And the
"polar holes".... These are also adjustable, as a focus. I got a dynamite,
adjustable, 3d model base, ready to burn a CD at any CAD resolution. (We
don't want it too bumpy). Just need interested others.

And 8^)

Bo  kinson  (Atkinson)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 06:34:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19899;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <35122642.3D768957 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:18:10 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ed Wall-longitudinal force
References: <v01530500b137bdaea3af [199.237.131.238]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"jjQ343.0.ms4.Gqd4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16788
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Frank Stenger wrote:

I agree with Scott L. in that it would be great to have a defining
expression for the pure longitudinal force such as we have for the
Lorentz force (i.e., F = i*l X B).  If we had such an expression, it
would help us agree on a valid test for the force.

Horace Heffner wrote:

Ditto to the above.  Frank and Scott want to
get analytical and that is a really good idea
at this point IMHO.

The following is an excerpt from an ad by Marinov  ...
Bold letters (vectors) are changed here to capitals. The partial
derivitive symbol is denoted here as  . Note however that the letter
capital S below is a scalar. Pi = 3.14159... and u0 is "mu sub zero."
There are some references here to photos which are not legible to me.

Marinov wrote:

I obtained the most simple calculations that the
force with which an electric system acts on a
test charge q moving with velocity V is

F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)

where phi, A are the electric and magnetic potentials
generated by the system at the point of the
charge's location, Bior = rotA is the Lorentz
magnetic intensity, Swhit = -divA/2 is the Whittaker
magnetic intensity and


Bmar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V x V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]   (4)

Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

are the Marinov vector and scalar magnetic intensities.
B = Bior + Bmar is called the vector magnetic intensity
and S = Swit + Smar is called the scalar magnetic intensity,
(3) is called the Lorentz-Marinov equation.  If neglecting
the last term and under B we understand Bior, we obtain the
Lorentz equation which I call the Lorentz-Grassman equation.
That's the whole theory!"

Hi Horace,

I missed you.  How does equation (3) reduce to the
Lorentz equation as cited by Frank Stenger above:

"F = i*l X B"

or as cited by you:

"As I undersatand it the Lorentz law is:

 F = (q0 E) + (q0 V) x B

where V is the velocity vector.  All velocity is
relative.  An appropriate velocity of B relative
to a charge q0 results in a force F and thus a
velocity change of the particle.  It doesn't matter
if B moves or the particle."  

or as cited by Scott Little:

"The Lorentz force is given by F = I X B"     ?

Does anything in the article "Demystifying the
Marinov Motor," by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., pp 43-48,
Infinite Energy, Vol. 3, No. 17, have any bearing
(no pun intended) on  this?

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 08:05:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06353;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980320090558.008b9a40 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:05:58 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <4e2913a6.3511f670 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xrTgr1.0.7Z1.O7f4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16789
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:54 PM 3/19/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:

>>     To do glow or plasma discharge right you will probably want a pressure
>>  in the 1 to 3 torr range.
>
>Never get that low with this pump. Oh well, I'm going with what I have.

Hold on, Vince.  1 torr = 1 millimeter = 1000 microns.  You will easily get
into the range mentioned above with your Grainger's pump.

Your pump's ultimate pressure of 25 microns is equal to 25 millitorr...or
3.33 Pascals, if you really want to be "official"...<g>


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 20 08:18:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08550;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3512868D.5BC2 skylink.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:09:01 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Ampere Got ir Right
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Os5c92.0.S52.fKf4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16790
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Some things we all understand for sure:

Force on a moving electron is given by:
F = q(E + v cross B).

A B field exists whenever curl A is not zero.

The direction of the force on a moving charge 
from a B field is perpendicular to the direction 
of motion and also perpendicular to the B field.

An E field is generated whenever dA/dt is not zero.

The force from the E field is longitudinal, i.e. in 
the direction of the E field.

=============================================

Some things we can all understand if we want to:

The A field of a current element (not in any textbook, 
but why not?).

The A field of a current element, i(dl), or equivalently,
given by (q)(v) for an isolated electric charge moving
with velocity v. If the charge is moving in the x 
direction, where X is the unit vector, and we choose 
dimenstion such that qv = unity.

        A = (1/r)(X).  r = function of x,y,z

As is well known that there is no B field in the longitudinal
direction, curl A = zero, and there is a B field in 
the perpendicular direction, given by curl A. 
None the less there is an A field in the longitudinal direction. 

Even though there is no B field in the longitudinal direction,
there is a non-zero A field in the longitudinal direction.
The A field has a non-zero spacial derivative in the
longitudinal direction. A second charge moving in this area 
of space will see a relative change in the A field, and a 
value of dA/dt given by:

E = dA/dt = (v dot del)A, 
where v is the velocity of the second charge in the X direction.

Hence a longitudinal force is induced given by:

F = qE = q(dA/dt) = q(v dot del)A.

And if you calculate the value of the force on the
charge moving in the longitudinal direction, and compare
with the Lorentz force which results if the moving charge
is perpendicular to the source charge. The maximum possible
value of the longitudinal force is one-half of the maximum
possible value of the Lorentz force. 

This should clear things up.

===================

Things I understand by now for sure:

It won't clear things up. But why not?
Ampere got it right, a long time ago.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 09:31:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA01043;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:25:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:25:25 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980320122606.00c70700 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:26:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980320090558.008b9a40 mail.eden.com>
References: <4e2913a6.3511f670 aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"LbeG-1.0.DF.tPg4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16792
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:05 AM 3/20/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
>Hold on, Vince.  1 torr = 1 millimeter = 1000 microns.  You will easily get
>into the range mentioned above with your Grainger's pump.
>
>Your pump's ultimate pressure of 25 microns is equal to 25 millitorr...or
>3.33 Pascals, if you really want to be "official"...<g>

  I don't think I've ever measured anything in Pascals.  KiloPascals, yes.

  Anyway as I also told Vince, those pressures are at room temperature.  At
3000 or more degrees K, that pump will be, if anything, too efficient.  In
fact if he pumps down with an arc or glow discharge in operation, he should
be able to extinguish it.  (Of course, the "plumbing" between the tube and
the pump should result in any gasses being at sufficiently cool to be
pumped.  But beware that he will have potassium vapor going around, and he
will want to insure that any deposits are fully reacted before
disassembling anything.

  Easiest solution might be a way to introduce low pressure water vapor
when there is a need to disassemble the apparatus.  Translation a water
container and a petcock so that the vapor can be slowly introduced into the
apparatus.  Be sure to arrange so that all air can be excluded or pumped
out of your vapor source first.  You don't want a potassium fire caused by
your saftey precaution...  Avoid glass, unless it is properly shaped, but
thick teflon is fine.  Remember your water can freeze as you pump it down.
Once the water starts boiling, you can reroute it through the areas where
potassium may have condensed.

                                        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 Mar 20 09:49:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09247;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:45:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:45:31 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35128A31.FFE055F5 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:24:33 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
References: <3.0.32.19980320082050.006e6b00 agate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8PJd92.0.dF2.nig4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16793
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bo Atkinson wrote:

> But the URL you gave in an  earlier post did not
> include electrical conductivity as a spec. Their powdered iron material
> product  was bonded with polymer. This suggests poor electrical
> conductivity. Fused metal 3D printing is my struggle, in obtaining, it
> costs a lot  .

Typically the carrier is eliminated post sintering in an annealing oven.  Yes,
this causes porosity, but can be addressed by infusing copper into the lattice,
or electroplating a skin of nickel or chrome.  This process was developed to
quickly create steel mold halves for injection molding.  Can't say I am
suprised to hear dielectric values are not included in the material spec., not
relevant to the target audience.

I am in the process getting more information on the process for our own
purposes.  I can poke around for you if you want.  Do you have the geometry
modeled?

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 10:15:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18743;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:09:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:09:30 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b13842bd9f1d [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:23:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Ed Wall-longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"BVHdv3.0.ca4.M3h4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16795
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:18 PM 3/19/98, Taylor J. Smith wrote:
[snip]
>
>F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)
[snip]
>Hi Horace,
>
>I missed you.  How does equation (3) reduce to the
>Lorentz equation as cited by Frank Stenger above:
>
>"F = i*l X B"
>
>or as cited by you:
>
>"As I undersatand it the Lorentz law is:
>
> F = (q0 E) + (q0 V) x B
>
>where V is the velocity vector.  All velocity is
>relative.  An appropriate velocity of B relative
>to a charge q0 results in a force F and thus a
>velocity change of the particle.  It doesn't matter
>if B moves or the particle."
>
>or as cited by Scott Little:
>
>"The Lorentz force is given by F = I X B"     ?



The equation I quote applies to particle motion and includes the
electrostatic field contribution to force (q0 E).  Dividing by q0 we get
Marinov's form:

F/q0 = E + V x B

Marinof's form has the extra term VS with S being a scalar.  This means
q0VS is the "longitudinal force".  It means understanding Marinov's scalar
magnetic intensity

    Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

is the key ingredient.


>
>Does anything in the article "Demystifying the
>Marinov Motor," by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., pp 43-48,
>Infinite Energy, Vol. 3, No. 17, have any bearing
>(no pun intended) on  this?
>
>Jack Smith

Yes - but I wish I had it!  I seem to get I.E. about 5 weeks later than
everyone else.  It usually comes by barge to Alaska, I think, being 4th
class, so it takes an extra 4 weeks.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 10:19:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18716;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:09:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:09:26 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b13839586a1a [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:23:18 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: free water, even I'm increduluous
Resent-Message-ID: <"r9IkW1.0.1a4.I3h4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16794
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 3:50 AM 3/20/98, Cornwall RO wrote:
[snip]
>
>I'm going to take things easy for a bit and put this on the backburner,
>it's getting the better of me and I'm neglecting people - family, friends
>and colleagues.

I plead guilty to that as well. It's so hard to find a balance.

>
>I'll probably just lurk, not really up to contributing too much at
>present.
>Remi.
>
>No matter how great the achievement, it ain't worth being 'difficult' and
>'creative'. So much more to life.

But that's the fun part! The hard part is taking care about who pays the
price for the fun part.  As for me, me family has paid the price, and it is
important keep that to a reasonable level.  I've paid a price in terms of
health as well - so what good is a dead difficult and creative person?

You have such interesting and novel ideas, but difficult to fathom.  Keep
the faith!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 10:23:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22103;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:16:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:16:51 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980320102752.00c64d60 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:27:52 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: high-current joints
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <351148BE.D9 interlaced.net>
References: <19980319031205.AAA18405 HOME>
 <3.0.1.32.19980319103738.00c4fdd0 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"sgQ783.0.1P5.EAh4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16797
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:33 AM 3/19/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> How would you read this, Robert?  Does this theory
>make sense?

   Nope.  Electroplating across a good connection is much more likely!

   Figure it out.  At 200KAmps, a 2 Volt drop gives 100,000 Mhos, or 10
microOhms, which is a pretty good connection.  Of course, you also have 400
kilowatts, and not knowing the pulse shape, order of a hundred joules.  But
you may be losing much less than that as the electroplating cleans off the
oxide layer early in the pulse and the resistance drops.

   I have often seen this sort of thing, where the tenth pulse is much
cleaner and shorter than the first.  (And is why I like/liked to have a
set-up where nothing in the high-current path changed between shots that
wasn't in an inert gas atmosphere.  Electric utilities know this as well,
look at any catalog and you will find hydrogen, argon, helium, and nitrogen
filled switches.  Of course, in their case, they have to be designed for a
much higher average current.)

                                        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 Mar 20 10:27:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22049;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:16:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:16:42 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980320103029.00c57eb0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:30:29 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: RE: longitudinal force
Cc: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD68C xch-cpc-02>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"L0G7G3.0.IO5.6Ah4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16796
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:42 PM 3/19/98 -0800, Scudder, Henry J wrote:
>There are silver powder compositions (Cool Amp) which you brush onto the
>copper connectors, and lower the contact resistance.

   Technology marches on!

                                        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 Mar 20 13:13:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02541;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:52:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Marinov motor-smoking gun version
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:47:43 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5441$6e037650$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"EMWyE2.0.Td.8Sj4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16798
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The following message was recieved on 3/20/98 10:30 AM
 from Jeffery Kooistra:

Everybody:
        OK, so what we've really needed is a smoking gun to kill off the
universality of the Lorentz force law.  Despite all our efforts, someone
always seems to find some kind of theoretical hook to rescue Lorentz.
        Well, not on this one.  This time we have something where Lorentz
predicts rotation opposite from observed.
        Consider the thin shell around a typical leaky Marinov torus.  I
specifically used a torus in which the left vertical side was a magnet,
north up, south up on the right side, capped top and bottom by thin steel
plates so there was lots of leakage.  The shell itself is about a third the
height of the torus, and centered between top and bottom.
        Now, I've already demonstrated that the force on either a shell or
a ring causing it to rotate is nearly the same regardless of the radial
thickness of either--yesterday I did this by actually making a shell turn.
However, knowing how the latter day Aristotles who frequent the internet
(thanks for the post yesterday George--yes--it's OK to pass info over to
Vortex) would look for Lorentzian hooks, I looked for some myself last
night.
        If we consider all the possible B components and i components at
work in the "leaky" situation (radial B, top and bottom, vertical B left
and right, horizontal i, and now also _vertical_ i components, neglecting
the radial i since that's already been shown not to matter) we find that
only in the case of B radial interacting with i vertical do we get a force
to provide rotation.  All other forces cancel out.
        Now, looking down on this from above, if you have the torus I
specified and current coming in from the left (traditional + current), then
the Lorentzian expectation is that the ring will go counter clockwise.
(Radial B interacting with vertical i always points ccw in this case for
all quadrants.)
        But when you do the experiment, the ring goes clockwise.  QED
        Now, in an aside to Hawkins Kirk, if one considers the current
directions divorced of B field interpretations, and forgetting about the
leads which don't make much difference, then looking at parallel and
anti-parallel real current components in the ring  interacting with
appropriate surface current components on the magnets does yield the proper
sense of rotation in both cases.
        I'll try to get a full-scale write up of all this done soon,
looking at all this leakage B crap, but unless we can get folks like some
of the vortexians away from their VDTs and into their own labs, it won't be
worth much.  They can always assume I just "made a mistake somewhere".
Jeff


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 13:57:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14744;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1388dead605 [12.64.67.174]>
In-Reply-To: <19980320035441.AAA422 HOME>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:48:03 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Resent-Message-ID: <"lRpN01.0.9c3.CIk4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16799
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ed -

   >  Another Graneau experiment with huge current
   >  surge through a small wire explodes the wire.  It
   >  does not vaporize or melt.  It shatters.  As to the
   >  shape of the splinters, do these data support the
   >  notion that the repulsion is more longitudinal than
   >  latitunal?

According to Graneau and as I recall, yes.

 > What do you remember? [re: bi-directional nature of the force]

I remember that A pushes B pushes C, with B being squeezed by A and C. Bend
the straight segment into a loop so that A and C are now adjacent, and it's
not hard to visualize it in a circuit loop. But somewhere it seems like it
has to all bear back against the source of the EMF, doesn't it? This
physical longitudinal pressure has to come from somewhere.

   >  And no relation to the Maranov motor that I can see,
   >  although I read Horace Heffner: [snip]

The real question I think seems to be what, if any, portion of the force is
found acting not just longitudinally between the particles in the conductor
as in the exploding wires, but rather longitudinally between the source (or
nature) of the EMF and the conductor atoms involved in carrying the
current. Of course to any given segment of a conductor, any adjacent
segment might be seen as a 'source', which sort of bridges the idea over
from just adjacent conductor segments to the EMF->conductor area.

The exploding wire experiments seem conclusive at least in the former
(adjacent elements) sense, but I'm still a little uneasy about them due to
the high rise time pulsed nature of those tests. I like Kooistra's Marinov
motor setup better on general principles and its respect to the latter
sense where the longitudinal can be seen at work between components of the
device, but I'm still a little behind the curve on understanding it.
Following these messages with great interest.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 15:11:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29033;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3512F5F1.24E5 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:04:17 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Marinov motor-smoking gun version]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"p0y2F1.0.Z57.yOl4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16800
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Message-ID: <3512F490.7B03 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:58:24 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov motor-smoking gun version
References: <01bd5441$6e037650$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

George Holz wrote:
> 
> The following message was recieved on 3/20/98 10:30 AM
>  from Jeffery Kooistra:
> 
(big snip of Jeff's stuff)

>         I'll try to get a full-scale write up of all this done soon,
> looking at all this leakage B crap, but unless we can get folks like some
> of the vortexians away from their VDTs and into their own labs, it won't be
> worth much.  They can always assume I just "made a mistake somewhere".
> Jeff

OK, youse guys, I just "cut metal" on my version of a Marinov motor.

Thanks for the post, George.  I just spent a couple of hours cutting
a 1/2 inch wide ring from a 3 in. dia. copper water pipe - used my
trusty 12" Sears metal lathe.  Cutting a good ring from a thin-walled
tube is an interesting chore, but, I digress.

OK, I now have a nice 3 inch dia., 1/2 inch axial length, about 1/32
inch wall copper ring.  My plan was to make a shallow cylindrical cup
from plastic (PVC pipe parts?) and to mount the ring so as to make it
the rim of the cup, with both inner and most of the outer surface
exposed for brushes.  I then plan to mount the cup, via a center hole in
the bottom, on a really low loss ball-bearing shaft (old aerospace
stuff) so that it would rotate as would a vase on a potters wheel.
I thought I could use modified brushes from some old motor with a
gentle suspension so as to mimimize friction.
OK, This gives me the copper ring and brushes to feed current through
it.
Noting Marinov's description of cutting a magnet parallel and thru the
axis, rotating half 180 degrees, and sticking them together again, I
have 8 Radio Shack ceramic magnets (yes, left over from SMOT madness)
each 4.8 cm long, 2.2 cm wide, and about 0.9 cm thick. The magnets
are N pole on one big face and S on the other (duh).
Now, if I stack the 8 magnets 4 together, N up by 4 together, S up,
it makes an almost cubic magnet array as follows:

			  <-- 4.5 cm -->
			    N       S
			 _______________
			|_______|_______|
		||	|_______|_______|      || <----one side of ring
		||	|_______|_______|      ||      in cross section
		X	|_______|_______|       X
		X	    S       N		X <---rim of plastic cup
		X				X
		XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
				|
				| <---- vertical shaft
				|

The magnet stack is 4.8 cm into the page and 3.8 cm tall.

Now, will this make a Marinov motor??  If so, do I place the brushes
in the plane of the page, or 90 degrees from that?
Input welcome!!

Frank Stenger



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 15:59:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07432;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:54:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:54:41 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b138b10bb21e [199.237.131.241]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:00:38 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Marinov motor-smoking gun version]
Resent-Message-ID: <"Rz68H.0.up1.z6m4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16801
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:04 PM 3/20/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>
>                          <-- 4.5 cm -->
>                            N       S
>                         _______________
>                        |_______|_______|
>                ||      |_______|_______|      || <----one side of ring
>                ||      |_______|_______|      ||      in cross section
>                X       |_______|_______|       X
>                X           S       N           X <---rim of plastic cup
>                X                               X
>                XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>                                |
>                                | <---- vertical shaft
>                                |
>
>The magnet stack is 4.8 cm into the page and 3.8 cm tall.
>
>Now, will this make a Marinov motor??  If so, do I place the brushes
>in the plane of the page, or 90 degrees from that?
>Input welcome!!
>
>Frank Stenger

Way to go Frank!  Nice job! You don't mess around.  My progress thus far
has been to generate a lot of smoke by hooking up a 7.5 KW variac to a 2.5
KW transformer with too low an impedence to handle the low resistance
through a small arc.  8^[

In your drawing above the brushes go on the sides, one where you say
"<----one side of ring" above, according to the following description:

>    You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes.  You then
>flip one of the sections and let the two stick together.  The magnetic
>force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own.
>this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up.
>A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet.   This
>ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury.  Then
>two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of
>the magnet cut.  Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed
>through the electrodes and the ring rotates.
[snip]
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton

the key words are: "right angles to the plane of the magnet cut".

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 16:00:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09200;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:58:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:58:09 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:57:06 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd545b$e2ce2600$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"d7rSD3.0.wE2.DAm4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16802
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank Stenger wrote:
Now, will this make a Marinov motor??  If so, do I place the brushes
in the plane of the page, or 90 degrees from that?
Input welcome!!
Hi Frank,
This configuration is a little strange, as the magnets are much
longer than I have seen used  so far, which could have an
adverse affect on torque. The radio shack magnets
are also on the weak side for this as the active field is actually
caused by the leakage along the stack. Others have primarily 
used powerful FeNB magnets. Since it uses vertical
magnets, it will rotate in the opposite direction from that
shown in my earlier gif which used verticle passive ferrite.
If the magnets were shorter, I would place the brushes
in the plane of the center of the magnets as you propose.
For this configuration I'm not really sure what would
be optimum.
I'll forward your message to let Jeff know that 
vortex just ain't no sissy list!
Good luck Frank.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 16:13:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10385;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:09:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:06:46 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd545d$3cf1c050$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"KOl9N2.0.oX2.OKm4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16803
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is the quote I promised yesterday, I don't know
whether to laugh or cry.
>From Intro. to Electrodynamics, 2nd ed. by David J. Griffiths
of Reed College:
One feature of the magnetic force law , F=Q(v cross B) warrants
special attention.
-
(bold font)  Magnetic forces do no work.
For if Q moves an amount dl=vdt, the work done is
    dWmag=Fmag dot dl = Q(v cross B) dot vdt = 0
[(v cross B) is perpendicular to v, so (v cross B) dot vdt=0.]
Magnetic forces may alter the direction in which a particle moves,
but they cannot speed it up or slow it down. The fact that magnetic
forces can do no work is an elementary and direct  consequence of
the Lorentz force law, but there are so many situations in which
it appears so manifestly false that one's confidence is bound to
waver. When a magnetic crane lifts the carcass of a junked car,
for instance, something is obviously doing work, and it seems 
perverse to deny that the magnetic force is responsible.
Well, perverse or not, deny it we must, and it can be a very
subtle matter to figure what agency does deserve the credit
in such circumstances. 
(end quote)
-
IMO we could end this kind of nonsense by adding the
correct longitudinal force term to the magnetic force law.
I'm beginning to understand Robert Striniman's version
of this extra term but, although I can easily visualize
the B fields in any reasonable wire / magnetic material
situation, the magnetic vector potential is no fun at all.
The Marinov version of the extra term is about as clear as mud.
Are these actually as different as they seem at first glance?
I think that Jeff Kooistra's thin shell Marinov motor really
does defy any reasonable explanation without the
longitudinal force. Now, how do we go about getting
this accepted in mainstream physics.
-
Robert, I found a section in the book I quoted from above
titled, Lorentz Force Law in Potential Form. It seems 
to have similarities to your position. I could fax you a copy
or (slower alternative) scan it and put it up on our web
site. I would like to hear your comments about it.
-
George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 16:35:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18238;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:29:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:29:04 -0800
Message-ID: <3513083A.226C skylink.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:22:18 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Ampere Got it Right, Part 2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"yQVXC3.0.nS4.Edm4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16804
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Relativity requires a longitudinal force -- relativity in its
most general sense, and not necessarily special relativity.

Examine the Lienard-Wiechart potential, and the electric field 
of a moving point charge. The electric field of a moving point
charge is increased in the direction perpendicular to motion,
and decreased in the direction of motion (longitudinal direction).

What looks like a magnetic force in one reference frame, looks
like an electric force in another reference frame. 

Take the well known case of two charges, located perpendicular to
there direction of motion, and each moving with the same velocity v. 
In the frame of the charges, there is no magnetic force -- only 
the Coulomb force exists. In the frame of the observer there is a
magnetic force (Lorentz force), along with the electric force.
The change in the electric Coulomb force due to relative motion 
is balanced equal and oppositely by the magnetic (Lorentz) force. 

Similarly, for the case of two charges which are moving in line. 
In the frame of the observer, there is also a relativistic change 
in the electric Coulomb force. Just as the Lorentz force is required 
by relativity in the first case, some kind of longitudinal magnetic 
force is also required in the second case.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 17:04:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA28308
	for billb eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:04:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:04:15 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:04:15 -0800
X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 17:04:14 1998
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980320195756.0068895c agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Old-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:02:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aC1Ou1.0.4w6.D8n4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16805
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
X-Diagnostic: /usr/lib/sendmail vortex-l-dist eskimo.com failed
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:24 AM 3/20/98 -0600, John E. Steck wrote:

>I am in the process getting more information on the process for our own
>purposes.  I can poke around for you if you want.  Do you have the geometry
>modeled?
>

I've got some surface models.  But  if this was imminent, i would model
more circular segments and other details.


>Typically the carrier is eliminated post sintering in an annealing oven.
Yes,
>this causes porosity, but can be addressed by infusing copper into the
lattice,
>or electroplating a skin of nickel or chrome.  

Starting with copper powder would appeal much more to me.  Magnetic
material which is also electrically conductive would be a worthy
comparison. Typically this copper- free inductor approach would apply
towards a pre existing product, and bringing it's manufacturing price down.
 But here, we are trying to probe new fields! Better to avoid eddy current
possibilities. 

Thanks for your friendly interest.


Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 20:01:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA01091;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:58:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:58:50 -0800
Message-ID: <35133AF6.30E interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:58:46 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Horace - Marinov
References: <v01530500b138b10bb21e [199.237.131.241]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YjwCA1.0.yG.uhp4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16806
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip)

> In your drawing above the brushes go on the sides, 

Thanks for all the info, Horace!
If I can get the rotating ring and brushes set up, then I can play with
the magnet fields.  I'm still foggy on what's so great about the
split-and-rotated magnet concept.  It seems to me that if you want
oppositely directed fields cutting the ring on two sides, why not use
one of the configurations in your posts?  Oh well, first to get the
armature and brushes set up.  This could wind up being as much fun as
the SMOT.

Ouch, on the smoke, Horace - I hope your transformer is still alive!
Put a big light bulb in series with the primary.  I have to do that on
the charger for my capacitor bank.  The charger is a low impedance
1600 volt (roughly!) transformer feeding a full-wave silicon diode
bridge.  If I hit 96,000 MFD at zero charge with that without the
light bulbs in series, it would be smoke city for me too!  If you
pick just the right bulb(s), you can get full open-circuit voltage
to strike the arc and then it'll drop as the arc current comes on.

Good luck - keep talking - Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 20:20:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04372;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:18:30 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:18:30 -0800
Message-ID: <35133FA9.689D interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:18:49 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
References: <01bd545b$e2ce2600$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9WC27.0.D41.K-p4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16807
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:
> 

> This configuration is a little strange,

That's what my wife says about me, George.

 as the magnets are much
> longer than I have seen used  so far, which could have an
> adverse affect on torque. The radio shack magnets
> are also on the weak side for this as the active field is actually
> caused by the leakage along the stack.

Which brings up the point, George, just what is so ACTIVE about a field
that works??  Do we need a strong gradient or a strong field - or...
But, that's OK for now.  I should be able to make big changes in the
magnets if I can get the ring and brushes rotating accurately and with
low friction.  I'll keep your comments in mind.  Let me get it going
and I'll hit you up for more advice.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 20:23:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16491;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980321000451.005d7478 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:04:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Horace - Marinov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"JpVXA.0.V14.90q4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16808
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:58 PM 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Ouch, on the smoke, Horace - I hope your transformer is still alive!
>Put a big light bulb in series with the primary.  I have to do that on
>the charger for my capacitor bank.  The charger is a low impedance
>1600 volt (roughly!) transformer feeding a full-wave silicon diode
>bridge.  If I hit 96,000 MFD at zero charge with that without the
>light bulbs in series, it would be smoke city for me too!  If you
>pick just the right bulb(s), you can get full open-circuit voltage
>to strike the arc and then it'll drop as the arc current comes on.
>
>Good luck - keep talking - Frank Stenger
>

If you don't mind my asking Frank, what were you doing with
the cap bank? These must be special electrolytics; my experience
with most of the commercial kinds was that the ESR was too
high for decent pulse work. I take it they were all paralleled?


KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 20:22:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04607;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:20:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:20:23 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <4c41e2ac.35133fdf aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:19:41 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"h-xnv3.0.v71.50q4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16809
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-20 11:03:30 EST, you write:
> Hold on, Vince.  1 torr = 1 millimeter = 1000 microns.  You will easily get
>  into the range mentioned above with your Grainger's pump.
>  Your pump's ultimate pressure of 25 microns is equal to 25 millitorr...or
>  3.33 Pascals, if you really want to be "official"...<g>
>  Scott Little 
>  EarthTech International

Scott, I swear I'm gonna put up a big wall chart over the bench with all
the conversions layed out in bar graph form. Like you said on the phone,
these definitions will drive me nuts...and the are.
Much embarrassed but hey, I'll drink to that!
The vacuum testing of the plumbing revealed several leaks. I think I 
have them plugged. Waiting overnight for the RTV sealent to set up
and will test again tomorrow in between painting the family room that 
we just had a tile floor installed. Laura is on my case to get busy.
I mounted all the plumbing on a 3 x 2 piece of particle board. At least
it looks nice.
I stopped by Desert Industrial Gasses this morning and guess what...he
was waiting for MY call to see if I really wanted tanks regulators H2 ect.
So this time I gave him $200 bucks and told him NOW I'm in a hurry!
Sigh...another weeks waiting it seems.  Jeez...H2 regulators ARE expensive.
I purchased two 55 cu. ft tanks,  Ar and H2.  I will use the time to simplify
the plumbing on the reactor stand part. Too many places for leaks, so 
the wait for the passafuma will be well spent.  The lawn needs cutting too.
No K yet.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada
702-254-2122

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 20:33:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18158;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980321001553.005d83f0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:15:57 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Ampere Got it Right
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"wSqv83.0.cR4.UAq4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16810
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:09 AM 3/20/98 -0800, you wrote:
>===================
>
>Things I understand by now for sure:
>
>It won't clear things up. But why not?
>Ampere got it right, a long time ago.
>
>Regards,
>Robert Stirniman
>

Well, I've been lurking this thread far too long. Time to mix
it up...

It strikes me that if what you are saying about a charge
moving through a spacial gradient of A is correct, it should
be easy to engineer a situation where there is no B field
at all, only A. Electrons travelling through this field 
should be accellerated or decellerated accordingly. We 
were discussing this sort of thing a month or so back.
I don't think this has ever been observed experimentally
(unless you're holding out on us :^)

Also, would we really expect to see such a phenomena in
a conductor? 

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 20:41:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11450;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:38:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:38:40 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <1b59d634.3513441f aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:37:49 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"zJMrp1.0.ho2.CHq4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16811
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-20 12:30:42 EST, you write:

> But beware that he will have potassium vapor going around, and he
>  will want to insure that any deposits are fully reacted before
>  disassembling anything.
  
  <snip good safety stuff>
>                                          Robert I. Eachus

Robert, I will be dealing with very small amounts of K metal here. any K
vapor will likely condense out in the approx 3 feet of copper plumbing
between the reactor vessel and the vacuum pump. Your suggestion for
introducing water vapor prior to takedown is a good one. I am very aware
of the dangers and will be extreamly carefull. I will and always have take
full responsibility for all my actions. I'm not a chemist but my chemist 
father taught me very well. Never handled K metal but I have worked with
Sodium and being always cautious, that was easy, and all my body parts
are still the originals.  I'm not being cocky here, paranoid is goodness
when dealing with the unknown and the dangerious knowns.
Have a good weekend all.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada
702-254-2122

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 21:08:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18014;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:03:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:03:14 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:57:03 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Vortex addiction ...Re: Horace Returns
In-Reply-To: <19980320001101.AAA19349 HOME>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980320235553.24571A-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"3CoW61.0.HP4.Feq4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16812
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	The cure is CTL ALT DEL .... and run away!  If you have an Apple, 
then unplug it.

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ed Wall wrote:

> At 12:24 AM 3/18/98 -0900, you wrote:
> >>Horace,
> >>
> >>Welcome back!  I missed your input.
> >>
> >>Joe Champion
> >
> >Thanks Joe.  I missed you vorts, but took a much needed break.  Should not
> >have come back yet, but got too curious.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Horace Heffner          
> >
> >
> Is there a recognized therapy for Vortex addiction?
> 
> Ed Wall
> 
> 
> Ed Wall
> ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net
> 
> Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
> -- Juvenal
> 
> Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas
> [Let Learning Be Cherished Where Liberty Has Arisen]
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 20 22:43:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA07592;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980321003739.008cfde0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:37:39 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Ampere Got ir Right
In-Reply-To: <3512868D.5BC2 skylink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_cyvd2.0.Ys1.U3s4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16813
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:09 AM 3/20/98 -0800, Robert Stirniman wrote:

<snip good presentation>

>The A field has a non-zero spacial derivative in the
>longitudinal direction. A second charge moving in this area 
>of space will see a relative change in the A field....

only if the 2nd charge is moving at a different speed than the 1st, right?
If the two charges are moving along at the same rate of speed then each
sees the other as stationary....no B and no A....just E.

This is always the case for a current flowing thru a wire.  If one of the
moving electrons looks around, he sees the other moving electrons
stationary w.r.t. himself.  He sees the atoms in the wire moving backwards
past him...but they're neutral.

Does this mean we do not expect the longitudinal force to occur for
currents flowing in conductors?  Does it only occur for free charges moving
w.r.t other charges?

>This should clear things up.
>It won't clear things up. But why not?

Help me out above and we will proceed further.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 20 23:18:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA12032;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:10:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:10:12 -0800
Message-ID: <351367E3.C94 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:10:27 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors
References: <3.0.32.19980321000451.005d7478 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"nGzI03.0.rx2.IVs4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16814
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 
(snip)

> If you don't mind my asking Frank, what were you doing with
> the cap bank? These must be special electrolytics; my experience
> with most of the commercial kinds was that the ESR was too
> high for decent pulse work. I take it they were all paralleled?
> 
Keith, the individual units are Sprague "Powerlytic" 36DX, 6100 MFD
  350 VDC.
The bank contains 144 of these units, originaly all in parallel but
now 3 in series, 48 in parallel.
I ran a discharge test on the caps and, from my notes, it looks
like I got about 0.01 ohms ESR for a single unit.
So, the present bank should have a combined ESR of about 0.000625 ohms.
It looks like I allowed 0.000675 ohms for the rest of the circuit for a
circuit total of 0.00130 ohms.  The nominal bank capacitance is
0.0976 farad but I ran a 2 or 3 second discharge thru my safety load
bank which indicated the actual capacitance is maybe 0.115 farad.
A typical circuit had about 0.8165 microhenrys inductance including
an estimate for the caps.  If the 0.115 farad is close, then on the
run we took data on, the current peak was about 206 kamp at 350
microsec.
The current was below 1000 amp by 1000 microsec.  It looked somewhat
overdamped so I haven't run into reverse voltage problems yet(I do have
reverse-voltage diodes installed).
I've been trying to simulate a 5 foot length of lightning return stroke
and open the circuit at high current to see if I can "bring fourth"
ball lightning for my camcorder to capture.  You guys will be the first
to know!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 00:35:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA16814;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b13921c89707 [199.237.131.249]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:33:24 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: The value of velocity
Resent-Message-ID: <"qi3fr.0.e64.0ft4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16815
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given Marinov's:

   F/q = Eior + V x B + VS

the longitudinal force is given by the term VS, the velocity vector times
the scalar magnetic intensity.  The magitude of the longitudinal force is
proportional to velocity.  This implies that the free energy power
production of a longitudinal device is (1) dependant upon charges entering
a magnetic field slowly and (2) the charges leaving the magnetic field as
free particles at high velocity, and (3) the power produced is at least
proportional to the velocity of the exiting particles squared.

This implies to me that mechanical motors are not the way to go to extract
energy from the longitudinal force.  A device using electrons with a
terminal velocity of km/sec should produce over a million times the COP of
a device using m/sec magnitude mechanical motion.

Unless I misunderstand, to utilize the longitudinal force, the objective is
to release charged particles into a declining magnetic field.  One way this
might be accomplished is:

                         | (+)
                       --|--
     -------------     |PPP|      -------------
     |            \    |   |     /            |
     | S         N \   |   |    / S         N |
     |              \  |   |   /              |
     ----------------  |FFF|   ----------------
                       -|-|-
                        | |
                          | (-)

   FFF - filament
   PPP - plate inside vacuum tube

The electrons enter the filament in the location of the strongest field
strength B at the glacially slow pace of conductor electrons, and then are
accelerated by the electrostatic gradient from the filament to the plate,
enhanced by the magnetic gradient imparting the longitudinal force.

One problem with the above is that the magnet would bend the electron path
into the sides of the glass envelope.  However, the above could be a cross
section of a very long tube/maget array (into the page above).  The
electrons may then even gyrate like in a magnetron, but would eventually
reach the plate.

The main objective of this idea is to generate excess heat at the plate.

Instead of a filament maybe HV could be used to make a discharge in tube
with a long electron mean free path.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 01:50:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA30821;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:49:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:49:26 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1393cc6eb8f [12.64.4.124]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b13921c89707 [199.237.131.249]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:48:59 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The value of velocity
Resent-Message-ID: <"SlHqt1.0.VX7.bqu4r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16816
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace _

 > One way this
 > might be accomplished is:
 >
 >                         | (+)
 >                        --|--
 >      -------------     |PPP|      -------------
 >      |            \    |   |     /            |
 >      | S         N \   |   |    / S         N |
 >      |              \  |   |   /              |
 >      ----------------  |FFF|   ----------------
 >                        -|-|-
 >                         | |
 >                           | (-)
 >
 >   FFF - filament
 >   PPP - plate inside vacuum tube


The electronic SMOT. It just *had* to happen. <g>

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 02:34:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA22237;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: physics-research ncar.ucar.edu, vortex-L@eskimo.com, cycles@esosoft.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.maths
Subject: "The Physical Origin of Electron Spin" by Milo Wolff
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:28:59 GMT
Message-ID: <35179247.5012589 aklobs.org.nz>
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: <"I7FSl3.0.NR5.TTv4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16817
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

IMO the following is an extremely important paper that points the
direction to further advances in physics.

In an article named "The Physical Origin of Electron Spin" Milo Wolff
has completed the proof that all properties of the electron are able to
be derived from a physical model.  In that model there is a wave that
converges on the electron center, rotates and diverges again so that the
combination leads to a standing wave.  The rotation is according to the
model known as spherical rotation (to distinguish it from the normal
cylindrical rotation).  There is a detailed explanation at
http://www.sirius.com/~flapjack/milo/PhysRevSpinNov97.html
although unfortunately the figures from his PhysRev paper are missing.

Wolff traces his ideas back to Clifford in 1876 and later to the
pioneers of quantum physics and so the solution to this problem has been
a long time coming.  Wolff's words on this result...

'Although the origin of spin has been a fascinating problem of physics
for sixty years, spin itself is not the important result. Instead, the
most extraordinary conclusion of the wave electron structure is that the
laws of physics and the structure of matter ultimately depend upon the
waves from the total of matter in a universe. Every particle
communicates its wave state with all other matter so that the particle
structure, energy exchange, and the laws of physics are properties of
the entire ensemble. This is the origin of Mach's Principle. The
universal properties of the quantum space waves are also found to
underlie the universal clock and the constants of nature. 

This structure settles a century old paradox of whether particles are
waves or point-like bits of matter. They are wave structures in space.
There is nothing but space. As Clifford speculated 100 years ago, matter
is simply, "undulations in the fabric of space".'

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 05:15:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA00931;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b1396a675f2f [199.237.131.235]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:17:18 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The value of velocity
Resent-Message-ID: <"brnJ-2.0.OE.Jpx4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16818
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:48 PM 3/20/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Horace _
>
> > One way this
> > might be accomplished is:
> >
> >                         | (+)
> >                        --|--
> >      -------------     |PPP|      -------------
> >      |            \    |   |     /            |
> >      | S         N \   |   |    / S         N |
> >      |              \  |   |   /              |
> >      ----------------  |FFF|   ----------------
> >                        -|-|-
> >                         | |
> >                           | (-)
> >
> >   FFF - filament
> >   PPP - plate inside vacuum tube
>
>
>The electronic SMOT. It just *had* to happen. <g>
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

Interesting observation Rick!

A longitudinal force explantion for the smot?  The rolling of the ball
would provide much more electron motion than any electron current in a
conductor.  The problem is that the electrons would be balanced by protons.
Maybe a slight charge on the smot ball, and (repelling electrostatic force
on the magnet array) would increase SMOT performance?  Also the direction
of motion is reversed, isn't it?

The SMOT (etc.) also is puported to work in this repelling configuration:

                         | (+)
                       --|--
     -------------     |PPP|      -------------
     |            \    |   |     /            |
     | S         N \   |   |    / N         S |
     |              \  |   |   /              |
     ----------------  |FFF|   ----------------
                       -|-|-
                        | |
                          | (-)

   FFF - filament
   PPP - plate inside vacuum tube


The longitudinal force argument would not apply to this configuration, as
the magnetic field is longitudinal.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 05:20:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02361;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13965e75074 [199.237.131.235]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:17:14 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: The value of (radial) velocity
Resent-Message-ID: <"91Gr62.0.la.xtx4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16819
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given Marinov's:

   F/q = Eior + V x B + VS

the longitudinal force is given by the term VS, the velocity vector times
the scalar magnetic intensity.  The magitude of the longitudinal force is
proportional to velocity.  This implies that the free energy power
production of a longitudinal device is (1) dependant upon charges entering
a magnetic field slowly and (2) the charges leaving the magnetic field as
free particles at high velocity, and (3) the power produced is at least
proportional to the velocity of the exiting particles squared.

This implies to me that mechanical motors are not the way to go to extract
energy from the longitudinal force.  A device using electrons with a
terminal velocity of km/sec should produce over a million times the excess
energy (COP -1) of a device using m/sec magnitude mechanical motion.

Unless I misunderstand, to utilize the longitudinal force, the objective is
to release charged particles into a declining magnetic field.  One way this
might be accomplished is:



             |              |
             |              |
             |              |
             |              |
             |              |
              \            /
               \          /
                \        /
                 \   N  /
                  \    /
                   \  /
                    \/
          ----------------------
          | P        F       P |
          | P        F       P |
          | P        F       P |
          | P        F       P |
          | P        F       P |
          ----------------------
             ----------------
             |       S      |
             |              |
             |              |
             |              |
             |              |


   FFF - filament
   PPP - plate inside vacuum tube
   N,S - poles of magnetic circuit

   Fig. 1 - Cross section of radially symmetric device

The electrons enter the filament in the location of the strongest field
strength B at the glacially slow pace of conductor electrons, and then are
accelerated by the electrostatic gradient from the filament to the plate,
enhanced by the magnetic gradient imparting the longitudinal force.

The main objective of this idea is to generate excess heat at the plate,
which could be hollow and liquid cooled, or comprize most of the vacuum
envelope. It may be possible to take some energy off the filament-plate
ciruit directly due to resonance of the electrons.  The cyclotronic
frequency diminishes radially, so a broadband microwave radiation would be
produced.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 05:25:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA03318;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:23:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:06:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: free water, 2nd law, cracked it.
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980321123753.18832A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gr5Hc3.0.lp.Gzx4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16820
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortex,

What was causing me trouble as I was writing a paper on Monday was an
equation predicting the amount of free water from the vesicles condensing
vapour. I was having trouble replicating results because the faulty theory
was telling me to look in the wrong place. Now I know what happened when I
observed the effect and have trouble replicating it - do it at near 100%
humidity.

I was very increduluous about the amount of water it was telling me
because at room humidity I could see none. I then thought just what the
equation meant and it became ludicrous. It was mole fraction not volume
fraction if the calculation was done on the basis of membrane equilibrium.
Wrong on two counts: not membrane equilibrium and any way mole fraction
would have predicted a tiny volume of water.

No, the vesicles have a steady state eqm maintained by water condensing
and evaporating such that a sheaf of water surrounds the vesicles. I am
setting up the differential equation that describes this. It is of the
form that the amount of water in the sheaf is related by an increasing
function to the difference in vapour pressure between the atmosphere and
the vesicle vapour pressure. You see the sheaf grows until the point is
reached where surface area is so great that evapouration losses can't be
maintained by condensation gains.

The other interpretation of eqm that there is no water is wrong because
the pressure inside the vesicle would have to increase so much (from water
condensing and cramming the vesicle) that the vapour pressure of the
hygroscopic solution (or gel) increases to the equal the surrounding
atmosphere - many thousands of atmosphere required internally and
another transport equation relating mass balance between vapour condensing
and water flowing out would be violated. So there must be a sheaf of water
- QED. I will prove this quantitatively.

So the model tells me correctly (back up by the experiment I did) that I
should operate at high humidity. Also the onus is not to make the vesicle
highly hygroscopic with the attendant problems of osmotic pressure and the
innards squeezing out, but just hygroscopic enough. If the vesicle isn't
very hygro. the sheaf's diameter is smaller and it must be operated at
higher humidity and the process is somewhat tardy to reach the steady
state - that is all.


Now why I got myself all worried about phase changing cycle and the second
law. S is a property, it is an exact differential - all cycles must lead
to S>=0. Reversible S=0. There is NO WAY around this.I then thought of the
Eddington saying and convinced myself something was screwwy. 

To truly break the second law, one must make energy dissapear - ie break
the first law too. But one *CAN* temporaily reduce entropy of a system
(millions of years for meaning of temp). by converting that heat energy
into potential energy by the phase changing cycle. Ultimately everything
decays back to S=0 (or S->0+ due to addition of entropy from phase
catalyst decaying) but heat is being 'recycled' we have 'perpetuating
motion' - *not* perpetual motion. That potential energy more than enough
does work and repairs the catalyst.

A very good physicist told my supervisor that he believes the first law is
sacred but the second is faulty. I stress his opinion about the first law
is his view - he knows much more about QED than me to form an opinion -
several people know that the second law is faulty. The reason is in the
previous paragraph. Shall be preparing a new paper.

Nearer the time I shall be sending out samples after I rig up some kind of
production line.

Wishing you well,
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 05:28:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA03892;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 05:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b1396f0e76fc [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:31:31 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: The value of velocity
Resent-Message-ID: <"9cV4T3.0.ky.V0y4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16821
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given Marinov's:

   F/q = Eior + V x B + VS

the longitudinal force is given by the term VS, the velocity vector times
the scalar magnetic intensity.  The magitude of the longitudinal force is
proportional to velocity.  This implies that the free energy power
production of a longitudinal device is (1) dependant upon charges entering
a magnetic field slowly and (2) the charges leaving the magnetic field as
free particles at high velocity, and (3) the power produced is at least
proportional to the velocity of the exiting particles squared.

This implies to me that mechanical motors are not the way to go to extract
energy from the longitudinal force.  A device using electrons with a
terminal velocity of km/sec should produce over a million times the COP of
a device using m/sec magnitude mechanical motion.

Unless I misunderstand, to utilize the longitudinal force, the objective is
to release charged particles into a declining magnetic field.  One way this
might be accomplished is:

                         | (+)
                \      --|--      /-----------(+)
                 \     |PPP|     /
                  \    |   |    /
                   \   |   |   /
                    \  |   |  /
                     \ |FFF| /----------------(-)
                       -|-|-
                        | |
                          | (-)

   FFF - filament
   PPP - plate inside vacuum tube
   \ / - CONDUCTING CONE WITH VERY LARGE CURRENT TOP TO BOTTOM
         ( magnetic field would then be circular inside cone)

The electrons enter the filament in the location of the strongest field
strength B at the glacially slow pace of conductor electrons, and then are
accelerated by the electrostatic gradient from the filament to the plate,
enhanced by the magnetic gradient imparting the longitudinal force.

The main objective of this idea is to generate excess heat at the plate.

Instead of a filament maybe HV could be used to make a discharge in tube
with a long electron mean free path.

Interesting that the magnetic field would be circular in space yet
confined. Does this imply a rotor consisting of two magnets placed opposing
on an armature would rotate?  Example:

             \    N==S---B---S==N    /


[I must be suffering from sleep deprivation.  BTW - my son was accepted by
MIT so we went to dinner and celebrated.  So much excitement! I'm a proud
Dad to say the least.]

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 07:26:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26873;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3513DAAF.2679 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:20:15 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: free water, 2nd law, cracked it.
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980321123753.18832A-100000 exeter>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6lIIz3.0.mZ6.vhz4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16822
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Cornwall RO wrote:
> 
(snip)

> Nearer the time I shall be sending out samples after I rig up some kind of
> production line.
> 
Remi, remember to eat lunch!  Good hunting!  If I were close, I'd leave
a sandwich outside your lab door.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 07:38:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29448;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3513DE30.2235 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:35:12 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The value of velocity
References: <v01530502b1396f0e76fc [199.237.131.242]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Uyeyq3.0.0C7.yvz4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16823
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip)

 this
> might be accomplished is:
> 
>                          | (+)
>                 \      --|--      /-----------(+)
>                  \     |PPP|     /
>                   \    |   |    /
>                    \   |   |   /
>                     \  |   |  /
>                      \ |FFF| /----------------(-)
>                        -|-|-
>                         | |
>                           | (-)
> 
>    FFF - filament
>    PPP - plate inside vacuum tube
>    \ / - CONDUCTING CONE WITH VERY LARGE CURRENT TOP TO BOTTOM
>          ( magnetic field would then be circular inside cone)

Hey, Horace, remember Ampere's law: a closed magnetic flux line has
to have a current flowing thru the loop, so, the flux will be outside
the cone just as it would on a tubular conductor, right?
Keep going and you'll get to that little vacuum diode you have? :-).
> 
  BTW - my son was accepted by
> MIT so we went to dinner and celebrated.  So much excitement! I'm a proud
> Dad to say the least.]

HUGE NEWS!!!  Just let him know that you'll be posting his grades to
Vortex!  Give him a salute for all of us!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 07:53:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02149;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:48:29 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: longitudinal force
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:46:19 +0000
Message-ID: <19980321154617.AAA9146 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5_CsD1.0.RX.B5-4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16824
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
<snip>
>The exploding wire experiments seem conclusive at least in the former
>(adjacent elements) sense, but I'm still a little uneasy about them due to
>the high rise time pulsed nature of those tests. I like Kooistra's Marinov
>motor setup better on general principles and its respect to the latter
>sense where the longitudinal can be seen at work between components of the
>device, but I'm still a little behind the curve on understanding it.
>Following these messages with great interest.

Ditto.

Frank Stenger also expressed reservations about high-energy pulsed devices,
as unintentional and hard to predict effects are introduced.

Horace Heffner has written that analysis is particularly difficult in the
region of the brushes, meaning the version where the conductor spins around
the toroid.  I suppose this also means in the version where the toroid
spins, analysis around the region where the wire attaches to the stationary
conductor is difficult.  I do remember from my EM course so long ago that
application of LaPlace's equation to all but the simplest geometries is
almost impossibly complex.  While I see the benefit of having a formulation
of the longitudinal force, the lack of same should not quash
experimentation.  To repeat Kooistra's quotation of Phipps, "It would appear
that classical electrodynamics may be one of those areas of physics that
have too-long served as unsupervised playgrounds for theorists, with the
bare minimum of chaperoning by experimentalists.  As in all such cases,
there is a possibility that tacit assumptions contrary to fact have been
built to deeply into the foundations that a successful critic would have to
devote one lifetime to discovery and two more to 'sales.'  I have not paid
the price of admission to this particular recreational area, so cannot offer
an informed opinion."  Kooistra goes on to write that since Phipps wrote
this, he has more than paid the price of admission.  Perhaps I have not, but
I thoroughly enjoyed Kooistra's article in IE #17.

George Holz's news flash from Jeff Kooistra indicates that the same
magnitude of torque is induced on the rotating ring for the case of the ring
consisting of an insulator wrapped in foil.  It looks as though the idea of
using different geometries for the conducting ring with common centroids
that produce close to the same torque gives us an effective means to vary
the predicted Lorentz force and distinguish it from a putative other force
field.

Since there is a complex problem of analysing the current delivery to the
ring, would it help to have the energy stored in the ring itself?   Would a
chain of capacitors shielded within the ring, configured so as to produce a
current surge in the ring prove any simpler to analyze?  That is, can we
assume that if the capacitive source of current produces no field outside
(Faraday cage), the current flowing along the ring is the only relevant
source of fields for analysis?  

What bothers me is what seems like presumption that the torque has to be
from Lorentz forces, which (for any setup involving current flow), will be
present.  The purpose of experiment is not only to demonstrate theory.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 07:57:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03244;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980321113439.005cbaf8 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:34:43 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Frank - Capacitors/Ball lightning
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NgcmR.0.bo.OB-4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16825
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:10 AM 3/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I ran a discharge test on the caps and, from my notes, it looks
>like I got about 0.01 ohms ESR for a single unit.
>So, the present bank should have a combined ESR of about 0.000625 ohms.
>It looks like I allowed 0.000675 ohms for the rest of the circuit for a
>circuit total of 0.00130 ohms.  The nominal bank capacitance is
>0.0976 farad but I ran a 2 or 3 second discharge thru my safety load
>bank which indicated the actual capacitance is maybe 0.115 farad.
>A typical circuit had about 0.8165 microhenrys inductance including
>an estimate for the caps.  If the 0.115 farad is close, then on the
>run we took data on, the current peak was about 206 kamp at 350
>microsec.

Ouch. Thats a slow pulse. Assuming the switch is a sparkgap
or ignitron, sounds like your ESR is swamping the risetime.
If you're serious about trying to simulate lightning, best
rethink this. 

Pity you don't live in my neighb Frank, I have a nice 500amp/50mv
current sense resistor. Just about the right size for this.
You don't mention how you measure the current...

>The current was below 1000 amp by 1000 microsec.  It looked somewhat
>overdamped so I haven't run into reverse voltage problems yet(I do have
>reverse-voltage diodes installed).
>I've been trying to simulate a 5 foot length of lightning return stroke
>and open the circuit at high current to see if I can "bring fourth"
>ball lightning for my camcorder to capture.  You guys will be the first
>to know!
>
>Frank Stenger

Sounds like that old experiment done by the Navy. Some poor tech
was fooling with the battery banks in a sub; he found that breaking
a high current circuit would induce plasma balls; they were green
as the contactors were copper. Likely these were actual particles
of copper blown free of the contactor; but who knows? You should
check out Ken Shoulders work; ball lightning generation on a much
more manageable scale. Perhaps the techniques could be scaled up
for your purposes. I'll scrounge around for the patent number,
if this interests you. 

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 08:13:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06338;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:11:19 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Message-ID: <d2b83d42.3513e4e8 aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:03:50 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Fwd: stengers experimemt
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="part0_890496230_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Resent-Message-ID: <"VYcm22.0.jY1.ZQ-4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16826
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.

--part0_890496230_boundary
Content-ID: <0_890496230 inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html">Yusmar Johnstown
Znidarsic</A> 

forgot the link the first time

--part0_890496230_boundary
Content-ID: <0_890496230 inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Return-path: <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
To: vortex-l erskimo.com
Subject: stengers experimemt
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:02:01 EST
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Sounds like that old experiment done by the Navy. Some poor tech
was fooling with the battery banks in a sub; he found that breaking
a high current circuit would induce plasma balls; they were green
as the contactors were copper. Likely these were actual particles
of copper blown free of the contactor; but who knows? You should
check out Ken Shoulders work; ball lightning generation on a much
more manageable scale. Perhaps the techniques could be scaled up
for your purposes. I'll scrounge around for the patent number,
if this interests you. 

KPN
.......................................................
A brief animation showing Stenger's experiment is posted on my home page.
Go to the Download the Book Icon to see it.

Frank Z

--part0_890496230_boundary--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 08:47:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11499;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980321122456.005d5ef0 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:24:59 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: stengers experimemt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"UIMZ01.0.ap2.nr-4r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16827
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:03 AM 3/21/98 EST, you wrote:
>.......................................................
>A brief animation showing Stenger's experiment is posted on my home page.
>Go to the Download the Book Icon to see it.
>
>Frank Z

Looks like an exploding wire experiment? Hard to tell from the
gif. All I can make out is something rather large being
vaporized :^) 'bout what one might expect from >100kamp
pulse. 

KPN



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 10:39:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03488;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000101bd54f7$359a4580$3b8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinzki pnl.gov>
Subject: Quasi-Neutron Production and Capture
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:28:06 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"kr-Ov1.0.Ks.wW05r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16828
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A collision between a low energy electron
and a proton with proper spin alignment
should produce a Virtual Photon resulting in
a Neutrino Pair (+*/-*) with a total rest mass-energy of 1.75 ev or less and
a radius:
R = kq*^2/Eo for each spin 1/2 unit.

Since most likely the  string circle
comprising the each neutrino (+* is the antineutrino and -* is its neutrino
charge
conjugate)are 90 degrees out of phase with
regular charge q,and 180 degrees out of phase with each other they will
behave as spin 1/2
neutral particles that can couple to regular
string particles ("quarks").

In forming the Quasi-Neutron [-(+*-*)+](net spin zero)about 1864 ev should
be released as EUV to soft x-ray heat.

When absorbed by a proton (rarely)they should form a deuteron and release a
neutrino (-*)
concurrently carrying off energy much greater
than their rest mass-energy.

When absorbed by a heavy nucleus they should form a neutron in the nucleus
concurrently
emitting a neutrino (-*) that can carry off
enormous amounts of (virtually undetectable)
energy. Possibly enough to make "radiationless"
capture of the Quasi-Neutron.

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 11:36:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA14657;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:34:07 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <498c8616.35141427 aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:25:25 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"embET3.0.va3.gO15r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16829
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,
The K arrived safely 10 minutes ago. Now stored in a locked steel cabinet
while I wait for the gas passer. Thank you Scott.
I pumped the system down last night, closed all the valves and 
it's still holding the same vacuum now 12 hours later. Perfect seals!  After
only one go over to correct some minor leaks.

One correction here, I thought I was using silver solder but after I posted
last night I went down to the bench and looked...50/50 tin lead. Bummer.
Thats the bad news but the good news is the system is gas tight.
I mounted all the vacuum plumbing on a piece of 1/2 thick particle board.
The plumbing is all 1/4 OD copper tubing. Found the perfect way to
secure the pipe to the board, nylon coaxial cable clips, Radio 
Shack Pn 278-1659.
Clips secured upside down so all the plumbing can be removed for
maintenance.
Back to doing the lawn.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 12:22:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23379;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35141E25.B93 skylink.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:08:05 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ampere Got ir Right
References: <3.0.5.32.19980321003739.008cfde0 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PElIt1.0.Bj5.W125r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16830
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> If the two charges are moving along at the same rate of speed then each
> sees the other as stationary....no B and no A....just E.

Right. And the same argument applies to the Lorentz force. Two charges
moving in parallel with the same velocity. From the reference frame of
the charges there is no Lorentz force, only an electric force. 

> This is always the case for a current flowing thru a wire.  If one of the
> moving electrons looks around, he sees the other moving electrons
> stationary w.r.t. himself.  He sees the atoms in the wire moving backwards
> past him...but they're neutral.

No right. The positive ions which the electron sees moving backwards, now
due to the relativistic change in the Lienard-Wiechart potential, have
a reduced E field in the longitudinal direction. The electric charges of
the moving electrons are no longer completely masked by the positive 
ions, and in the frame of the electrons there is a net electric force
in the longitudinal direction. In the frame of the observer this appears
as a magnetic force -- a longitudinal magnetic force. (See discussion,
Ampere Got it Right, Part 2).

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 14:15:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24153;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3514167C.3DED interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:35:24 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
References: <3.0.32.19980321113439.005cbaf8 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"o9Rlc1.0.Iv5.bd35r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16831
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 
(snip)

> Sounds like that old experiment done by the Navy. Some poor tech
> was fooling with the battery banks in a sub; he found that breaking
> a high current circuit would induce plasma balls; they were green
> as the contactors were copper. Likely these were actual particles
> of copper blown free of the contactor; but who knows? 

These old "submarine battery" stories were my first inspiration, Keith.
That's why I thought I might be able to do something with a "slooooow"
pulse from these electrolytics.  I think of them as a battery that
discharges quickly.

Frank Z's page (Hi, Frank! How you doing?) shows the rig with all 144
caps in parallel - Almost a 1 farad, 350 volt discharge across about
a 2" gap (triggered) with aluminum electrodes (2 inch dia., cone tips).
Frank Z. and I made a lot of flying-burning-blobs-of-aluminum.

True, 350 microseconds to peak current is a slow rise time, but many
natural strokes are rather slow (10 -> 30 microseconds to peak)
compared to the modern fast Z-pinch lab rigs.  The thing that a
natural lightning stroke has that a lab normally does not is "lots of
inductance".  Let's see, if I did this right, each meter of a 1 cm dia.
lightning stroke has about 0.9574 x 10^-6 henries of inductance.
So, the inductance of a 2 kilometer long stroke is about 1.9148 x 10^-3
henries of inductance.  So, if the peak current is 100 kamp (larger than
average but not too rare), the inductive energy stored in the stroke
is:
	energy = 1/2 L I^2 = .5 * (1.9148 x 10^-3)*(10^5)^2
			   = about 9.6 megajoules inductive (check?).
Now, what if, on occasion, Nature had a sneaky way of suddenly
interupting this current (some unusual sausage instability pinch kind
of thing) - or, perhaps some sort of "restricted arc" forced-pinch
thing when the stroke passes thru solids of various kinds.
Now, my pet BL theory, in spite of all the instabilities that get in
the way, is that if the stroke shut-down is fast enough, could we get
an electromagnetic collapse analogous to gravitational collapse.
As the plasma is squeezed out of the pinch neck, if the inductive
voltage is high enough, could pair formation occur to let the pinch
proceed down to some sort of quantum mechanical superconducting string
filiment that would have a decay time long enough to power a BL
plasma ball for several seconds?  Huh, could it?  
In other words, I'm more interested is possible switch-off mechanisms
for high-current strokes than in fast rise times.
There ya go - that's it.  That's my thing.

Frank Stenger - back to the Marinov motor caper.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 14:26:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA26340;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003501bd5515$ee527f20$3b8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Quasi-Neutrons and Solar Neutrinos
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:08:13 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZNYz1.0.IR6.6l35r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16832
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The general "consensus" on hydrogen-burning
on the Sun: 4 P ----> He4 + 2e+ + 2 (-*)  (neutrinos).

P + P ----> D + e+ + (-*) Should require
proton (or other) temperatures hot enough to
produce electron-positron pairs (1.02 Mev photons). 

The Quasi-Neutron path (similar to the PeP?):

P + e-  ----> Quasi-Neutron [-(+*-*)+] + 1.86 Kev.

Q-N + P: [-(+*-*)+] + [+-+] ---->

D (Deuterium) {+-+ -(+*)-++}  +  (-*)neutrino   

And: Q-N + He3 ----> He4 + (-*)

P + D ----> He3 + Gamma

D + D ----> He3 + n + 3.25 Mev

D + D ----> T + P + 4.0 Mev

D + T ----> He4 + n + 17.6 Mev

D + He3 ----> He4 + P + 18.3 Mev

Why the "Missing Neutrinos"?  

Regards,     Frederick 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 16:32:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17455;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004b01bd5527$11c12cc0$3b8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Quasi-Neutrons and Solar Neutrinos
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:10:56 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"dOpWu.0.eG4.qX55r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16835
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Probably missed the most important reaction:

Q-N + D ----> T

T (beta decay, 10 yrs) ----> He3 + e- + (-*)

Q-N + He3 ---->  He4 + (-*)

Then the easy ones:

D + T ----> He4 + n + 17.6  Mev

D + He3 ----> He4 + p + 18.3  Mev

Might explain the presence of T and He4 in the
"Cold Fusion" phenomena. Need Potassium for a "catalyst"?

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 16:33:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11689;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:28:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:28:38 -0800
Message-ID: <35145B3E.46FC interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:28:46 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ampere Got ir Right
References: <3.0.5.32.19980321003739.008cfde0 mail.eden.com> <35141E25.B93@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"D8Zlz1.0.Ts2.qi55r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16837
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> 
(snip)

> No right. The positive ions which the electron sees moving backwards, now
> due to the relativistic change in the Lienard-Wiechart potential, have
> a reduced E field in the longitudinal direction. The electric charges of
> the moving electrons are no longer completely masked by the positive
> ions, and in the frame of the electrons there is a net electric force
> in the longitudinal direction. In the frame of the observer this appears
> as a magnetic force -- a longitudinal magnetic force. (See discussion,
> Ampere Got it Right, Part 2).
> 
Hey, Robert, you have indeed put out some very helpful insights in your
posts lately.  I was wondering, however, about the magnitude of some of
the subject effects.  My old EM text says:
"For sufficiently small velocities we may safely assume that the E-field
of the moving charge does not differ appreciably from the field of a
charge at rest...."
Now isn't the factor (1 - v^2/c^2) the thing that quantifies
"sufficiently small velocities"?
My physics book has an example problem to show that at a current density
of 480 amp/cm^2 in a copper conductor requires an electron drift
velocity of 0.036 cm/sec.  Even at 1000 times that current density,
36 cm/sec is not really burning up the relativistic road, is it - at
least for currents in solid conductors?  Of course, there are a heck of
a lot of electrons involved in the movement.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 16:35:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11404;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:27:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:27:41 -0800
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:21:31 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
In-Reply-To: <35128A31.FFE055F5 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980321191924.5461A-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"GpyWX2.0.3o2.wh55r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16836
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	I guess I missed something....

	Is someone trying to build a specific shape with specific 
properties ie., in the magnetic and electric domains?

	Please let me in on the beginning, and I may be able to help.

				J


On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, John Steck wrote:

> Bo Atkinson wrote:
> 
> > But the URL you gave in an  earlier post did not
> > include electrical conductivity as a spec. Their powdered iron material
> > product  was bonded with polymer. This suggests poor electrical
> > conductivity. Fused metal 3D printing is my struggle, in obtaining, it
> > costs a lot  .
> 
> Typically the carrier is eliminated post sintering in an annealing oven.  Yes,
> this causes porosity, but can be addressed by infusing copper into the lattice,
> or electroplating a skin of nickel or chrome.  This process was developed to
> quickly create steel mold halves for injection molding.  Can't say I am
> suprised to hear dielectric values are not included in the material spec., not
> relevant to the target audience.
> 
> I am in the process getting more information on the process for our own
> purposes.  I can poke around for you if you want.  Do you have the geometry
> modeled?
> 
> -- 
> John E. Steck
> Prototype Tool Engineering
> Motorola CSS, Libertyville
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 16:45:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00767;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:41:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:41:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980321174129.008b9ad0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:41:29 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Ampere Got ir Right
In-Reply-To: <35141E25.B93 skylink.net>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980321003739.008cfde0 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"n2Qq12.0.nB.P055r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16834
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:08 PM 3/21/98 -0800, Robert Stirniman wrote:

>No right. The positive ions which the electron sees moving backwards...

Right, I realized my mistake about 1 hour after posting that.

>In the frame of the observer this appears
>as a magnetic force -- a longitudinal magnetic force. (See discussion,
>Ampere Got it Right, Part 2).

I need to think about this a while, Robert.

Thanks


Scott Little & Stephanie Eyres Little
1406 Old Wagon Road
Austin TX 78746
512-328-4071

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 16:46:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00700;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:41:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:41:05 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980321173333.008c1100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:33:33 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <4c41e2ac.35133fdf aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"QfSXN2.0.gA.F055r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16833
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:19 PM 3/20/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:

>and will test again tomorrow in between painting the family room that 
>we just had a tile floor installed. Laura is on my case to get busy.

...too bad our wives don't appreciate the fact that we're about to save the
human race....<g>

Scott Little & Stephanie Eyres Little
1406 Old Wagon Road
Austin TX 78746
512-328-4071

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 17:20:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24744;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19980322011127.20020.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [153.35.182.46]
From: "Chetter Hummin" <chetterhummin hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Nice Quote about Vacuum from Physics Today
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:11:26 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"zdWUv3.0.P26.AN65r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16838
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

There was a wise Zen master who told his students a story within a 
story:

	There was a school of fish down at the bottom of the ocean who were 
being taught by the SchoolMaster. The SchoolMaster said to them:

		"We are surrounded by something called The Water. The Water is what 
supports us, nourishes us, helps us breathe, live, and survive. It is 
all around us, yet unseen. We owe our existence to the water."

	The fish were then dismissed from class. After class, all of the fish 
in the school were talking about The Water. One of them suggests, "Hey! 
Let's go FIND The Water!" They all cheered and swam to the ends of the 
earth. However, one fish stayed, for he already found the water.

The Zen master then asked his students if they found the water...

----Original Message Follows----
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:42:51 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Nice Quote about Vacuum from Physics Today
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com

>>From Hal Puthoff
>
>January 1998 *Physics Today* has a nice quote on p. 13 by Frank Wilczek 
of the
>Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton concerning the vacuum:
>
>"In the modern theory of elementary particles, we learn that empty 
space - the
>vacuum - is in reality a richly structured, though highly symmetrical, 
medium.
>Dirac's sea was an early indication of this feature, which is deeply 
embedded
>in quantum field theory and the Standard Model.  Because the vacuum is 
a
>complicated material governed by locality and symmetry, one can learn 
how to
>analyze it by studying other such materials - that is, condensed 
matter. 

Yeah, and some day when we get our heads out of the sand and understand 
that
we are fish in an ocean, then we will expect that mass is not 
"equivalent",
but rather conserved.  And when we do that, we will know to seek out
phenomena where the earth is being gently distorted, periodically, by 
the
waves of mass being emitted by our very own sun.  And when we start
searching for these waves, we will learn why Venus' atmosphere sloshes
around the planet every four days, why the moon has the period it does, 
why
the earth's rotation varies from spring to fall due to the red then blue
shifting of that wave energy respectively, why plate tectonics are 
driven by
the solar rocking motion, why VBrand waves manifest, and on and on and 
on.  

And when we learn that that aether can condense, then we will understand 
the
true nature of particles, as solitons with a quantum vacuum state change 
at
the Planck scale about which the solitonic wave energy converges and 
reflects.

It is so easy that it would be better to teach the kids in grammar 
school,
because we old farts tend not to listen to new ideas when they rattle 
our
cages.  And we are so used to the idea of the empty vacuum, we are not 
able
to conceive of ourselves as fish.  Though that is what we are, fish in a
huge ocean we call empty space.

Ross Tessien





-----------------

Chetter Hummin
chetterhummin hotmail.com

"We are always making progress in the field of Psychohistory..."
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 17:22:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25086;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980321210034.005dfb00 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 21:00:38 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"4pskQ.0.t76.SP65r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16839
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi:

Oh, so the discharge is in free air; a triggered spark gap
sort of an arrangement. You know, if the aim was to break
a current I'm surprised you didn't try aluminum wire as
a fuse. Careful choice of diameter and length should cause
a break at some particular point in the discharge. My own ideas
about ball lightning are far more primitive. Imagine a pair
of wire hoops enclosing a soap bubble. Pull the hoops apart
and the spherical bubble will form a cylinder. Continue pulling;
a point of instability is reached where the cylinder breaks
into two small bubbles. Sometimes, when this happens, a tiny
bubble will spit out during the break. Perhaps this simple
model can lead to an understanding of the phenomena?
Clearly one can see the connection to a plasma...

Having alot of inductance in the circuit means that any
break will tend to "heal" due to the rapid voltage rise
regenerating the arc. Low impedence devices are (relatively)
easier to open. 

As the phenomena of ball lightning is so rare,
it is likely that one might not want to try to emulate
natural lightning. 

The basic circuit used by Shoulders was a very fast risetime
pulse shot at an asymetric spark gap; breakdown would on
occasion produce a charge cluster rather than an arc. Key
elements were low impedence, and fast risetime. You've got
me thinking now about scaling such a circuit up...
 
At issue is how to determine when the real mccoy is made,
flying-burn-blobs-o-electrode are just sooo much more
likely, yes? I guess persistance is one marker.


At 02:35 PM 3/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>These old "submarine battery" stories were my first inspiration, Keith.
>That's why I thought I might be able to do something with a "slooooow"
>pulse from these electrolytics.  I think of them as a battery that
>discharges quickly.
>
>Frank Z's page (Hi, Frank! How you doing?) shows the rig with all 144
>caps in parallel - Almost a 1 farad, 350 volt discharge across about
>a 2" gap (triggered) with aluminum electrodes (2 inch dia., cone tips).
>Frank Z. and I made a lot of flying-burning-blobs-of-aluminum.
>
>True, 350 microseconds to peak current is a slow rise time, but many
>natural strokes are rather slow (10 -> 30 microseconds to peak)
>compared to the modern fast Z-pinch lab rigs.  The thing that a
>natural lightning stroke has that a lab normally does not is "lots of
>inductance".  Let's see, if I did this right, each meter of a 1 cm dia.
>lightning stroke has about 0.9574 x 10^-6 henries of inductance.
>So, the inductance of a 2 kilometer long stroke is about 1.9148 x 10^-3
>henries of inductance.  So, if the peak current is 100 kamp (larger than
>average but not too rare), the inductive energy stored in the stroke
>is:
>	energy = 1/2 L I^2 = .5 * (1.9148 x 10^-3)*(10^5)^2
>			   = about 9.6 megajoules inductive (check?).
>Now, what if, on occasion, Nature had a sneaky way of suddenly
>interupting this current (some unusual sausage instability pinch kind
>of thing) - or, perhaps some sort of "restricted arc" forced-pinch
>thing when the stroke passes thru solids of various kinds.
>Now, my pet BL theory, in spite of all the instabilities that get in
>the way, is that if the stroke shut-down is fast enough, could we get
>an electromagnetic collapse analogous to gravitational collapse.
>As the plasma is squeezed out of the pinch neck, if the inductive
>voltage is high enough, could pair formation occur to let the pinch
>proceed down to some sort of quantum mechanical superconducting string
>filiment that would have a decay time long enough to power a BL
>plasma ball for several seconds?  Huh, could it?  
>In other words, I'm more interested is possible switch-off mechanisms
>for high-current strokes than in fast rise times.
>There ya go - that's it.  That's my thing.
>
>Frank Stenger - back to the Marinov motor caper.
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 17:55:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA31930;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:51:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:51:20 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b139dd2699ab [12.64.35.167]>
In-Reply-To: <3513DE30.2235 interlaced.net>
References: <v01530502b1396f0e76fc [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:49:48 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Mfg. giant electrons for long. force tests?
Resent-Message-ID: <"dSAgU3.0.po7.Mw65r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16840
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was trying to think up experiments to try to trap out this alleged
longitudinal force last night, and started thinking of using electrets
around magnetic fields. I concluded that having some highly charged plastic
spheres serving as models of charged particles might at least be fun, if
not instructive. I think Horace's electronic SMOT got me going there.

Anyone have any ideas on this?

What I was wondering is if there's a way get one polarity evenly over the
whole outside surface. Perhaps it's as simple as an HV positive charge
applied to the outer surface of a conductive spherical shell mold as the
plastic cures inside, but I'm not sure. Would a thin nonconductive mold
just sitting on top of a Van de Graaff be good enough? I would think that
would give the electret too much directional polarity.

Besides just simulating charge using the distribution many charges evenly
over the surface (it's mostly just dipole orientation anyway), I also want
to strip out as much of the opposing charge as I can from the bulk of the
material.   Since the material itself must be a good insulator, this might
involve flowing a thin film of the liquid plastic over a charged plate to
bulk-charge the material before casting. This probably woldn't make enough
force in the fluid to overcome its own surface tension, so self-repulsion
of the stream into the mold might not be a problem. If it was I could
centrifuge it into the mold.

As for finished appearance, I know a plastic electron should be translucent
and have a black "e-" in the center.<g> But what color should it be? I've
always visualized electrons in a sort of amber yellow, as this is the color
that plastics turn when UV or something has stripped something off the
molecule and a spare electron is showing. Of course I know real individual
electrons are below having color, but that's what happens anyway.

What color do you visualize electrons as being?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 19:42:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05352;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:35:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:35:31 -0800
Message-ID: <3514870F.3118 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 22:35:43 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
References: <3.0.32.19980321210034.005dfb00 cnct.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"m4DwK3.0.YJ1.1S85r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16841
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Keith Nagel wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Oh, so the discharge is in free air; a triggered spark gap
> sort of an arrangement. You know, if the aim was to break
> a current I'm surprised you didn't try aluminum wire as
> a fuse. Careful choice of diameter and length should cause
> a break at some particular point in the discharge.

Actually, Keith, the present rig is exactly as you mention.  I use(d)
a copper fuse link made from a #4 solid copper wire.  I neck the center
(fuses are about 2 - 3 inches total length) to a smooth 3 mm dia neck
which I calculated should blow at about 200 kamps.  It blows OK but
does not interrupt the current if open in the air - I suppose from a
plasma short across the fuse as the copper vaporizes.  For my next shot
I want to place a fiberglass baffle around the fuse neck, rather thin
to hopefully let the explosion vent on both sides of the baffle.
I'm wondering if I can force the inductive surge to cause a pinch
collapse thru the baffle hole.  In my simulated lightning bolt, I only
have about 6 kilojoules inductive at 200 kamp - I've read (Uman) that
typical BL seems to glow about 40 watts worth, last, say, 2 seconds.
So, maybe it takes 100 or 200 joules to form such wimpy BL.  So, I'd
only need a 3 or 4 percent efficient process to form BL from 6 kJ.
(Dream on, Stenger! :-))

 My own ideas
> about ball lightning are far more primitive. Imagine a pair
> of wire hoops enclosing a soap bubble. Pull the hoops apart
> and the spherical bubble will form a cylinder. Continue pulling;
> a point of instability is reached where the cylinder breaks
> into two small bubbles. Sometimes, when this happens, a tiny
> bubble will spit out during the break. Perhaps this simple
> model can lead to an understanding of the phenomena?
> Clearly one can see the connection to a plasma...
> 
> Having alot of inductance in the circuit means that any
> break will tend to "heal" due to the rapid voltage rise
> regenerating the arc. 

Yes! Now, what if we force this regeneration thru a small constriction -
can we force a pinch thru the orifice? - if the pinch squeezes out the
carriers in the orifice, can the inductive voltage get high enough to
cause pair formation to sustain the current (sort of an immovable
resistance meeting an irresistible voltage :-)) and could this
pair-plasma form a new, transient form of quantum stuff?????

You see, what fascinates me is that we can never hope to fabricate a
gravitational collapse in a building, but the electromagnetic force
is ~ 10^39 times as strong as gravity.  To get electromagnetic
collapse in an electric current we need:
	1. As high a current as we can get.
	2. This high current flowing in as small a diameter as we can
	   manage.
What are the limits of these two things - I don't know but I wish I had
a facility and unlimited funds to find out!

Think about it - if we have enough voltage difference to work with,
(big currents in big inductances?) we can disrupt space itself to
build pairs to carry the current (1.02 megavolts per mean-free-path
of the initial charge carriers?)
Once we get rid of the problem of normal matter to carry the current
and move into the realm of generated-pair carriers, what is the limit
of current density (thus, EM energy density)??
I need to stop this line of thought - the froth is dripping on my
keyboard.

Low impedence devices are (relatively)
> easier to open.
> 
> As the phenomena of ball lightning is so rare,
> it is likely that one might not want to try to emulate
> natural lightning.

Good point, but nature does do it some times, and she has a very
low-tech lab facility.
> 
> The basic circuit used by Shoulders was a very fast risetime
> pulse shot at an asymetric spark gap; breakdown would on
> occasion produce a charge cluster rather than an arc. Key
> elements were low impedence, and fast risetime. You've got
> me thinking now about scaling such a circuit up...
> 
> At issue is how to determine when the real mccoy is made,

I figure when it blows a hole in my garage wall and bounces across the
road - I'm in!

> flying-burn-blobs-o-electrode are just sooo much more
> likely, yes? 

Yes, indeed, Keith - but please note that I didn't claim they were BL
either!  :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 21 20:08:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14519;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:00:16 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: High Weirdness from Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 04:58:12 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <351696e1.9624534 mail.eisa.net.au>
References: <3.0.32.19980317234934.005bcde8 cnct.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980317234934.005bcde8 cnct.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: <"5OX8D1.0.iY3.Dp85r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16842
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:49:37 -0500, Keith Nagel wrote:
[snip]
>Errr, you did look at the pictures, yes? If you have an

Well, no actually I hadn't. But now I have, and I get the impression
that what we are really looking at is various stages of construction,
though the whole could be much better presented on a web page with
appropriate surrounding text. It also seems to have mixed in various
demonstrations of principle.

>understanding of what some of these circuits are, please
>comment. I am frankly at a loss here. Consider, for example,
>daniel20.jpg. There's not much to analyze here. A simple
>DC circuit, cut in half. Kind of like that old trick of
>sawing the woman in half. What's going on there, eh?

Good question. The little fan motor and light appear to be getting
power from the batteries. The wires attached to the motor have little
coils on the end, and the battery appears to be connected to a couple
of large radiating coils (the black things). I'm not sure what the
active component is on the battery side that creates the oscillation
though. A rectifier diode is all one would need on the receiving end.

I had a look at the site itself. Bruce Perreault mentions both
radiolysis and use of a 6000 Hz electrical system. The efficacy of
this latter frequency at transmitting power is likely the topic of
daniel20.jpg.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa eisa.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
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 Mar 21 21:27:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA24386;
	Sat, 21 Mar 1998 21:22:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 21:22:28 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980322010819.005e58e8 cnct.com>
X-Sender: knagel cnct.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:08:23 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Keith Nagel <knagel cnct.com>
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-52tA.0.xy5.J0A5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16843
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:35 PM 3/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually, Keith, the present rig is exactly as you mention.  I use(d)
>a copper fuse link made from a #4 solid copper wire.  I neck the center
>(fuses are about 2 - 3 inches total length) to a smooth 3 mm dia neck
>which I calculated should blow at about 200 kamps.  It blows OK but
>does not interrupt the current if open in the air - I suppose from a
>plasma short across the fuse as the copper vaporizes.  For my next shot
>I want to place a fiberglass baffle around the fuse neck, rather thin
>to hopefully let the explosion vent on both sides of the baffle.
>I'm wondering if I can force the inductive surge to cause a pinch
>collapse thru the baffle hole.  In my simulated lightning bolt, I only
>have about 6 kilojoules inductive at 200 kamp - I've read (Uman) that
>typical BL seems to glow about 40 watts worth, last, say, 2 seconds.
>So, maybe it takes 100 or 200 joules to form such wimpy BL.  So, I'd
>only need a 3 or 4 percent efficient process to form BL from 6 kJ.
>(Dream on, Stenger! :-))

I like the baffle idea; I'd be more inclined to design a
shell or "lens" to focus the shock wave resulting from the exploding
wire to chop the plasma at two points. Boy; I could just go
on and on about this... I feel the control of the acoustic
shock wave is key to making the BL. This would be more
like bead lightning than ball. Ball would suggest another
form of shock entirely...

Lets talk for a few seconds about exploding wire in general.
Have you looked at the actual current flowing in the wire?
You will see an initial current rise, followed by a dip
as the wire vaporizes and impedence increases. Then the
arc will strike, allowing current to peak out. I have
seen the same phenomena in water arc; an initial electrochemical
conduction of (relatively) high impedence followed by
the striking of the arc and a massive current surge.
>From papers I have read aluminum has the shortest time
between initial pulse and final arc current; silver
the largest. I believe this roughly tracks conductivity.
Same with the water arc, there it was easy to change
the conductivity by adding a salt. Anyway, you end up
with an ionized metal arc... Sometimes an unstable
regime would occur, where the current would surge and
then drop in a sort of a periodic manner. This was
rare and not easily reproducible.

>Yes! Now, what if we force this regeneration thru a small constriction -
>can we force a pinch thru the orifice? - if the pinch squeezes out the
>carriers in the orifice, can the inductive voltage get high enough to
>cause pair formation to sustain the current (sort of an immovable
>resistance meeting an irresistible voltage :-)) and could this
>pair-plasma form a new, transient form of quantum stuff?????

Pair formation? Please elaborate on this, I'm not following you.

>
>You see, what fascinates me is that we can never hope to fabricate a
>gravitational collapse in a building, but the electromagnetic force
>is ~ 10^39 times as strong as gravity.  To get electromagnetic
>collapse in an electric current we need:
>	1. As high a current as we can get.
>	2. This high current flowing in as small a diameter as we can
>	   manage.
>What are the limits of these two things - I don't know but I wish I had
>a facility and unlimited funds to find out!

Calling Robert Eachus, come in Robert! (bzzz...crackle...bzzz)
How about some more on that pinch topic you started with
Vince Cockeram?

>
>Think about it - if we have enough voltage difference to work with,
>(big currents in big inductances?) we can disrupt space itself to
>build pairs to carry the current (1.02 megavolts per mean-free-path
>of the initial charge carriers?)
>Once we get rid of the problem of normal matter to carry the current
>and move into the realm of generated-pair carriers, what is the limit
>of current density (thus, EM energy density)??
>I need to stop this line of thought - the froth is dripping on my
>keyboard.
>
>Frank Stenger

Geez Frank, breaking down the vacuum itself? That would take
one hell of a lot of energy. I seem to remember reading stuff
in the nuclear physics literature about this sort of thing.
The breakover regime from the solid conductor to the plasma
is easy, the next one is quite a leap, yes? 

KPN

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 01:09:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA17609;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:04:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:04:36 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b13a85ee7be0 [199.237.131.221]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 00:10:39 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, but simpler?
Resent-Message-ID: <"L608G3.0.-I4.YGD5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16844
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In the spirit of analysis requested by Frank and Scott, here is an intial
attempt to make some simplified analytical sense of what Marinov was
saying. Corrections appreciated!

It seems desirable to find the longitudinal component directly from the
Marinov formula:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

or more simply:

   Fm = k {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}         (2)

Here Fm, V, V' and R are all vectors. Since I find it difficult to
visualize the above, converting everything into the longitudinal components
also has the advantage to me of eliminating the vectors.  The original text
by Marinov, defining the above equation, is included at the end of this
post for the sake of clarity.

In the above equation * means dot product, an operation on two vectors.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid the use of greek letters for
angles, let us denote the cosine of the angle between two vectors V and V'
as cos(V,V'). If we denote the length of a vector V by |V|, then we have
the definition of the dot product being given by:

   V*V' = |V| |V'| cos(V,V')           (3)

Applying (3) to (2) we have:

   Fm = k { [ |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) ] V
          + [ |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  ] V'
          -2[ |V|  |V'| cos(V,V') ] R }         (4)

Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is V.  The magnitude of
the component of V' in the direction of V is cos(V,V') |V'|.  Similarly the
magnitude of the component of R in the direction of V is cos(V,R) |R|.
Substituting into (4) to get the component of each term in the V direction,
i.e. the longitudinal direction, we then get an equation for the scalar
longitudinal force component Fl:

   Fl = k |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) |V|
        + |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  cos(V,V') |V'|
        -2|V|  |V'| cos(V,V') cos(V,R)  |R|        (5)


   Fl = k |V| |V'| |R| {cos(V',R) + cos(V,R) cos(V,V')
                                 -2 cos(V,V') cos(V,R) }    (6)

Noting that |R| = r, simplifying (6) we have:

   Fl = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2) |V| |V'| {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}   (7)

It is now clear that the key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal force
lies in the understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at distance r we have:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Note that -1 < h < 1.

Equation 9 may be useful for a finite element analysis, and converts
readily into a form for current segment analysis.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     MARINOV:ANNUS HORRIBILIS

The following is an excerpt from an ad by Marinov of the same title as
above.  Bold letters (vectors) are changed here to capitals. The partial
derivitive symbol is denoted here as  . Note however that the letter
capital S below is a scalar. Pi = 3.14159... and u0 is "mu sub zero."
There are some references here to photos which are not legible to me.


Marinov writes: "The Lorentz equation is wrong.  If there are two electric
charges q, q' moving with velocities V, V' and the vector-distance from q'
to q is R, according to the Lorentz equation the force with which q'V' acts
on qV is given by the following Grassman formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}        (1)

Numerous experiments done by other authors (Hering's experiments are from
the beginning of the century!) and by me showed that the force acting on qV
can not only be transverse to its velocity, as required by (1), but also
longitudinal.  Any rational man when seeing at least one falsifying
experiment rejects the respective formula (Popper), however for thousands
and thousands of Betonkoepfe even hundred experiments were not enough.  In
the photograph there is one such falsifying experiment which (as well as
the other) can be carried out by children: A cylindrical magnet is cut
along one of its axial planes and the one half is turned up-down (the
magnetic forces themselves do the rotation).  Around this magnet, there is
a trough filled with mercury in which the copper ring which can be seen at
right swims (the children take the salt solution and suspend the ring on
threads).  After sending current of some tens of amperes from the battery
at left, which is regulated by the rheostat, the ring begins to rotate.
That's all!"

"The Lorentz-Marinov equation is the right one.  As according to (1) Fg' is
not equal and oppositely directed to Fg, I obtained Marinov formula by the
most simple and natural symmetrization of (1) (take into account that R =
-R')

   Fm = (Fg - Fg')/2 = (U0 q q'){V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}     (2)

Proceeding from (2) and assuming phi <> 0,  A/@t <> 0, I obtained the most
simple calculations that the force with which an electric system acts on a
test charge q moving with velocity V is

   F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)

where phi, A are the electric and magnetic potentials generated by the
system at the point of the charge's location, Bior = rotA is the Lorentz
magnetic intensity, Swhit = -divA/2 is the Whittaker magnetic intensity and


   Bmar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V x V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]   (4)

   Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

are the Marinov vector and scalar magnetic intensities.  B = Bior + Bmar is
called the vector magnetic intensity and S = Swit + Smar is called the
scalar magnetic intensity, (3) is called the Lorentz-Marinov equation.  If
neglecting the last term and under B we understand Bior, we obtain the
Lorentz equation which I call the Lorentz-Grassman equation.  That's the
whole theory!"

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 02:54:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA14933;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 02:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 02:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000e01bd551d$b2664020$42efd4cf natvita.ihug.co.nz>
From: "natvita" <robert natvita.co.nz>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: HEF and things
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:04:24 +1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"HYXtY3.0.Ef3.nrE5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16845
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Is much changing in the science of physics?
Did Einstein, Bohm, Gabor, Pribram, Bell, Bohr, Sheldrake,
Watson, Sarfatti, Briggs, Wilber, Peat, Prigogine, Stengers,
Rothenberg, Loye, Capra, Engler, Eccles, Acterberg miss the
point?
If we learn to concentrate to study HEF, we might get closer
to knowing consciousness. Is that of value to this group?
Why the silence as turf is dug afresh?
regards
Robert Beasley

Kirlionics March 1998.. Visit the First New Zealand workshop
of the human atmosphere and approaches to Applied
Bioelectrography. See your own and get with it man.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 06:35:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09149;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351513C7.283 earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 07:36:07 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
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: HEF and things
References: <000e01bd551d$b2664020$42efd4cf natvita.ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7phbH3.0.rE2.A5I5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16846
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

March 22, 1998

Hello Robert Beasley,  What is HEF?  You've mentioned many names I
respect, like Sheldrake and Bohm.  Our own Hal Puthoff, puthoff aol.com,
is famous for helping to invent and practice remote viewing after 1972
at Stanford Research Institute.  Can you send us some information, and
interesting web sites?

As one,  Rich Murray
Room For All
1943  Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 07:53:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22454;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 07:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 07:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3515316A.FCD skylink.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 07:42:34 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ampere Got ir Right
References: <3.0.5.32.19980321003739.008cfde0 mail.eden.com> <35141E25.B93@skylink.net> <35145B3E.46FC@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"CLFp82.0.mU5.ODJ5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16847
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:

> Now isn't the factor (1 - v^2/c^2) the thing that quantifies
> "sufficiently small velocities"?
> My physics book has an example problem to show that at a current density
> of 480 amp/cm^2 in a copper conductor requires an electron drift
> velocity of 0.036 cm/sec.  Even at 1000 times that current density,
> 36 cm/sec is not really burning up the relativistic road, is it - at
> least for currents in solid conductors?  Of course, there are a heck of
> a lot of electrons involved in the movement.

Yes indeed Frank. Which is why the magnetic force is so much smaller 
(relative 1/c) compared with the electric force. If electrical conductors 
were not electrostaticaly neutral, Ampere and others would never have 
seen any kind of magnetic force, nor would we. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 08:00:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA23201;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 07:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 07:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b13ae36e813f [199.237.131.221]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:58:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, but simpler?
Resent-Message-ID: <"8lbbn2.0.Pg5.8HJ5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16848
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Earlier I wrote:

"Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is V.  The magnitude of
the component of V' in the direction of V is cos(V,V') |V'|.  Similarly the
magnitude of the component of R in the direction of V is cos(V,R) |R|.
Substituting into (4) to get the component of each term in the V direction,
i.e. the longitudinal direction, we then get an equation for the scalar
longitudinal force component Fl:

   Fl = k |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) |V|
        + |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  cos(V,V') |V'|
        -2|V|  |V'| cos(V,V') cos(V,R)  |R|        (5)"


Above, the statement "Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is
V." should have read : "Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction
is |V|."

The correct substitution was made in (5) though, so this is simply a one
line typo.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 08:24:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28406;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3515381A.F6F skylink.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:11:06 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: HEF and things
References: <000e01bd551d$b2664020$42efd4cf natvita.ihug.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Vplk1.0.mx6.LfJ5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16849
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

natvita (Robert Beastley) wrote:
> Did Einstein, Bohm, Gabor, Pribram, Bell, Bohr, Sheldrake,
> Watson, Sarfatti, Briggs, Wilber, Peat, Prigogine, Stengers,
> Rothenberg, Loye, Capra, Engler, Eccles, Acterberg miss the
> point?

Maybe yes in some way they did miss the point. As I observe,  
it seems that some fundamental results of the thinking of Ampere, 
Guass, Weber, and others, has been dismissed from the base of 
human knowledge.  

Why? God knows. Perhaps due to over simplistic thinking and the 
human condition. We wish to understand only we are prepared to
understand. Perhaps, the knowledge was dismissed due to some 
unfathomable fashion of universal guidance. Given the nature of
the human being, one might ask: What knowledge do we have a 
species need to know, and when are we prepared to to know it? 
And what guding hand decides what knowledge we should have, and 
when we should have it? 

> If we learn to concentrate to study HEF, we might get closer
> to knowing consciousness. 

> Why the silence as turf is dug afresh?

Mainly natural stubborn ignorance, human arrogance, and in
general, a lazy desire to be told what to believe. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 09:17:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10570;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530503b13aefcc691b [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:15:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, but weird?
Resent-Message-ID: <"ehRJK.0.2b2.cPK5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16850
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Earlier I wrote:

"It is now clear that the key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal force
lies in the understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at distance r we have:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Note that -1 < h < 1."

If I have bungled the derivation of the above longitudinal component force
Fl, help would be appreciated!  The above formula seems to indicate that
Marinov's longitudinal force appears to be derived almost purely from the
electrostatic attraction of the two charges!


If we recall that:

   u0 e0 = 1/c^2                 (10)

we have:

   U0 = 1/(c^2 e0)               (11)

Substituting (11) into (9):

   Fl = v v' (h 1/(c^2 e0) q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Recalling that the force between two charges is:

   Fe = (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)                 (10)

We can rearrange (9) to show the longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (11)

   Fl = (v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (12)


Now the units of Fe clearly represents a force (the electrostatic force),
so the term (v v' h/2 c^2) should be dimensionless, which it clearly is.

This is a really bizarre notion of reality.

Did I make a mistake?


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 09:25:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11905;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:21:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bgRXA.0.tv2.PVK5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16851
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Earlier I wrote:

"It is now clear that the key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal force
lies in the understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at distance r we have:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Note that -1 < h < 1."

If I have bungled the derivation of the above longitudinal component force
Fl, help would be appreciated!  The above formula seems to indicate that
Marinov's longitudinal force appears to be derived almost purely from the
electrostatic attraction of the two charges!


If we recall that:

   u0 e0 = 1/c^2                 (10)

we have:

   U0 = 1/(c^2 e0)               (11)

Substituting (11) into (9):

   Fl = v v' (h 1/(c^2 e0) q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Recalling that the force between two charges is:

   Fe = (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)                 (10)

We can rearrange (9) to show the longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (11)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (12)


Now the units of Fe clearly represents a force (the electrostatic force),
so the term (v v' h/2 c^2) should be dimensionless, which it clearly is.

This is a really bizarre notion of reality.

Did I make a mistake?


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 10:41:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29222;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 10:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 10:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530505b13afd5e9951 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:28:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, limits on Fl from permanent magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"K1_Yk1.0.U87.XfL5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16852
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given the directional scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

and the longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (11)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (12)


and knowing, -1<h<1, we can see that increasing v is beneficial, but has a
limit at c, so the majority of the limitation on Fl is the ratio v'/2c.
This sets an upper limit on the size of the longitudinal force at v'/2c Fe,
which means the primary limit to the force magnitude from a permanent
magnet is determined by the speed of the permanent magnet's orbital
electrons v'.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 13:44:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09907;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b13b328adf78 [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:35:45 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: LF erector set
Resent-Message-ID: <"2WS_91.0.TQ2.GHO5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16854
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

If Marinov's equation is correct:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

and my derivation of that:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)         (9)

is correct, then one consequence is that what happens in wires is of almost
no consequence to a near light speed longitudinal force accelerator.  For
this reason, it should be possible build and test the LF prinicple derived
here using segments contstructed from evacuated tubes.  Such accelerator
tube segments could be hooked up in parallel or in series, as it does not
matter what happens in the adjoining circuitry, except for the beam guiding
influence of the magnetic fields. The segments can be assembled in any
geometry of utility.  It is possible to make a kind of LF accelerator
erector set from evacuated glass tube diodes.  At last Ampere's isolated
current segment can have a reality of a kind, at least in regards to energy
conservation, or non-conservation.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 13:45:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09896;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b13b34cb66de [199.237.131.224]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:37:26 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: test - vortex down?
Resent-Message-ID: <"SJRmW.0.LQ2.FHO5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16853
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortex seems to be down.  My stuff isn't coming back, nor is anyone else's
arriving.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 13:46:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10374;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13b0d502c42 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:59:39 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, ideal accelerator and BL
Resent-Message-ID: <"St1g52.0.vX2.8KO5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16855
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given the directional scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

and the longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (11)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (12)


and knowing, -1<h<1, we can see that increasing v is beneficial, but has a
limit at c, so the majority of the limitation on Fl is the ratio v'/2c.
This sets an upper limit on the size of the longitudinal force at v'/2c Fe,
which means the primary limit to the force magnitude from a permanent
magnet is determined by the speed of the permanent magnet's orbital
electrons v'.

The highest COP implementation then is a longituinal force accelerator
using magnetic "coils" made from coiled long mean free path discharge
tubes.  Since the path of the accelerated particles would be naturally
spiraled, the accelerator portion of the device might be made in a coil as
well, and the geometry of this coil such that the electrons in the field
driver coils are accelerated by the accelerator coil electronsl.

An implication of the above is that there may be a self-sustaining or self
enhancing discharge geometry, i.e. ball lightning.


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 15:39:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01905;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:35:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:35:14 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980322132352.00771998 agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 14:33:51 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Questions:  Spinductor .... chiral-vortex ?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"_M74W.0.eT.j0Q5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16856
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:21 PM 3/21/98 -0500, John Schnurer wrote:
>
>
>	Dear Vo.,
>
>	I guess I missed something....
>
>	Is someone trying to build a specific shape with specific 
>properties ie., in the magnetic and electric domains?
>
>	Please let me in on the beginning, and I may be able to help.
>
>				J

Dear Vo,

No clear beginning here. Just a good time to get in on the  3d printing of
the obviously potent geometry of a chiral vortex.  One inductor winding
swirls a magnetic field in opposite directions.  Reversely swirling fields
are focused at opposite poles suggesting a unique sort of chiralarity.
'Seems to me the conductor path is electrically shorter per magnetic flux
which could suggest higher Q, as a minimum incentive. (But i'm thinking the
vastness of technology has a momentary blind spot, a null point in techy
thinking: i think we need to focus on isotropic effects, in addition to the
confines of linear and laminar manufacture).

Bo    >~~~~~

Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 16:06:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09603;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 16:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 16:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351562EA.7951 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 14:13:46 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ziJ8C1.0.zL2.qQQ5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16857
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(many snips which I don't have time yet to study!)

> Marinov's longitudinal force appears to be derived almost purely from the
> electrostatic attraction of the two charges!
> 

> This is a really bizarre notion of reality.
> 

Damn it, Horace, quit thinking so fast!!  I'm deep in the middle of my
Marinov motor construction and I don't need you to screw up the theory
even before I finish the motor! :-)

I have completed the rotor cup with copper ring on the rim.
As I mentioned, the ring is 1/2 inch wide and about 1.2 mm thick (about
7.9 cm OD).  I plan to make the brushes so they can contact either the
outside ring surface or the inside surface - or one outside and one
inside - or both on the exposed edge of the ring.

Any words of wisdom on the magnets I should use would be welcome!
I'll just start with the 8 Radio Shack magnets I have, but I'll be
happy to stack them as per the best advice I get from "experts".
To review, the RS rectangular ceramics are 4.8 cm long, 2.2 cm wide,
and 0.9 cm thick - magnitized with the big surfaces N and S.

Hey, waste some time and make me an ascii sketch of how you-all think
I should stack 8 (or less) of these magnets AND orient them inside of
the 3" ring AND what the best brush location would be ( I hope to make
the burshes very movable.)
If these magnets cause no motion, I'll just have to get some more.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 18:10:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA10813;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:04:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:04:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:05:12 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
In-Reply-To: <351562EA.7951 interlaced.net>
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"bNTLi1.0.oe2.4DS5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16858
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:13 PM 3/22/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Hey, waste some time and make me an ascii sketch....

Frank, I made you a scale dwg.  It's at:

http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif


Scott Little & Stephanie Eyres Little
1406 Old Wagon Road
Austin TX 78746
512-328-4071

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 19:41:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA07821;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3515D779.5379 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:31:05 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]> <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VbXqQ.0.4w1.jWT5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16859
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 

> Frank, I made you a scale dwg.  It's at:
> 
> http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
> 

WOW!  Scott, your physical comelyness is exceeded only by your great
intelligence and world-renowned wit!

The 1/4 inch thick steel caps is new information to me - thanks.
BTW, do you have a feel for the symmetry of the fringe-field in the
plane of your sketch?  I'm beginning to worry about fringe-field
components that might pass thru the large surfaces of the copper ring.
If there were any such components, due to theoretical field shape or
just due to poor uniformity of my components or their placement, any
AXIAL current components in the rings could give a Lorentz force so
directed as to rotate the ring.  Such currents might exist if my
brush contact were concentrated at a POINT or small region much less
than a full ring wide.  Then, as the current diverged from this small
area to flow around the ring, the divergenge region would contain some
axial (parallel to the ring axis of rotation) current components.
These components crossed with any flux normal to the ring surface
would give a rotate-the-ring Lorentz force.  Does this make sense?
If there is no net flux passing thru the large ring surfaces, then this
would not happen.  I guess the extreme case would be to make brush
contact at the exposed edge of the ring.
It would be really nice to have a QuickField plot of the flux in the
lower view of your sketch - where is Greg when you need him?  :-)
In fact, where is Greg at all??  
Now that I notice, you have a gap between the stacks of magnets - is
this just to "square off" the stacks in your top view? - looks like a
good idea.

Hey, other Vortexers, if you have any input stirred up by Scott's
beautiful sketch, please post to Vortex and I will read!
Of special interest would be insights into the fringe-flux shape in
Scott's lower view.

Thanks again, Scott.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 19:42:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02612;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:37:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:37:22 -0800
From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Message-ID: <74de4fbb.3515d8bf aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:36:29 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Fwd: Cold Fusion
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="part0_890624189_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Resent-Message-ID: <"EUydp1.0.Ee.jZT5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16860
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.

--part0_890624189_boundary
Content-ID: <0_890624189 inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


--part0_890624189_boundary
Content-ID: <0_890624189 inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

From: Katiekuby <Katiekuby aol.com>
Return-path: <Katiekuby aol.com>
To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:18:40 EST
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi, I am not doing this but I am writing a paper on cold fusion and I honestly
have no idea where to start, anything that you could possibly tell me would be
greatly appreciated!

thanks-
KatieKuby aol.com 

--part0_890624189_boundary--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 20:58:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17092;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:44:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:44:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:39:57 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
In-Reply-To: <3515D779.5379 interlaced.net>
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"tZtEx3.0.vA4.tYU5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16861
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:31 PM 3/22/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>The 1/4 inch thick steel caps is new information to me - thanks.
>BTW, do you have a feel for the symmetry of the fringe-field in the
>plane of your sketch?  I'm beginning to worry about fringe-field
>components that might pass thru the large surfaces of the copper ring.

Frank, I added some flux lines to a copy of my drawing:

http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif

Since the magnets comprise the vertical stacks, some flux will leak out of
one end and will loop back around to the other end.  Thus the flux thru yr
Cu ring will be nominally vertical (axial) and will be pointed in the
opposite direction of the flux in the magnet stack.  If the "radial
current" explanation is operative in yr motor, the ring will turn CW (when
view from above).  Jeff K's tests with the thin rotors SEEM to discount the
radial current hypothesis but I still think it could be significant even
with thin rings.

In other words, if you orient everything like I've drawn it, I predict the
ring will turn CW when viewed from above.

Have fun with it.


Scott Little & Stephanie Eyres Little
1406 Old Wagon Road
Austin TX 78746
512-328-4071

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 20:59:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18510;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:55:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:55:04 -0800
Message-ID: <003801bd5618$86e377a0$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:59:57 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"eWt0x3.0.-W4.ciU5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16862
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott,

You are becoming quite the computer artist!  If you never find excess heat,
you are receiving OJT for a new career.

Joe Champion

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 21:16:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA21237;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:11:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:11:29 -0800
Message-ID: <3515EF11.722C interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:11:45 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
	 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"K24wO.0.lB5._xU5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16863
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
(snips)

> Frank, I added some flux lines to a copy of my drawing:
> 
> http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif
>
 
Thanks again, Scott!  Nice drawing.

> In other words, if you orient everything like I've drawn it, I predict the
> ring will turn CW when viewed from above.
> 
Roger on the CW - I'm going to try to set up the brushes so they can
brush on inner or outer surface - maybe this will shed some light on
the subject. (one inside, the other outside, should cancel out!)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 21:25:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA24105;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:20:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:20:47 -0800
Message-Id: <01BD5667.FBF687E0 miles.nhelab.iae.or.jp>
From: Melvin Miles <miles nhelab.iae.or.jp>
To: "'Vortex'" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: BLUE'S DISTORTIONS
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:28:38 +-900
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 VAA23935
Resent-Message-ID: <"U5Xgx3.0.Fu5.i4V5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16864
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

E-mail 03/23/98

To:  Vortex

Since Dick Blue does not understand how he distorted my results, let me explain this to him.  He takes my 1990 publication, J. Electroanal. Chem., 296 (1990) 241-254 and states: »Starting at the bottom of page 245, I quote: «
"Some rather large differences between the two thermistors in cell B (solid lines) suggest that thermal inversions were occasionally occurring.  At time, a temperature instability was noted that was likely due to a mixing of the air in the glass thermisto
r tube."

He then purposely fails to quote the very next sentence that explains this problem and its corrections "A portion of the thermistor tube extended above the calorimetric cell and was subjected to cooling by the room air.  In later experiments, the thermist
or tubes were made flush with the cell top resulting in more uniform temperatures and X values within the same cell".  

This is DISTORTION by Dick Blue with all capital letters.  Steve Jones did the same thing in his J. Phys. Chem. critic of my work.

Because I honestly reported a problem in 1990, cold fusion critics brand my work with that problem and fail to mention the very next sentence that reports the correction for this problem.  That is simply not honest.  Dick Blue never had much credibility w
ith me, but now he has none.  All anybody can expect from him are very distorted views of cold fusion.

Dr. Melvin H. Miles



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 22:32:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA01498;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:25:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:25:22 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b13bab2ed97f [199.237.131.237]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:31:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov - summarized
Resent-Message-ID: <"-RwFt3.0.JN.H1W5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16866
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The following is an attempt to analyze Marinov's law from a design
standpoint. The objective is to extract an expression for Marinov's
longitudinal force that may be useful to form longitudinal force
accelerator design concepts,and to briefly consider some design
consequences.

It seems desirable to find the longitudinal component directly from the
Marinov formula:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

or more simply, substituting k = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3):

   Fm = k {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}         (2)

Here Fm, V, V' and R are all vectors. Since I personally find it difficult
to visualize the above, converting everything into the longitudinal
components also has the advantage to me of eliminating the vectors.  The
original text by Marinov, defining the above equation, is included at the
end of this post for the sake of clarity.

In the above equation * means dot product, an operation on two vectors.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid the use of Greek letters for
angles, let us denote the cosine of the angle between two vectors V and V'
as cos(V,V'). If we denote the length of a vector V by |V|, then we have
the definition of the dot product being given by:

   V*V' = |V| |V'| cos(V,V')           (3)

Applying (3) to (2) we have:

   Fm = k { [ |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) ] V
          + [ |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  ] V'
          -2[ |V|  |V'| cos(V,V') ] R }         (4)

Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is |V|.  The magnitude of
the component of V' in the direction of V is cos(V,V') |V'|.  Similarly the
magnitude of the component of R in the direction of V is cos(V,R) |R|.
Substituting into (4) to get the component of each term in the V direction,
i.e. the longitudinal direction, we then get an equation for the scalar
longitudinal force component Fl:

   Fl = k |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) |V|
        + |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  cos(V,V') |V'|
        -2|V|  |V'| cos(V,V') cos(V,R)  |R|        (5)


   Fl = k |V| |V'| |R| {cos(V',R) + cos(V,R) cos(V,V')
                                 -2 cos(V,V') cos(V,R) }    (6)

Noting that |R| = r, simplifying (6) we have:

   Fl = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2) |V| |V'| {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}   (7)

It is now clear that the key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal force
lies in the understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at distance r we have:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Note that -2 < h < 2.

Equation 9 may be useful for a finite element analysis, and converts
readily into a form for current segment analysis.

The above formula (9) seems to indicate that Marinov's longitudinal force
appears to be derived almost purely from the electrostatic attraction of
the two charges!

If we recall that:

   u0 e0 = 1/c^2                 (10)

we have:

   u0 = 1/(c^2 e0)               (11)

Substituting (11) into (9):

   Fl = v v' (h 1/(c^2 e0) q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (12)

Recalling that the force between two charges is:

   Fe = (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)                 (13)

We can rearrange (9) to show the longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (14)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)


Now the units of Fe clearly represents a force (the electrostatic force),
so the term (v v' h/2 c^2) should be dimensionless, which it clearly is.
At least the units appear to be correct.

This is a really bizarre notion of reality.

Given the directional scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

and the longitudinal force Fl in terms of the electrostatic force Fe:

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)

and knowing, -2 < h < 2, we can see that increasing v is beneficial, but
has a limit at c, so the majority of the limitation on Fl is the ratio
v'/c. This sets an upper limit on the size of the longitudinal force at
v'/c Fe, which means the primary limit to the force magnitude from a
permanent magnet is determined by the speed of the permanent magnet's
orbital electrons v'.

The highest COP implementation then is a longitudinal force accelerator
using magnetic "coils" made from coiled long mean free path discharge
tubes.  Since the path of the accelerated particles would be naturally
spiraled, the accelerator portion of the device might be made in a coil as
well, and the geometry of this coil such that the electrons in the field
driver coils are accelerated by the accelerator coil electrons.  The
distinction then between driver coils and accelerator coils might become
dissolved, thus creating one fully auto-actuated accelerator.

An implication of the above is that there may exist a self-sustaining or
self enhancing discharge geometry, i.e. ball lightning.

If Marinov's equation is correct:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

and my derivation of that:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}          (8)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)

is correct, then one consequence is that what happens in wires is of almost
no consequence to a near light speed longitudinal force accelerator.  For
this reason, it should be possible to build and test the longitudinal force
(LF) principle derived here using segments constructed from evacuated
tubes.  Such accelerator tube segments could be hooked up in parallel or in
series, as it does not matter what happens in the adjoining circuitry,
except for the beam guiding influence of the magnetic fields. The segments
can be assembled in any geometry of utility.  It is possible to make a kind
of LF accelerator erector set from evacuated glass tube diodes.  At last
Ampere's isolated current segment can have a reality of a kind, at least in
regards to energy conservation, or non-conservation.

In that longitudinal force is proportional to velocity v, the free energy
imparted is at least proportional to the average force squared.  This
implies that a near lightspeed current device compared to a current in wire
driven device should produce a factor of about 10^20 more free energy.  The
longitudinal force is similarly symmetrically proportional to the
energizing coil electron velocity v', so large gains are feasible there as
well.  As the velocities v and v' approach c, the factor (h v v')/2c^2
approaches unity, and the potential energy in the generator approaches the
enormous summation of the combination of electrostatic potential energy
between every combination of beam particle with every energizing particle.

If all the above conclusions are correct, an unlimited, non-poluting, and
enormously robust and portable source of power is potentially available
from a longitudinal force based accelerator.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     MARINOV:ANNUS HORRIBILIS

The following is an excerpt from an ad by Marinov of the same title as
above.  Bold letters (vectors) are changed here to capitals. The partial
derivative symbol is denoted here as  . Note however that the letter
capital S below is a scalar. Pi = 3.14159... and u0 is "mu sub zero."
There are some references here to photos which are not legible to me.


Marinov writes: "The Lorentz equation is wrong.  If there are two electric
charges q, q' moving with velocities V, V' and the vector-distance from q'
to q is R, according to the Lorentz equation the force with which q'V' acts
on qV is given by the following Grassman formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}        (1)

Numerous experiments done by other authors (Hering's experiments are from
the beginning of the century!) and by me showed that the force acting on qV
can not only be transverse to its velocity, as required by (1), but also
longitudinal.  Any rational man when seeing at least one falsifying
experiment rejects the respective formula (Popper), however for thousands
and thousands of Betonkoepfe even hundred experiments were not enough.  In
the photograph there is one such falsifying experiment which (as well as
the other) can be carried out by children: A cylindrical magnet is cut
along one of its axial planes and the one half is turned up-down (the
magnetic forces themselves do the rotation).  Around this magnet, there is
a trough filled with mercury in which the copper ring which can be seen at
right swims (the children take the salt solution and suspend the ring on
threads).  After sending current of some tens of amperes from the battery
at left, which is regulated by the rheostat, the ring begins to rotate.
That's all!"

"The Lorentz-Marinov equation is the right one.  As according to (1) Fg' is
not equal and oppositely directed to Fg, I obtained Marinov formula by the
most simple and natural symmetrization of (1) (take into account that R =
-R')

   Fm = (Fg - Fg')/2 = (U0 q q'){V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}     (2)

Proceeding from (2) and assuming phi <> 0,  A/@t <> 0, I obtained the most
simple calculations that the force with which an electric system acts on a
test charge q moving with velocity V is

   F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)

where phi, A are the electric and magnetic potentials generated by the
system at the point of the charge's location, Bior = rotA is the Lorentz
magnetic intensity, Swhit = -divA/2 is the Whittaker magnetic intensity and


   Bmar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V x V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]   (4)

   Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

are the Marinov vector and scalar magnetic intensities.  B = Bior + Bmar is
called the vector magnetic intensity and S = Swit + Smar is called the
scalar magnetic intensity, (3) is called the Lorentz-Marinov equation.  If
neglecting the last term and under B we understand Bior, we obtain the
Lorentz equation which I call the Lorentz-Grassman equation.  That's the
whole theory!"

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 22:43:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA28168;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980322235420.0087c860 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:54:20 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
In-Reply-To: <3515EF11.722C interlaced.net>
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IHHlZ.0.yt6.qbV5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16865
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:11 AM 3/23/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Roger on the CW - I'm going to try to set up the brushes so they can
>brush on inner or outer surface - maybe this will shed some light on
>the subject. (one inside, the other outside, should cancel out!)

Nice thinking, Frank.  Yes, that should largely cancel any torque
contribution from radial currents.

Looking forward to yr reports...still thinking about Robert & Horace's
theoretical presentations.




Scott Little & Stephanie Eyres Little
1406 Old Wagon Road
Austin TX 78746
512-328-4071

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 22 23:01:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA04648;
	Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <005801bd5629$665498f0$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Dr. Melvin Miles
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:00:44 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"WN_GD.0.V81.CVW5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16867
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




With total respect, I understand your frustrations.  As you are aware, I
have purported "PHENOMENAL" transmutation claims.  Sure, some were clinical
errors, yet many were real.  The problem, No, more specific my problem is --
only few have replicated.

Under no circumstances am I trying to place my work in the same league as
yours (or any of the other researchers in this field), yet a common
denominator exists --replication by others. I have attempted to work with
many and I end up with nights of anguish.

Again, with no disrespect, I gave Scott Little a no fail simple process by
combining Hg with Na (metal).  This simple transmutation experiment works
for me, yet it did not work for Scott two years ago.  I have attempted to
work with Gene Mallove and at this time Mitch is waiting for instructions.

I have been chastised by Jed in the past.  Yet Mark Hugo, John Bockris and
others have observed (?), yes an anomaly.

In reality, at times I wonder if there is sanity to the topic of
transmutation, low energy nuclear exchange and/or cold fusion.  The only
thing that maintains sanity in my life at this point is not what others say,
but my personal observations.

Hal Putoff has proven success in a field that has more controversy than cold
fusion.  The problem is -- it is not the subject of debate.

Jed doesn't believe me due to my past.  Blue is a figment of cyberspace that
is raining on your (and others) parade.  The thing is -- no one can take
away the truth.  The truth is the results, which you observed in your
laboratory.

I believe in my observations.  Others have questions regarding
contamination, or worse than that -- cheating on an experiment.

With respect to the many people that read this thread, please understand
that if the numerous people that report facts, no matter how estrange that
they may be, in the eyes of the recording observer they are real.

I have my opinion of CF.  However, I know what occurs in my small production
facility.  Science, in its greatest wisdom, may challenge me, although at
this time, frankly I don't give a damn.  For the output from  my facility
pays for my family and my Internet connection.

This science may never be understood, but do not question the observations.
Furthermore, pay little attention to those with a lesser mentality that
challenge.  So they have not observed, that does not make you wrong!

With respect,

Joe Champion
http://www.transmutation.com


PS  -- It would be nice if others could replicate, but what the Hell!


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 01:16:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA28247;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:11:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:11:00 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b13bc52f43e0 [12.64.37.168]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980322235420.0087c860 mail.eden.com>
References: <3515EF11.722C interlaced.net>
 <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:04:40 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gmJxj1.0.Cv6.ZSY5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16868
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott -

Regarding torque from the small radial component between brush and ring:

I seem to remember Chris Tinsley writing something about a homopolar device
he was playing with where the entire torque seemed to appear right there at
the brushes. This seemed very strange to him the way the force just
appeared between disc and brush and not on the wire leads to the brushes or
anything. I wish I could remember the exact context and some of his
comments. Could this be related to the small radial component you
mentioned?

I get the impression maybe the Marinow motor is an odd split-polarity
variant of a homopolar motor. Splitting the polarity with the reversed
magnets lets you connect to the 'disc' (ring) at opposite points on the rim
alone instead of having to go to the hub and rim with the connections as in
the normal single polarity homopolar. Just a thought.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 02:56:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA24373;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:43:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:43:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13beb62d6dd [199.237.131.237]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:48:15 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov - summarized (with corrections)
Resent-Message-ID: <"K69VU3.0.ly5.RpZ5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16869
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The following is an attempt to analyze Marinov's law from a design
standpoint. The objective is to extract an expression for Marinov's
longitudinal force that may be useful to form longitudinal force
accelerator design concepts,and to briefly consider some design
consequences.

It seems desirable to find the longitudinal component directly from the
Marinov formula (see equation (2) of quoted excerpt from Marinov's article
appended below):

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

or more simply, substituting k = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3):

   Fm = k {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}         (2)

Here Fm, V, V' and R are all vectors. Since I personally find it difficult
to visualize the above, converting everything into the longitudinal
components also has the advantage to me of eliminating the vectors.  The
original text by Marinov, defining the above equation, is included at the
end of this post for the sake of clarity.

In the above equation * means dot product, an operation on two vectors.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid the use of Greek letters for
angles, let us denote the cosine of the angle between two vectors V and V'
as cos(V,V'). If we denote the length of a vector V by |V|, then we have
the definition of the dot product being given by:

   V*V' = |V| |V'| cos(V,V')           (3)

Applying (3) to (2) we have:

   Fm = k { [ |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) ] V
          + [ |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  ] V'
          -2[ |V|  |V'| cos(V,V') ] R }         (4)

Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is |V|.  The magnitude of
the component of V' in the direction of V is cos(V,V') |V'|.  Similarly the
magnitude of the component of R in the direction of V is cos(V,R) |R|.
Substituting into (4) to get the component of each term in the V direction,
i.e. the longitudinal direction, we then get an equation for the scalar
longitudinal force component Fl:

   Fl = k |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) |V|
        + |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  cos(V,V') |V'|
        -2|V|  |V'| cos(V,V') cos(V,R)  |R|        (5)


   Fl = k |V| |V'| |R| {cos(V',R) + cos(V,R) cos(V,V')
                                 -2 cos(V,V') cos(V,R) }    (6)

Noting that |R| = r, simplifying (6) we have:

   Fl = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2) |V| |V'| {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}   (7)

It is now clear that the key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal force
lies in the understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at distance r we have:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Note that -2 < h < 2.

Equation (9) may be useful for a finite element analysis, and converts
readily into a form for current segment analysis.  Equation (9) seems to
indicate that Marinov's longitudinal force can be related almost purely to
the electrostatic attraction of the two charges!

If we recall that:

   u0 e0 = 1/c^2                 (10)

we have:

   u0 = 1/(c^2 e0)               (11)

Substituting (11) into (9):

   Fl = v v' (h 1/(c^2 e0) q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (12)

Recalling that the force between two charges is:

   Fe = (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)                 (13)

We can rearrange (9) to show the longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (14)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)


Now the units of Fe clearly represents a force (the electrostatic force),
so the term (v v' h/2 c^2) should be dimensionless, which it clearly is.
At least the units appear to be correct.

This is a really bizarre notion of reality.

Given the directional scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

and the longitudinal force Fl in terms of the electrostatic force Fe:

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)

and knowing, -2 < h < 2, we can see that increasing v is beneficial, but
has a limit at c, so the majority of the limitation on Fl is the ratio
v'/c. This sets an upper limit on the size of the longitudinal force at
v'/c Fe, which means the primary limit to the force magnitude from a
permanent magnet is determined by the speed of the permanent magnet's
orbital electrons v'.

The highest COP implementation then is a longitudinal force accelerator
using magnetic "coils" made from coiled long mean free path discharge
tubes.  Since the path of the accelerated particles would be naturally
spiraled, the accelerator portion of the device might be made in a coil as
well, and the geometry of this coil such that the electrons in the field
driver coils are accelerated by the accelerator coil electrons.  The
distinction then between driver coils and accelerator coils might become
dissolved, thus creating one fully auto-actuated accelerator.

An implication of the above is that there may exist a self-sustaining or
self enhancing discharge geometry, i.e. ball lightning.

If Marinov's equation is correct:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

and my derivation of that:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}          (8)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)

is correct, then one consequence is that what happens in wires is of almost
no consequence to a near light speed longitudinal force accelerator.  For
this reason, it should be possible to build and test the longitudinal force
(LF) principle derived here using segments constructed from evacuated
tubes.  Such accelerator tube segments could be hooked up in parallel or in
series, as it does not matter what happens in the adjoining circuitry,
except for the beam guiding influence of the magnetic fields. The segments
can be assembled in any geometry of utility.  It is possible to make a kind
of LF accelerator erector set from evacuated glass tube diodes.  At last
Ampere's isolated current segment can have a reality of a kind, at least in
regards to energy conservation, or non-conservation.

In that longitudinal force is proportional to velocity v, the free energy
imparted is at least proportional to the average force squared.  This
implies that a near lightspeed current device compared to a current in wire
driven device should produce a factor of about 10^20 more free energy.  The
longitudinal force is similarly symmetrically proportional to the
energizing coil electron velocity v', so large gains are feasible there as
well.  As the velocities v and v' approach c, the factor (h v v')/2c^2
approaches unity, and the longitudinal force on an accelerated particle in
the generator approaches the enormous summation of the combination of
electrostatic potential energy between the accelerating particle and every
energizing particle. Note that this is a volume effect, unlike surface
charge forces utilized in a van deGraff accelerator.  Because Fl is a
function of both speeds v and v', the positive nuclei in permanent magnets,
for example, have no effect, because for them v' = 0, yet all the charges
with unbalanced motion, those responsible for B, are active in the
longitudinal force on every accelerated particle.

If all the above conclusions are correct, an unlimited, non-polluting, and
enormously robust and portable source of power is potentially available
from a longitudinal force based accelerator.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     MARINOV:ANNUS HORRIBILIS

The following is an excerpt from an ad by Marinov of the same title as
above.  Bold letters (vectors) are changed here to capitals. The partial
derivative symbol is denoted here as  . Note however that the letter
capital S below is a scalar. Pi = 3.14159... and u0 is "mu sub zero."
There are some references here to photos which are not legible to me.


Marinov writes: "The Lorentz equation is wrong.  If there are two electric
charges q, q' moving with velocities V, V' and the vector-distance from q'
to q is R, according to the Lorentz equation the force with which q'V' acts
on qV is given by the following Grassman formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}        (1)

Numerous experiments done by other authors (Hering's experiments are from
the beginning of the century!) and by me showed that the force acting on qV
can not only be transverse to its velocity, as required by (1), but also
longitudinal.  Any rational man when seeing at least one falsifying
experiment rejects the respective formula (Popper), however for thousands
and thousands of Betonkoepfe even hundred experiments were not enough.  In
the photograph there is one such falsifying experiment which (as well as
the other) can be carried out by children: A cylindrical magnet is cut
along one of its axial planes and the one half is turned up-down (the
magnetic forces themselves do the rotation).  Around this magnet, there is
a trough filled with mercury in which the copper ring which can be seen at
right swims (the children take the salt solution and suspend the ring on
threads).  After sending current of some tens of amperes from the battery
at left, which is regulated by the rheostat, the ring begins to rotate.
That's all!"

"The Lorentz-Marinov equation is the right one.  As according to (1) Fg' is
not equal and oppositely directed to Fg, I obtained Marinov formula by the
most simple and natural symmetrization of (1) (take into account that R =
-R')

   Fm = (Fg - Fg')/2

      = (U0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3){V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}     (2)

Proceeding from (2) and assuming phi <> 0,  A/@t <> 0, I obtained the most
simple calculations that the force with which an electric system acts on a
test charge q moving with velocity V is

   F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)

where phi, A are the electric and magnetic potentials generated by the
system at the point of the charge's location, Bior = rotA is the Lorentz
magnetic intensity, Swhit = -divA/2 is the Whittaker magnetic intensity and


   Bmar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V x V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]   (4)

   Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

are the Marinov vector and scalar magnetic intensities.  B = Bior + Bmar is
called the vector magnetic intensity and S = Swit + Smar is called the
scalar magnetic intensity, (3) is called the Lorentz-Marinov equation.  If
neglecting the last term and under B we understand Bior, we obtain the
Lorentz equation which I call the Lorentz-Grassman equation.  That's the
whole theory!"

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 03:01:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA25960;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004501bd55e7$bd4ba6e0$58954cd1 natvita.ihug.co.nz>
From: "natvita" <robert natvita.co.nz>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: HEF and things
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:10:35 +1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ef_Sn1.0.YL6.j1a5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16870
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Robert Stirniman,
thanks for your comments.
regards,
Robert Beasley

What knowledge do we have a
|species need to know, and when are we prepared to to know
it?
|And what guiding hand decides what knowledge we should
have, and
|when we should have it?


By concentration we see ourselves, we see our strengths and
we see weaknesses.  It is well known that physical
weaknesses are seen in this field before it is seen in other
"more sophisticated" studies. You ask "when we should have
it". All it takes is concentration.

Kirlionics March 1998.. Visit the First New Zealand workshop
of the human atmosphere and approaches to Applied
Bioelectrography.


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 05:29:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA04999;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 05:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 05:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <35160B14.7EB5CF3 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:11:16 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]> <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mqTsQ3.0.0E1.C7c5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16871
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

 http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.html
 
 "The force vectors F shown on the
 drawing [Image12.gif] result from the usual
 
 F = I x B
 
 that comes from Maxwell's eqns."

Hi Scott,

Based on Horace Heffner's recent posts, would
you modify your expression for the 
"force vectors F" ?

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 06:05:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10543;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 06:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 06:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980323075910.008d4500 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:59:10 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
In-Reply-To: <l03102800b13bc52f43e0 [12.64.37.168]>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980322235420.0087c860 mail.eden.com>
 <3515EF11.722C interlaced.net>
 <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KDe6p3.0.ca2.1jc5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16873
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:04 PM 3/22/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>I seem to remember Chris Tinsley writing something about a homopolar device
>he was playing with where the entire torque seemed to appear right there at
>the brushes. This seemed very strange to him the way the force just
>appeared between disc and brush and not on the wire leads to the brushes or
>anything.

I must be remembering the same thing subconsciously, Rick.  I think it is
quite possible that the radial components of the current extend only
microns into the Cu ring.  If true, this means that virtually any
fabricatable ring would exhibit the same effect.  However, it sure is easy
to argue that such a small "length" would reduce the forces to negligible
levels....

As Frank says; anytime you get real sure that you understand something
electromagnetic, watch out!...you're headed for a fall!


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 23 06:07:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA26750;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 05:59:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 05:59:57 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35166AD1.8C46BB23 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:59:45 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980321191924.5461A-100000 college>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9dHd63.0.pX6.Shc5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16872
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Schnurer wrote:
>         Please let me in on the beginning, and I may be able to help.

John-

Bo is the man with the plan.  I am not really sure what he is proposing
either.  He threw out a question regarding selective laser sintering metal and
I chimed in.  I can't really help him any further without seeing the geometry
(which he may not want to share at this time).

I'm here if needed.  Just let me know if I can help.

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 07:47:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24306;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:36:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:42:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: water, 2nd law, engineering
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980323112640.15769A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oP_ql.0.ex5.d5e5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16874
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortex,

I have the wrong impression that the vesicles will be swimming in water.
This is not the case. The whole point of this approach is not to have to
form a reverse osmosis column (to much background to write about) the flow
losses alone (never mind that needed to compensate the osmotic pressure)
would render the column very tall.

Now the experiment. It's quite obvious water is being absorbed: the
appearence of the vesicles (just barely visible) changes to a dull fluffy
appearence (they are glass beads). Empirically I should put them on a
micro balcance. 

No, the phenomenom should be modelled with something like the Gibbs' law
for interfaces. I need to review this and John Steck posted something
about this months ago. Water adsorption happens on just about any surface
- what I postulate here is that if the surface is hygro. there should be
more.

Now the true intention (apart from just water desal.) If I have enough
water condensed at height to make it *flow*, then I can show the phase
changing cycle operating. 

It is an engineering problem I'm up against. This will take time to
resolve and I must put it on the backburner and get on with other things. 
The method to resolve this is: more study: look at theory, patents, have a
chat to people in the water profession, or good applied scientists (the
nuts, blots, belts and suspenders type :) 

I think I'm going to resubscribe to IE and get a few back issues, to find
what everyone's been up to.

Remi.
P.S. we're still having trouble with email, I have two systems subcribed
to vortex, one registered all the weekend email the other said precisely
zero!! The 'good' one (iesun9) receives but cannot send or doesn't echo
what I've sent to vortex because of some anti-junk mail software. The
bad one run by the central uni. sevices is having a brain transplant -
new OS. Oh boy! computers! I'm gonna get an commercial service provider
account. Money for nothing.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 08:02:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10674;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:58:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:58:28 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:53:53 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Chastising Joe Champion
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803231057_MC2-37AC-9186 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"XcExN.0.ic2.YQe5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16875
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; >INTERNET:JoeC transmutation.com

Joe Champion writes:

     I have been chastised by Jed in the past.  Yet Mark Hugo, John Bockris
     and others have observed (?), yes an anomaly.

     Jed doesn't believe me due to my past.  Blue is a figment of cyberspace
     that . . .

Let me give credit where it is due. In Joe Champion has made an honest effort
to work with scientists. This is laudable. It is a darn shame these
collaborations have not worked out. However, let me review the reasons I
chastised Joe Champion, which have nothing to do with his past. By the way, I
agree the Dick Blue probably does not exist. My theory is that he is a
composite personality running on a secret artificial intelligence project deep
in the bowels of MIT. (Emphasis on "bowels.")

Champion sent me samples of materials which were supposed to have isotopic
anomalies. He sent me raw ore from a mine, and processed material. I sent
samples of the stuff to Mizuno, who sent them to a Japanese corporation, which
reported that the standard spectrographic techniques cannot be used with this
kind of material. The techniques only work with solid, conductive samples.
They saw more artifactual isotope shifts in the raw material than the
processed material! Champion claimed these were real isotope shifts, caused by
the blasting used to mine the ore. This cannot be true; for the last 150 years
nearly all metals are mined with blasting, so if ordinary blasting could cause
isotope shifts then all metals would be shifted unpredictably, and the
Encyclopedia Britannica would not have those tables of Natural Isotopic
Distribution.

Champion also sent me a tiny sample of gold which he claims is mixed with
platinum and other elements with isotope shifts. (Gold itself has only one
long-lived isotope.) I was not sure what to make of this sample, or what to do
with it, so I did not send it to Japan, regrettably. Perhaps they would have
been able to analyze it, since it was in a more purified state than the other
samples.

I think Champion still claims that he is producing macroscopic samples of
precious metals with massive isotope shifts. He also claims that he has
attempted to work with various scientists but all he got out of it was "nights
of anguish." I find this difficult to believe, and impossible to understand if
true. He could easily establish iron-clad credibility with every scientist on
earth. Replications are not necessary. All he has to do is sell or lend
samples of purified, isotopically shifted metal to be independently verified.
Mizuno and I would be willing to risk our reputations and pay another $50
handling fee to have the materials checked by a Japanese corporation. Mizuno,
Enyo and Ohmori are now working with four corporate labs. If one of them finds
large shifts, we will ask the other three to check. These labs would provide
Champion with printouts and spectra which would give him credibility with
other labs in the U.S. and Europe. Within a few months we could have a few
hundred of top labs verify his claims.

There is no simple, cheap method of producing isotopically shifted metals. It
cannot be done outside of major government labs, and the samples of purified
metal they provide cost a fortune. If Champion could lend a major laboratory a
hundred grams of platinum with large isotope shifts every scientist at the lab
would realize that he must have transmuted the metal using a mysterious,
revolutionary new process. There no way an ordinary person can acquire
macroscopic quantities of material with peculiar isotopes. It is out of the
question. Lending a large chunk of the material to a lab would be as
convincing as showing them how to replicate the process. Champion could do
this without revealing any commercially valuable trade secrets. Therefore, if
his claims are true, I cannot imagine why he has not proceeded to convince the
world with this foolproof method. It would cost him nothing. After the test,
the laboratory would either return the large sample or pay for it.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 09:38:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA12071;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:31:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:31:25 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD68F xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Mfg. giant electrons for long. force tests?
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:30:57 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"p1_hq3.0.Wy2.hnf5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16877
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick
	All ekectrons are BLUE. Ask any chemist.
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Rick Monteverde[SMTP:monteverde worldnet.att.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Saturday, March 21, 1998 1:49 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Mfg. giant electrons for long. force tests?
> 
> I was trying to think up experiments to try to trap out this alleged
> longitudinal force last night, and started thinking of using electrets
> around magnetic fields. I concluded that having some highly charged
> plastic
> spheres serving as models of charged particles might at least be fun,
> if
> not instructive. I think Horace's electronic SMOT got me going there.
> 
> Anyone have any ideas on this?
> 
> What I was wondering is if there's a way get one polarity evenly over
> the
> whole outside surface. Perhaps it's as simple as an HV positive charge
> applied to the outer surface of a conductive spherical shell mold as
> the
> plastic cures inside, but I'm not sure. Would a thin nonconductive
> mold
> just sitting on top of a Van de Graaff be good enough? I would think
> that
> would give the electret too much directional polarity.
> 
> Besides just simulating charge using the distribution many charges
> evenly
> over the surface (it's mostly just dipole orientation anyway), I also
> want
> to strip out as much of the opposing charge as I can from the bulk of
> the
> material.   Since the material itself must be a good insulator, this
> might
> involve flowing a thin film of the liquid plastic over a charged plate
> to
> bulk-charge the material before casting. This probably woldn't make
> enough
> force in the fluid to overcome its own surface tension, so
> self-repulsion
> of the stream into the mold might not be a problem. If it was I could
> centrifuge it into the mold.
> 
> As for finished appearance, I know a plastic electron should be
> translucent
> and have a black "e-" in the center.<g> But what color should it be?
> I've
> always visualized electrons in a sort of amber yellow, as this is the
> color
> that plastics turn when UV or something has stripped something off the
> molecule and a spare electron is showing. Of course I know real
> individual
> electrons are below having color, but that's what happens anyway.
> 
> What color do you visualize electrons as being?
> 
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 09:38:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09728;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:23:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:23:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199803231721.MAA17838 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: ANS Low Energy Nuclear Session - 1998
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 98 12:24:34 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"DG7z61.0.hN2.5gf5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16876
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 
Vortexians:

Jed and I just received this session info -- it will occur during the 
ANSannjual meeting, June 8-11, 1998 in Nashiville, Tennessee at the 
Opryland Hotel -- do not know exact day.

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

*****************


                                                                          
                                                                       
INVITATION TO ATTEND SPECIAL SESSIONS AND WORKSHOP ON LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR 
REACTION AT THE ANS SUMMER MEETING IN NASHVILLE

Transmutation and Isotope Production by Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in 
Solids represent a new area of nuclear technology that has grown out of, 
but is distinctly different from "cold fusion". There is strong evidence 
that transmutation products ranging from tritium to a spectrum of product 
isotopes can be created in select solids like nickel and palladium when 
loaded with deuterons or protons using a variety of techniques such as 
electrolysis, plasma discharges, or high pressure.  While in its infancy, 
this phenomenon has profound and practical implications for the nuclear 
field. Some research is aimed at developing a new type of energy cell 
based on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions, while other research is directed 
at ways to utilize the technique for radioactive waste management. With 
respect to the latter, experiments have been performed starting with 
natural uranium and thorium to seek reduction in the radioactivity. 

Attendees of the Nashville ANS meeting may wish to take advantage of both 
the sessions and the follow-on workshop to learn more about and to 
evaluate the promise of this new field.  A number of leaders in the area 
are participating in the sessions and will also be involved in the 
workshop. The workshop provides an especially good opportunity for ANS 
attendees to interact with the scientists involved in this novel 
research. Much of this work is not well known outside of a small group 
involved in the research, so these sessions offer a unique opportunity to 
find out the latest results and directions.  The two sessions on 
Transmutation and Isotope Production by Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in 
Solids are scheduled for Tuesday, while the workshop is scheduled for 
Wednesday morning.  More information about the workshop is given below 
based on the announcement in the ANS transactions. 

WORKSHOP ON TRANSMUTATION AND ISOTOPE PRODUCTION BY LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR 
REACTIONS IN SOLIDS

This workshop is a follow-up to session 8.3 and is intended to provide 
interested ANS members with an overview of the field of Transmutation and 
Isotope Production by Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in Solids. A panel 
consisting of key researchers in the field (John Fisher, R. A. Oriani, 
Mike McKubre, Yeong Kim, Talbot Chubb, Heinz Hora, Lali Chatterjee, Maria 
Okuniewski) will provide a brief presentation. Issues to be addressed 
include the present status of this research, the status of current 
theory, proposed new experiments, scale-up issues and possible future 
applications, including heat production and radiation ameliation. 

Following the panel presentation, the workshop will be open to questions 
and comments from attendees. A demonstration cell will be run to 
illustrate the typical operation of a low energy nuclear reaction system. 

                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
        

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 10:42:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27926;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:27:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:27:01 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD691 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:26:22 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"H-ihb2.0.ep6.lbg5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16878
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott
	Those are nice sketches. What drafting program do you use? How
long did it take you to learn it?

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Scott Little[SMTP:little eden.com]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:39 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
> 
> At 10:31 PM 3/22/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> 
> >The 1/4 inch thick steel caps is new information to me - thanks.
> >BTW, do you have a feel for the symmetry of the fringe-field in the
> >plane of your sketch?  I'm beginning to worry about fringe-field
> >components that might pass thru the large surfaces of the copper
> ring.
> 
> Frank, I added some flux lines to a copy of my drawing:
> 
> http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif
> 
> Since the magnets comprise the vertical stacks, some flux will leak
> out of
> one end and will loop back around to the other end.  Thus the flux
> thru yr
> Cu ring will be nominally vertical (axial) and will be pointed in the
> opposite direction of the flux in the magnet stack.  If the "radial
> current" explanation is operative in yr motor, the ring will turn CW
> (when
> view from above).  Jeff K's tests with the thin rotors SEEM to
> discount the
> radial current hypothesis but I still think it could be significant
> even
> with thin rings.
> 
> In other words, if you orient everything like I've drawn it, I predict
> the
> ring will turn CW when viewed from above.
> 
> Have fun with it.
> 
> 
> Scott Little & Stephanie Eyres Little
> 1406 Old Wagon Road
> Austin TX 78746
> 512-328-4071
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 10:58:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA02985;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:53:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:53:44 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b13c617e74ad [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:59:43 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Long. force in B direction
Resent-Message-ID: <"HB3t91.0.Gk.s-g5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16879
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Let us see if we can now glean some understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

so it can be applied to the longitudinal force equation:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

repeated over a volume of a magnet, for example, to evaluate the force on a
particle in the vicinity.  If a convenient path can be found then a test
can be devised.

Let us assume we have a cubical magnet volume aligned to the x y and z
axes, consisting of atoms all magnetically aligned in the x direction.  If
we want to analyze the longitudinal force on a particle in space near the
magnet at point p with velocity V, we then can partition the magnet into
small cubic segments and compute the Fl at p for each magnet segment and
sum them.  For each segment we have an R from p to the segment.  We can use
q' as the sum of charges of electrons aligned with B in the segment.  Atoms
are small, so the lateral motion of the electrons, changing R slightly as
V' changes direction, can be ignored.

We need to sum the force Fl for each V' over all the 360 degrees of
rotation about the B vector that is performed by each of the electrons in
our charge q'.  For this reason, it would be convenient to look at the case
where V is aligned with B, so every V' is purpendicular to V and cos(V,V')
= 0.  When:

   cos(V,V') = 0  for every V'              (16)

so:

   cos(V,R) cos(V,V') = 0  for every V'        (17)

Now, if every R is approximately aligned with B, then

   cos(V',R) ~ 1.0 for every V'             (18)

so:

   h ~ 1.0                         (19)

for every segment.

This implies that there exists a longtitudinal force even in a longitudinal
portion of a permanent magnetic field directly in front of a pole:


         (e-)--Lf->          N---S          <-Lf--(e-)

This means that a test of this theory is to do calorimetry on a diode tube
both with and without a magnet near the plate with a pole facing the plate:

           |    |------------(-)
           |    |
           |    |
           \/\/\/


           ------
              |
              ------------- (+)

           ------
           | N  |
           |    |
           |    |
           |    |
           | S  |
           ------

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:12:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07023;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:05:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:05:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3516B3B2.5717 macsrule.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:10:50 -0600
From: "Mark A. Collins" <themacman macsrule.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
CC: freenrg-l eskimo.com
Subject: A friend needs help...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"A6xgM.0.Xj1.JAh5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16880
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A kid who goes to my church asked me to post a question to this list
since he's seen some of the very cool discussion that go on. I wasn't
sure where to find the info he wanted, and I'm not even sure it's
releasable, but I'll ask for him anyway...



Mark A. Collins
themacman macsrule.com

=====================================


Hi! My name is Jay Garrett. I'm a 9th grader at a school in California.
I read an article on Cold Fusion in Popular Science (September 93, if I
remember correctly), and I wanted to see if I could make a small scale
reactor like Pons & Fleischmann did in 1989... I read Dr. Eugene
Mallove's book Fire from Ice, and was wondering if someone could help me
find out specifics for the reactor like voltages, materials, etc. The
Popular Science article mentioned CF from normal water using a pourous
nickel cathode and Potassium Carbonate for the salting agent...

I would really be grateful for any help you could give me!

Thanks a million!


Jay Garrett
jaygarrett hotmail.com

"...the choice is still yours. You must decide between Gaia
and The Foundation." -- R. Daneel Olivaw


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:14:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07411;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:08:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:08:22 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:07:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Heywood <theywood us.ibm.com>
X-Sender: theywood ppsclnt11.pok.ibm.com
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Book Recommendation
Message-Id: <Pine.A41.3.95.980323140354.84416A-100000 ppsclnt11.pok.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"nk6va1.0.Xp1.ZCh5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16881
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Highly recommended for the kind of people on vortex-l! (I have
nothing to do with the publisher or author... just picked this blurb
off the web in order to provide some info.)

Todd


==============

                         The Wholeness
                            of Nature:

                         Goethe's Way
                  toward a Science of
               Conscious Participation
                             in Nature

                         HENRI BORTOFT

 In this major work, Henri Bortoft
 explores the dynamic relationship of
 the whole to its parts through
 fascinating examples and illuminates
 it from many points of view. He shows
 how in Goethe's study of color, for
 example, each color is seen as a
 direct expression of a dynamic
 generative principle through which
 the whole circle of colors arises in
 meaningful order.

 In Newton's theory of color, on the
 other hand, the sequence of colors in
 the spectrum is arbitrary,
 corresponding only to an angle of
 refraction. The invaluable
 contribution of this book lies in
 Bortoft's masterful, in-depth
 characterization of the two
 fundamentally different ways of
 seeing that gave rise to these
 radically divergent interpretations
 of the same phenomena.

 The first half of this book contains
 Bortoft?s seminal essays Goethe?s
 Scientific Consciousness and
 Counterfeit and Authentic Wholes. The
 second half of the work,
 Understanding Goethe?s Way of
 Science, provides a further lively
 elaboration and deepening of the
 theme and places Goethe?s scientific
 approach into the context of
 twentieth-century scientific and
 philosophical thought.

                  *

      If I were asked to
      recommend one book on
      Goethe's contribution to
      natural science and
      philosophy, it would be
      this book. Bortoft does not
      simply write about Goethe;
      he shows how Goethe's
      "phenomenology" can be
      practiced. Through a
      wide-ranging discussion of
      perception and cognition,
      he shows how a Goethean
      science of qualitative
      wholeness complements the
      analytic and
      causal-explanatory
      framework of modern
      science. Here his
      discussion is especially
      relevant to cognitive
      science, where it deserves
      wide readership

        - Evan Thompson, co-author of
                     The Embodied Mind

 HENRI BORTOFT has taught physics and
 philosophy of science for most of his
 career. His postgraduate research,
 which he did under David Bohm and
 Basil Hiley at Birbeck College,
 London, was on the problem of
 wholeness in the quantum theory.
 Subsequently, he worked with
 J.G.Bennett on problems of
 perception, language, and time. His
 monograph for the Institute for
 Cultural Research, "Goethe's
 Scientific Consciousness" (included
 in this book), has been published in
 German. Bortoft now lectures and
 gives seminars on Goethean science,
 as well as on the development of
 modern scientific consciousness.
 Married, with three grown children,
 he lives in England.

 212 pages, ISBN 0-940262-79-7,

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:24:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11495;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:21:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:21:07 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980323125553.00b376f8 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:55:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
In-Reply-To: <35160B14.7EB5CF3 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"WYwkt3.0.Lp2.XOh5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16882
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:11 3/23/98 +0000, Taylor J. Smith wrote:

>Based on Horace Heffner's recent posts, would
>you modify your expression for the 
>"force vectors F" ?

I'd like to, Jack, but I can't see how, yet.....:(

Can you help?

Scott

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:25:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11670;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:21:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:21:33 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980323132228.00b32260 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:22:28 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: CAD program
In-Reply-To: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD691 xch-cpc-02>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aUxVe3.0.Cs2.wOh5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16883
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:26 3/23/98 -0800, Scudder, Henry J wrote:
>Scott
>	Those are nice sketches. What drafting program do you use? How
>long did it take you to learn it?

I use Drafix CAD Pro (http://www.drafix.com).  It's a real CAD
package...2-D only.  It took a good while to get really good with it.  I
have had lots of practice, having used it to make the part drawings for
many devices over the years.

Scott

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:26:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11720;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:21:41 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:21:41 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:17:35 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: ANS Low Energy Nuclear Session panel
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803231420_MC2-37AD-6280 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"zcf1o2.0.zs2.3Ph5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16884
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The announcement says "A panel consisting of key researchers in the field
(John Fisher, R. A. Oriani, Mike McKubre, Yeong Kim, Talbot Chubb, Heinz Hora,
Lali Chatterjee, Maria Okuniewski)." A few introductions may be in order. I am
not sure who John Fisher is. He did not contribute papers to ICCF5 or 6.
Oriani is a leading electrochemist and one of the best CF scientists. He has
done Pd D2O CF successfully, he verified Mizuno's proton conductors, and he
gives superb lectures. McKubre needs no introduction here. Kim and Chubb are
theorists. Hora works with Miley. Chatterjee is not listed in ICCF5 or 6.
Okuniewski is with CETI.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:35:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA01022;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:17:57 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: Confusion from Joe Champion
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803231421_MC2-37B2-DD0C compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"K9b4S1.0.uF.2Sh5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16885
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex; >INTERNET:JoeC transmutation.com

Joe Champion sent me a short private message saying "I do not have a clue if
there are isotopic anomalies in the Pt or not." This contradicts his earlier
claims. I have a five page fax from him dated 6/19/96 in which he claims that
"with the aid of Perkin Elmer Corporation" he and others determined there are
massive isotope shifts in his samples. He says they used an Elan 6000 ICP-MS
on "numerous transmuted samples" and that based on this data "I was able to
form an opinion of the mechanics supporting their results."

Perhaps we are talking about a new and different process here, which as not
been tested for isotope shifts. In any case, all forms of transmutation with
which I am familiar produce peculiar isotopic ratios in the end products,
reflecting the original element.

Champion also says to me: "you missed my point in my post." Correct. I missed
the point entirely, and I still do. Why on earth does he spend time and effort
and "nights of anguish" trying to help people replicate? All he has to do is
mail out a few samples, at no cost to himself, and he can prove the point
instantly. He could have hundreds of top experts replicate, without a single
night of anguish.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 11:54:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03721;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:38:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007808b13c653b9d74 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <350F02B1.514D skylink.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>								
 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>				
  <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>		
 <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>		
 <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net> <v03007800b13314113c7d@[198.133.146.230]>
 <v03007800b133265c8899 [198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:37:16 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"Uk-6M2.0.3w.Xeh5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16886
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Sorry for the delay. I was away on business. Robert Stirniman wrote:

>Over the last few weeks, we have taken a freshman physics
>problem -- the reflection of an electron by a magnetic field,
>and in my opinion irrefutably shown that the Lorentz force is
>insufficient to describe the physical situation. A longitudinal
>force is required to conserve momentum. We have also shown that
>in the case of an electron moving perpendicular to the magnetic
>field, this longitudinal force has a value of one-half of the
>Lorentz force.

I thought we had finally agreed that there is no problem with reflection of
an incident electron by a magnetic field.  I think we have a communication
problem.

>> Now, div v = 0 for this class of problems, but div(vA), the divergence of
>> the tensor formed from the two vectors v and A, is not the same as (2).  To
>> convince you, consider a charged particle traveling in the x-direction and
>> incident upon a magnetic field B pointing in the z-direction. The vector
>> potential of this B points in the negative-y-direction. The product v dot A
>> is zero. Yet we know that the particle trajectory will be bent. Eq. (2)
>> fails in this simple example.
>
>It is not at all complicated. It is freshman physics. Furthermore
>some of the above is not correct.

The scalar product,   v dot A, is the term used to transform the scalar
potential from one moving system to another. See Feynman, vol 2, chapt 26.
It is just the potential equivalent of v cross B in the Lorentz force and
in the transformation of EM fields.

>We can not in general "know" the direction of the magnetic vector
>potential from the direction and magnitude of the magnetic field .

True. So, you need to also know the scalar potential as well. Both
potentials are needed, just as both E and B fields are needed, for a
complete description of EM phenomena.

>Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE to devise a magnetic field in which an
>electron will not experience a longitudinal force when it tries to
>enter the field.

I was reading Feynman (I bought Feynman because of you, Robert! It's
enjoyable reading in many places.), vol 2, chapt 29 "Motion of charges in
electric and magnetic fields." He discusses charges incident on a magnetic
field, and there is no mention of non-Lorentzian results. More importantly,
this reminded me that such reflection or bending is WIDELY used as the
basis of scientific instruments that analyze particles for mass, momentum
and energy. (Mass spectrometers and more.) We use them in Fusion research.
Though I have not used one myself, I have never heard a colleague complain
that instrument calibration did not agree with the Lorentz force basis of
the design of the instrument.

The dA/dt force, of which  v dot grad A  is a part, does indeed describe a
component of force that can be parallel to charged particle motion. THis is
not a violation of Lorentz force,  f = q(E + v cross B), but a part of it,
because dA/dt is part of what all the rest of us call E.  BTW, that article
in the last IE that followed Kooistra's article, purporting to correct EM
theory, is wrong, because it starts off with faulty vector analysis to go
from the macroscopic form of EM equations to the microscopic or
differential equation form. The error has to do with treatment of  v dot
term.

I am very busy for the next couple of weeks. Therefore, I will not be
participating in these discussions for a while.


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 Mar 23 12:12:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21871;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:59:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:59:04 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: Scott Little <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:58:26 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7386.1312.22122984 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980323132228.00b32260 mail.eden.com>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: CAD program
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"9J_hE.0.cL5.7yh5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16887
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 23-Mar-98, Scott Little wrote:
>At 10:26 3/23/98 -0800, Scudder, Henry J wrote:
>>Scott
>>Those are nice sketches. What drafting program do you use? How
>>long did it take you to learn it?

>I use Drafix CAD Pro (http://www.drafix.com).  It's a real CAD
>package...2-D only.  It took a good while to get really good with it.  I
>have had lots of practice, having used it to make the part drawings for
>many devices over the years.

 Thanx, Scott, but do they need to be larger than 640x480? :)
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 13:19:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14713;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b13c70c6947f [12.64.37.168]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980323075910.008d4500 mail.eden.com>
References: <l03102800b13bc52f43e0 [12.64.37.168]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322235420.0087c860 mail.eden.com>
 <3515EF11.722C interlaced.net> <v01530504b13af8b480b3@[199.237.131.239]>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:47:35 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"OqjpT3.0.lb3.Xhi5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16888
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott -

Is there anything in electromagnetic theory which states how *long* a
current segment must be before it can exert force on a conductor while in a
magnetic field? The size of the current certainly counts, but we know for
sure that all the current in the system runs through that area of contact
at the brushes, so a substantial current is certainly there, no matter how
small its radial component. Of course when the length gets vanishingly
small, you have to wonder how it can still have enough of a footprint with
which to grab hold of the matter it's flowing into so it can hurl it off in
one direction or another. But if that does happen, then the ring could be
infintessimally thin, and no LF is needed to explain Kooistra's device. Of
course this argument could just as well be about as thin as that ring.

The key to what sparse understanding I have of homopolars is in looking at
what's going on in and between the different reference frames containing
the various components. There's a boundary between two reference frames
right there at the brushes in the Marinov motor.

Life is about boundaries. Without them, everything would be the same. :)

(My apologies for the philosophical embolism - I'm headed for the
recompression chamber (a.k.a. "real work") right now...)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 13:33:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12046;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:29:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:29:22 -0800
Message-ID: <3516D43F.5D7F interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:29:35 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: MARINOV MADNESS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SH4vV3.0.7y2.mGj5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16889
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

I have completed the rotating ring rotor and the magnet assembly as
per Scott's neat drawing at:

	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif

Scott, the fringe-field is fairly evident around the stack of 8 Radio
Shack magnets when they are just stacked together with no steel end
caps.  You can feel the fringe-field with a small nail, etc.
When assembled with the steel end caps (Yeah, Scott, 6 linear inches
of cut through 1/4 inch steel plate with my "armstrong" hacksaw!)
the fringe-field is almost gone - it's still there, but very weak.
Hey Marinov motor experts, is this what I should expect?  I know these
are not high-energy magnets, but I can't pull the steel end caps off
the assembly straight off - I have to wring them apart sideways -
we're talking a few gauss here!

Scott, the field is so weak at the brush sites that I'll be surprised
if I can get a Lorentz force there, even if I tried by some means.
The rotor bearings WITHOUT BRUSH DRAG are very good - the torque from
a 1" square piece of "post-it" will cause it to rotate with a 1.5 inch
moment arm.
I am now getting very concerned about brush drag (I have not built them
yet.).  As a fall-back position, it would be fairly easy to mount the
magnet assembly on the same kind of bearings I used for the ring rotor.
Then, I could set up a sensitive torque arm to measure the
counter-torque on the magnets - no brush drag involved.  I should
then be able to pick a stalled-torque level like the 1"sq post-it on
a 1.5 inch moment arm kind of thing.  As the guys in the NASA electric
propulsion group used to say, "force at the milli-mouse-fart level".

I will proceed to construct the brushes for the motor and complete the
assembly.  Comments welcome!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 13:46:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15328;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:40:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:40:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3516D6A7.6637 interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:39:51 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
References: <l03102800b13bc52f43e0 [12.64.37.168]>
	 <3.0.5.32.19980322235420.0087c860 mail.eden.com>
	 <3515EF11.722C interlaced.net> <v01530504b13af8b480b3@[199.237.131.239]>
	 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com>
	 <3.0.5.32.19980322223957.008d4c30 mail.eden.com> <l03102800b13c70c6947f@[12.64.37.168]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ol4OC3.0.Cl3.pQj5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16890
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Scott -
> 
> Is there anything in electromagnetic theory which states how *long* a
> current segment must be before it can exert force on a conductor while in a
> magnetic field? 

Yes, Rick, there is.  My reference says it's very simple:
For a uniform B, F = i * L * B,  where L is length, i current.
In the motor I'm building, I just noticed how weak my fringe B is going
to be at the brush site.  That combined with the tiny radial length
makes you wonder if the radial current theory holds water.
I'm waiting to see how my motor acts before drawing any conclusions.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 13:59:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18237;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:50:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:50:49 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor - new Kooistra results
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:50:09 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd56a5$a610bfb0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"IU2EN2.0.nS4.taj5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16891
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Recieved from Jeff Kooistra on 3/22/98 at 12:48 AM.

Subject: Just gi' da boy an hour to hisself
Guys,
        OK, got some time to myself tonight, just messin' around trying to
find more suitable, and easy, brushes.  Reproved the ring/shell thang.  Did
a Tim Allen with more power and some bare #24 wire--got nice torque.  So
for the hell of it and to please the Vo'tex crowd I got them there brushes
up under m' ring to make contact on the inside.  Whooo-doggies!  Y'know the
damn thing still rotates th' same way.  Shoooot!  Looks like un that there
Lorentz fella goin' get hung on his own hook.
Y'all have a nice night now, y' hear.
Jeff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 14:42:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29647;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:37:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:37:54 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b13c95e69a14 [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:44:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov motor - new Kooistra results
Resent-Message-ID: <"4nrbK3.0._E7.-Gk5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16892
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:50 PM 3/23/98, George Holz wrote:
>Recieved from Jeff Kooistra on 3/22/98 at 12:48 AM.
>
>Subject: Just gi' da boy an hour to hisself
>Guys,
>        OK, got some time to myself tonight, just messin' around trying to
>find more suitable, and easy, brushes.  Reproved the ring/shell thang.  Did
>a Tim Allen with more power and some bare #24 wire--got nice torque.  So
>for the hell of it and to please the Vo'tex crowd I got them there brushes
>up under m' ring to make contact on the inside.  Whooo-doggies!  Y'know the
>damn thing still rotates th' same way.  Shoooot!  Looks like un that there
>Lorentz fella goin' get hung on his own hook.
>Y'all have a nice night now, y' hear.
>Jeff

Very interesting news!  WAY TO GO!  Can't wait to hear Frank Stenger's
results confirming.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 14:44:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA30089;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:40:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:40:25 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD696 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: MARINOV MADNESS
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:40:07 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"yjC-U3.0.-L7.LJk5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16893
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank
	The equivalent magnetic circuit you have is about a few tens of
ohms through the steel, and a 1000 or so ohms throgh the air, in
parallel with each other. So all the current (magnetic flux) goes
through the steel (it short-circuits the magentic circuit). You could
try an air gap between the steel, and the magnets, to increase your
leakage flux, in a more or less controlled manner, until you actually
get some motor behavior.

Hank Scudder

> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 23, 1998 1:29 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	MARINOV MADNESS
> 
> Vortexians:
> 
> I have completed the rotating ring rotor and the magnet assembly as
> per Scott's neat drawing at:
> 
> 	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
> 
> Scott, the fringe-field is fairly evident around the stack of 8 Radio
> Shack magnets when they are just stacked together with no steel end
> caps.  You can feel the fringe-field with a small nail, etc.
> When assembled with the steel end caps (Yeah, Scott, 6 linear inches
> of cut through 1/4 inch steel plate with my "armstrong" hacksaw!)
> the fringe-field is almost gone - it's still there, but very weak.
> Hey Marinov motor experts, is this what I should expect?  I know these
> are not high-energy magnets, but I can't pull the steel end caps off
> the assembly straight off - I have to wring them apart sideways -
> we're talking a few gauss here!
> 
> Scott, the field is so weak at the brush sites that I'll be surprised
> if I can get a Lorentz force there, even if I tried by some means.
> The rotor bearings WITHOUT BRUSH DRAG are very good - the torque from
> a 1" square piece of "post-it" will cause it to rotate with a 1.5 inch
> moment arm.
> I am now getting very concerned about brush drag (I have not built
> them
> yet.).  As a fall-back position, it would be fairly easy to mount the
> magnet assembly on the same kind of bearings I used for the ring
> rotor.
> Then, I could set up a sensitive torque arm to measure the
> counter-torque on the magnets - no brush drag involved.  I should
> then be able to pick a stalled-torque level like the 1"sq post-it on
> a 1.5 inch moment arm kind of thing.  As the guys in the NASA electric
> propulsion group used to say, "force at the milli-mouse-fart level".
> 
> I will proceed to construct the brushes for the motor and complete the
> assembly.  Comments welcome!
> 
> Frank Stenger
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 15:04:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02342;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD697 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: MARINOV MADNESS
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:47:25 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"k6LCl2.0.Sa.WSk5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16894
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank
	In my sophmore year in EE at Cornell in 1954, we learned how to
design magnetic circuits. The more modern EE programs don't bother with
this stuff anymore, but you could get a Magnetic Design text from a
library, or even use the same modeling software that Greg of SMOT infamy
was using, to get a handle on your Marinov motor design. The text we
used was "Electrical Engineering" by Strong. Publication date was
probably early 50's.(I don't have it here at work now).

Hank Scudder

> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 23, 1998 1:29 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	MARINOV MADNESS
> 
> Vortexians:
> 
> I have completed the rotating ring rotor and the magnet assembly as
> per Scott's neat drawing at:
> 
> 	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
> 
> Scott, the fringe-field is fairly evident around the stack of 8 Radio
> Shack magnets when they are just stacked together with no steel end
> caps.  You can feel the fringe-field with a small nail, etc.
> When assembled with the steel end caps (Yeah, Scott, 6 linear inches
> of cut through 1/4 inch steel plate with my "armstrong" hacksaw!)
> the fringe-field is almost gone - it's still there, but very weak.
> Hey Marinov motor experts, is this what I should expect?  I know these
> are not high-energy magnets, but I can't pull the steel end caps off
> the assembly straight off - I have to wring them apart sideways -
> we're talking a few gauss here!
> 
> Scott, the field is so weak at the brush sites that I'll be surprised
> if I can get a Lorentz force there, even if I tried by some means.
> The rotor bearings WITHOUT BRUSH DRAG are very good - the torque from
> a 1" square piece of "post-it" will cause it to rotate with a 1.5 inch
> moment arm.
> I am now getting very concerned about brush drag (I have not built
> them
> yet.).  As a fall-back position, it would be fairly easy to mount the
> magnet assembly on the same kind of bearings I used for the ring
> rotor.
> Then, I could set up a sensitive torque arm to measure the
> counter-torque on the magnets - no brush drag involved.  I should
> then be able to pick a stalled-torque level like the 1"sq post-it on
> a 1.5 inch moment arm kind of thing.  As the guys in the NASA electric
> propulsion group used to say, "force at the milli-mouse-fart level".
> 
> I will proceed to construct the brushes for the motor and complete the
> assembly.  Comments welcome!
> 
> Frank Stenger
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 16:17:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14638;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:07:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:05:28 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd56b8$8d81b0e0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"dmvEP1.0.ca3._al5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16895
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank  Stenger wrote:
You can feel the fringe-field with a small nail, etc.
>When assembled with the steel end caps (Yeah, Scott, 6 linear inches
>of cut through 1/4 inch steel plate with my "armstrong" hacksaw!)
>the fringe-field is almost gone - it's still there, but very weak.
>Hey Marinov motor experts, is this what I should expect?  I know these
>are not high-energy magnets, but I can't pull the steel end caps off
>the assembly straight off - I have to wring them apart sideways -
>we're talking a few gauss here!
-
Hi Frank,
Yes, this is as expected, the leakage fields are normally small.
I've measured about 30 gauss at the ring with passive ferrite
vertical legs. The vertical magnet legs give somewhat higher
leakage and higher torque. So why not leave off the shorting bars?
Well, Marinov used complete magnetic circuits, perhaps thinking 
incorrectly that the force depended on total flux in the torus. 
For most of us using string suspension, the horizontal forces
caused by lack of perfect symmetry (ring to torus spacing uniformity)
cause the torus to bump into ring with open magnetics. I have
observed higher torque and lots of horizontal instability
to which your setup should be immune.
-
Wish I had your low torque bearings, can you suggest a source
from which to purchase some.
I am still concerned with the length of your magnets, the wide
vertical leakage band is unlike any other implementation.
I believe the torque is maximized with high fields and
sharp radial gradients but am unsure of the affect of 
low circumferential  gradients caused by the long torus magnets
you are using. 
Looking forward to hearing your results.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 16:17:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19233;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:08:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 16:08:15 -0800
Message-Id: <01BD5705.9BB930A0 miles.nhelab.iae.or.jp>
From: Melvin Miles <miles nhelab.iae.or.jp>
To: "'Vortex'" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: BYU INQUISTION
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:17:02 +-900
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 QAA19116
Resent-Message-ID: <"BRzR02.0.Di4.jbl5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16896
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

E-mail 03/24/98

Steve Jones continues to deny that his group asked many probing questions to find errors in my work and that my BYU seminar, therefore, lasted three hours.  I remember this well since I had to answer all the questions.  This BYU affair was very unusual tr
eatment of an invited seminar speaker.

Steve Jones wrote on 23 February, 1998 the following »By the way, Mel, I've done my homework on this --- have you?  Can you name any witnesses that back up your claim of a 3 hour seminar??? Surprise me!« (Since Jones has never replied to my answer on Marc
h 12, 1998, let me post it once again.)

Well, OK Yes! You, STEVEN JONES HIMSELF.  You are my witness!! In Surface and Coating Technology, Vol. 51, P. 284 (1992) in an article by Steven Jones, the following statement appears: "Dr. Miles was kind enough to answer probing questions; his presentati
on lasted nearly three hours".

What is your response now, Dr. Jones?  I am sure you will find one.

Dr. Melvin H. Miles



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 18:05:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24768;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:04:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:51:51 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd56bf$081ea410$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"V1NVd1.0.b26.vPm5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16897
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Michael  Schaffer wrote:


>I was reading Feynman (I bought Feynman because of you, Robert! It's
>enjoyable reading in many places.), vol 2, chapt 29 "Motion of charges in
>electric and magnetic fields." He discusses charges incident on a magnetic
>field, and there is no mention of non-Lorentzian results. More importantly,
>this reminded me that such reflection or bending is WIDELY used as the
>basis of scientific instruments that analyze particles for mass, momentum
>and energy. (Mass spectrometers and more.) We use them in Fusion research.
>Though I have not used one myself, I have never heard a colleague complain
>that instrument calibration did not agree with the Lorentz force basis of
>the design of the instrument.
Michael,
I am unsure why the magnetic force term being proposed would have
any significant affect on the instruments you mention. These instruments
use massive magnets and the particle exits with essentially the same
velocity with which it entered. >
>The dA/dt force, of which  v dot grad A  is a part, does indeed describe a
>component of force that can be parallel to charged particle motion. THis is
>not a violation of Lorentz force,  f = q(E + v cross B), but a part of it,
>because dA/dt is part of what all the rest of us call E>
>
As I understand this, you are saying that
the longitudinal force is electrostatic in the frame stationary with
respect to the electron where dA/dt is non zero. Doesn't this make
it the magnetic from the frame stationary with respect to the lab.
This is not the Lorentz force, but a longitudinal force. The
experimental results turned up so far are unexpected by conventional
interpretation, perhaps some of the implications of relativistic
electromagnetics have not yet been fully integrated into
classical theory. If this is an oversight in Feynman's lectures, I'm sure it
is not the only one.
George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 19:14:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA06179;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:46:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:46:20 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v0300780db13cc015f50e [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd56bf$081ea410$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:45:03 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Resent-Message-ID: <"rBNrd2.0.OW1.vvn5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16898
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Michael  Schaffer wrote:
>
>
>>I was reading Feynman (I bought Feynman because of you, Robert! It's
>>enjoyable reading in many places.), vol 2, chapt 29 "Motion of charges in
>>electric and magnetic fields." He discusses charges incident on a magnetic
>>field, and there is no mention of non-Lorentzian results. More importantly,
>>this reminded me that such reflection or bending is WIDELY used as the
>>basis of scientific instruments that analyze particles for mass, momentum
>>and energy. (Mass spectrometers and more.) We use them in Fusion research.
>>Though I have not used one myself, I have never heard a colleague complain
>>that instrument calibration did not agree with the Lorentz force basis of
>>the design of the instrument.
>Michael,
>I am unsure why the magnetic force term being proposed would have
>any significant affect on the instruments you mention. These instruments
>use massive magnets and the particle exits with essentially the same
>velocity with which it entered. >

That's my point, it shouldn't. But Stirniman claims there should be a big
non Lorentz force in this situation.

[snip]
>As I understand this, you are saying that
>the longitudinal force is electrostatic in the frame stationary with
>respect to the electron where dA/dt is non zero. Doesn't this make
>it the magnetic from the frame stationary with respect to the lab.

dA/dt is time-varying. This is the usual "induction EMF."

[snip]


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 Mar 23 19:17:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA08018;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:50:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:50:55 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v0300780eb13cc0ae18fd [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd56a5$a610bfb0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:48:29 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov motor - new Kooistra results
Resent-Message-ID: <"IPXIL2.0.oy1.9-n5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16899
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Recieved from Jeff Kooistra on 3/22/98 at 12:48 AM.
>
>Subject: Just gi' da boy an hour to hisself
>Guys,
>        OK, got some time to myself tonight, just messin' around trying to
>find more suitable, and easy, brushes.  Reproved the ring/shell thang.  Did
>a Tim Allen with more power and some bare #24 wire--got nice torque.  So
>for the hell of it and to please the Vo'tex crowd I got them there brushes
>up under m' ring to make contact on the inside.  Whooo-doggies!  Y'know the
>damn thing still rotates th' same way.

   Which thing rotated? Magnetized torus or ring? If it was the magnetized
torus, then yes, it should have rotated in the same direction according to
Lorentz. The TEST is to look for reversed rotation of the Cu ring when it
is contacted on its inner radius. Longitudinal drag says same direction,
Lorentz says opposite.

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 Mar 23 21:23:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02810;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:09:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:09:45 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <54dc7992.35173fdf aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:08:45 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"EavS81.0.mh.N0q5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16900
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,

Over the weekend I got the vacuum manafold mounted securely on
a stand. Thats ready to go. Also performed leak testing on the entire
setup. No problems, it holds at the advertised 25 millitorr very well for
over 25 hours.
I also constructed a temperature sensor in a graphite shoe that will be
attached to the outside of the quartz reactor tube. Trying to get it 
calibrated now.  So far it's a nice straight line between 0 and 100 C.
I am only looking for a temperature shift (upwards I hope) when and
if a hydrino reaction starts.
  
  A question: 
  In a steady state closed system of H2 gas at a known pressure, 
if a hydrino reaction does occur, (the H atoms shrink) should not the 
pressure of the system show a decrease?   This would be another way
to see if a reaction was occurring.  Protocall will be to pump down the 
reactor tube for 2 hours, do several argon purges during that time  (pump
down, admit argon to 1 atm, and repeat)  with the arc on. 
 Then fill with argon to 1 atm and open the reactor tube, keeping the open 
ends plugged so as not to lose the Ar. At this time insert the K metal into
the tube in an Ar filled glove box. Seal everything up tight and do at least 
4 more pump down argon fill purges this time with the arc off. Then admit
the H2 and watch for changes.
  Remember, everything above will be performed without any K metal 
in the system as a calibration.
Comments appreciated.

  I also constructed a second reactor tube. basically the same as the
first one except for a larger brass fitting at the top end. This to make
it easier to change the upper electrode, a .060 coil of W wire brazed
to a stainless steel holder. (photo coming).
I made a copper gasket upper seal for this tube. Do you know how 
hard it is to bore out a piece of 3/8 inch  copper tubing?  Very!

Two rolls of film off to Seattle Filmworks today with photos of the 
apparatus and the vacuum system.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 21:32:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA04218;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351743D8.18AA interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:25:44 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: NEW MARINOV THEORY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1xKTJ3.0.o11.bGq5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16901
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well, really just a different way to look at the Marinov torque which
I think clears up the picture.  OK, vortexians, see if this makes sense.

	1. Consider a straight wire carrying a positive current from
	   left to right.  Above the wire place a magnetic needle on a
	   pivot (the infamous compass!).  It looks like this:

					^
					|
		<-----------------------|----------------- current
					|
				magnetic needle
				on top of wire
				in this view.

		Now, we know the magnetic needle will line up cross-
		wise to the wire with its B direction in the same
		direction as the top portion of the B field around the
		wire.
	2. Now, near the center of the wire, split the wire in two
	   for some distance and then go back to a single wire, like
	   this:



				|---------------|
				|	^	|
				|	|	|
		<---------------|       |	|---------- current
				|	|	|
				|    needle	|
				|---------------|

		Now, the field around the split conductor is not
		too topologically different than that around a
		single conductor - the magnetic lines tend to stretch
		out to reach around the wider spread of the current
		path, but, the B field is still up (in the above 
		picture) on the side toward us, and down on the side
		into the page from us.  So, our magnetic needle will
		still tend to point up on our side of the conductor
		pair.  If we try to turn the needle away from up and,
		say, parallel to the current direction, we will need
		to exert a torque on it with the torque vector normal
		to this page, and the split wire conductor will feel
		a counter torque.

	3. Now, start thinking of our split conductor above as the
	   ring conductor in a Marinov motor.  Sure, the details of
	   field shape around the circular double conductor would
	   be different from the square version, but, the general
	   nature of the field would be the same.
	   Let's now look at a plan view of the above sketches so
	   we see the right and left ends of the split square
	   conductor in cross section.  Now would be a good time to
	   check Scott's flux drawing of my motor under construction
	   at:
		http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif

	   NOTE THAT SCOTT ASSUMED CURRENT FLOW FROM LEFT TO RIGHT
	   THRU THE BRUSH-RING-BRUSH CIRCUIT.
	   But now to sketch the plan view of our square double
	   conductor from step 2. above:

					+ this is the rear end of
					  our needle

		<---------------O <------------ O------------current
				  this current
				  in the double
				  conductor.
					. the needle would point
					  toward us down here.

	4. Finally, compare Scott's flux sketch with this idea of
	   bar magnets over and under the ring conductor.
	   Don't you see, the Marinov ring is just a split conductor
	   and the magnet assembly can act like a bar magnet over
	   and under the split conductor formed by the ring.
	   Notice that the top portion of the magnet acts a bit like
	   a compass needle forced to be PARALLEL TO A CONDUCTOR - which
	   it does not like to do - same for the bottom portion of
	   the magnet assembly.

Now, let's review the field directions in Scott's drawing.  Note that
with his current direction, the FIELD OF THE RING ACTING AS A DOUBLE
CONDUCTOR will be directed OUT of the page.  Now, if it were free to
rotate, the magnet assembly would try to rotate CW from the top to
align its upper B field with that of the ring double conductor.
Note that UNDER THE RING DOUBLE CONDUCTOR, the current B will be
directed INTO the page and the bottom portion of the magnet assembly
would want to rotate CW from the top to align with it!  Hey, top and
bottom - both CW from the top view!
And, the circuit - in this case, the ring, - would experience a
counter-torque CCW from the top.  Just because we let the ring rotate
under the brushes doesn't change the fact that it's just a ring-shaped
double conductor that is under a mutual torque-counter torque from
a couple of magnetic regions that act like a compass needle forced
to lie parallel to a current when they really want to align ACROSS
the current direction parallel to the current B.

Thus, Stenger predicts that my ring will rotate CCW from the top in
Scott's sketch and not CW as Scott correctly predicted using the
radial current theory of Marinov torque.  I further predict that the
detailed method of brushing the current into the ring, be it outside,
inside, one outside - one inside, will have almost zero effect on the
torque of the motor.
As a side note here, this is not the only motor that is a bear to
explain from the  J X B point of view.  Try a synchronous AC machine
with a permanent magnet rotor.  But if you try, Maxwell and Lorentz
will do the job, IMHO.

To summarize I think the mysterious Marinov motor torque is caused by
the same effect that causes a compass needle to align with the B
field of a near-by conductor - that B field being at right angles to
the current direction.  So get over the details of the brush-ring
region of the motors - GET THE BIG PICTURE OF THE OVERALL B FIELD OF THE
RING AS JUST A DOUBLE CONDUCTOR AND NOTE THAT THE MARINOV MAGNET IS
JUST TRYING TO ALIGN ITSELF WITH THE TOP AND BOTTOM B FIELDS OF THIS
CONDUCTOR!

Stenger has spoken - I retire to await the onslaught of contrary
opinions.  AND, I must finish my Marinov motor.

And, thanks Hank and George for your MARINOV MADNESS comments.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 22:02:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA08333;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35174B3D.6430 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:57:17 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: George - MARINOV MADNESS
References: <01bd56b8$8d81b0e0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"J5OA41.0.122.Ckq5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16902
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:
> 
(snip some good comments)

> Wish I had your low torque bearings, can you suggest a source
> from which to purchase some.

Not really, George, but let me look thru my junk boxes to see what I
have in inventory - what kind of shop stuff do you have available?
If I come up empty, maybe Scott might know a good source.
A good hobby shop might have small precision ball bearings now days -
with all the intricate working models available.  For these motors, the
bearing load is so small that you can use really tiny bearings to
minimize the loss.  But, I will check to see what I have!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 22:30:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11193;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:18:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:18:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13cfe7329be [199.237.131.235]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:22:05 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov Analysis - Edited
Resent-Message-ID: <"L3CG81.0.mk2.S0r5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16903
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

                      Marinov's Longitudinal Force
                 An Analysis from a Design Standpoint
                        Horace Heffner - 3/23/98


The following is an attempt to analyze Marinov's law from a design
standpoint. The objective is to extract an expression for Marinov's
longitudinal force that may be useful to form longitudinal force
accelerator design concepts,and to briefly consider some design
consequences.  An alternate objective was to derive an absurdity and thus
disprove Marinov's derivation, however that has not been sufficiently
achieved.  Some unusual consequences have been derived that raise some
doubts, however.  Any assistance in finding my errors or an error of
Marinov's would be appreciated.

It seems desirable to find the longitudinal component directly from the
Marinov formula (see equation (2) of quoted excerpt from Marinov's article
appended below):

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

or more simply, substituting k = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3):

   Fm = k {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}         (2)

Here Fm, V, V' and R are all vectors. Since I personally find it difficult
to visualize the above, converting everything into the longitudinal
components also has the advantage to me of eliminating the vectors.  The
original text by Marinov, defining the above equation, is included at the
end of this post for the sake of clarity.

In the above equation * means dot product, an operation on two vectors.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid the use of Greek letters for
angles, let us denote the cosine of the angle between two vectors V and V'
as cos(V,V'). If we denote the length of a vector V by |V|, then we have
the definition of the dot product being given by:

   V*V' = |V| |V'| cos(V,V')           (3)

Applying (3) to (2) we have:

   Fm = k { [ |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) ] V
          + [ |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  ] V'
          -2[ |V|  |V'| cos(V,V') ] R }         (4)

Now, the magnitude of vector V in the V direction is |V|.  The magnitude of
the component of V' in the direction of V is cos(V,V') |V'|.  Similarly the
magnitude of the component of R in the direction of V is cos(V,R) |R|.
Substituting into (4) to get the component of each term in the V direction,
i.e. the longitudinal direction, we then get an equation for the scalar
longitudinal force component Fl:

   Fl = k { |V'| |R|  cos(V',R) |V|
          + |V|  |R|  cos(V,R)  cos(V,V') |V'|
          -2|V|  |V'| cos(V,V') cos(V,R)  |R| }    (5)


   Fl = k |V| |V'| |R| {cos(V',R) + cos(V,R) cos(V,V')
                                 -2 cos(V,V') cos(V,R) }    (6)

Noting that |R| = r, simplifying (6) we have:

   Fl = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2) |V| |V'| {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}   (7)

It is now clear that the key to understanding Marinov's longitudinal force
lies in the understanding of the dimensionless scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

because given scalar speeds v, v' of two charges q and q' at scalar
distance r we have from (7) and (8):

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

Note that -2 < h < 2.

Equation (9) may be useful for a finite element analysis, and converts
readily into a form for current segment (ilB) analysis.  Equation (9) seems
to indicate that Marinov's longitudinal force can be related almost purely
to the electrostatic attraction of the two charges, q and q'!

Knowing the identity:

   u0 e0 = 1/c^2                 (10)

we have:

   u0 = 1/(c^2 e0)               (11)

Substituting (11) into (9):

   Fl = v v' (h 1/(c^2 e0) q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (12)

Recalling that the scalar force between two charges is:

   Fe = (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)                 (13)

We can rearrange (9) to show the scalar longitudinal force Fl in terms of Fe:

   Fl = (v v' h/2)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)     (14)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)


It is important to recall that the vector longitudinal force was defined to
be in the direction of V, by definition of "longitudinal".

The units of Fe clearly represent a force (the electrostatic force), so the
term (h v v')/2c^2 in (15) should be dimensionless, which it clearly is.
At least the units appear to be correct.

This is a really bizarre notion of reality, that a longitudinal force
exists and is a function of the electrostatic force and velocity vectors
relative to the frame of reference where energy is extracted.  Due to the
critical energy producing regions being at velocities near c, a
relativistic analysis is warranted.  However, it is believed that practical
use may be made of devices operating at 0.1 c.  It is possible such a force
has not been readily observed or identified because it is so small unless
both v and v' are near c, and q' is large.

Given only the dimensionless directional scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

and the scalar longitudinal force Fl in terms of the scalar electrostatic
force Fe:

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)

and knowing, -2 < h < 2, we can readily see that increasing v is
beneficial, but is bounded by c, the speed of light, so the majority of the
remaining limitation on Fl is the ratio v'/c. This sets an upper limit on
the size of the longitudinal force at v'/c Fe, which means the primary
limit to the force magnitude from a permanent magnet is determined by the
speed of the permanent magnet's orbital electrons v'.

The highest coefficient of power (COP) implementation then is a
longitudinal force accelerator using magnetic "coils" made from coiled long
mean free path discharge tubes.  Since the path of the accelerated
particles might be naturally spiraled by local magnetic fields, the
accelerator portion of the device might be made in a coil as well, and the
geometry of this coil such that the electrons in the field driver coils are
accelerated by the accelerator coil electrons.  The distinction then
between driver coils and accelerator coils might become dissolved, thus
creating a single fully auto-actuated accelerator.

One implication of the above is that there may exist a self-sustaining or
self enhancing discharge geometry to explian ball lightning.

If Marinov's equation is correct:

   Fm = (u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3) {V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}    (1)

and my derivation of that:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}          (8)

   Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  Fe                       (15)

is correct, then one design influence is that what happens in wires is of
almost no consequence to a near light speed longitudinal force accelerator.
For this reason, it should be possible to build and test the longitudinal
force (LF) principle derived here using segments constructed from evacuated
tubes.  Such accelerator tube segments could be hooked up in parallel or in
series, as it does not matter what happens in the adjoining circuitry,
except for the beam guiding influence of the magnetic fields. The segments
can be assembled in any geometry of utility and could all be linear tubes.
It is possible to make a kind of LF accelerator erector set from evacuated
glass or quartz envelope tube diodes.  At last Ampere's isolated current
segment can have a reality of a kind, at least in regards to energy
conservation, or non-conservation.

In that longitudinal force is proportional to velocity v, the free energy
imparted is at least proportional to the average force squared.  This
implies that a near lightspeed current device compared to a current in wire
driven device should produce a factor of about 10^20 more free energy.  The
longitudinal force is similarly symmetrically proportional to the
energizing coil electron velocity v', so large gains are feasible there as
well.  As the velocities v and v' approach c, the factor (h v v')/2c^2
approaches unity, and the longitudinal force on an accelerated particle in
the generator approaches the enormous summation of the combination of
electrostatic potential energy between the accelerating particle and every
energizing particle. Note that this is a volume effect, unlike surface
charge forces utilized in a van deGraff accelerator.  Because Fl is a
function of both speeds v and v', the positive nuclei in permanent magnets,
for example, have no effect, because for them v' = 0, yet all the charges
with unbalanced motion, those responsible for B, are active in the
longitudinal force on every accelerated particle.

If all the above conclusions are correct, an unlimited, non-polluting, and
enormously robust and portable source of power is potentially available
from a longitudinal force based accelerator.

Let us see if we can now glean some understanding of the scalar term:

   h = {cos(V',R) - cos(V,R) cos(V,V')}     (8)

so it can be applied to the longitudinal force equation:

   Fl = v v' (h u0 q q')/(8 Pi r^2)       (9)

repeated over a volume of a magnet, for example, to evaluate the force on a
particle in the vicinity.  If a convenient path can be found then a test
can be devised.

Let us assume we have a cubical magnet volume aligned to the x y and z
axes, consisting of atoms all magnetically aligned in the x direction.  If
we want to analyze the longitudinal force on a particle in space near the
magnet at point p with velocity V, we then can partition the magnet into
small cubic segments and compute the Fl at p for each magnet segment and
sum them.  For each segment we have a vector R from p to the segment.  We
can use q' as the sum of charges of electrons aligned with B in the
segment.  Atoms are small, so the lateral motion of the electrons, changing
R slightly as V' changes direction, can be ignored.

To account for electron orbiting in the magnet, we need to sum (integrate)
the force Fl for each V' over all the 360 degrees of rotation about the
local B vector that is performed by each of the electrons in our charge q'.
For this reason, it would be convenient to look at the special case where
V is aligned with B, so every V' is purpendicular to V and we thus have
cos(V,V') = 0.

When:

   cos(V,V') = 0  for every V'              (16)

we have:

   cos(V,R) cos(V,V') = 0  for every V'        (17)

however, if every R is approximately aligned with B, then also:

   cos(V',R) ~ 1.0 for every V'             (18)

thus:

   h ~ 1.0                         (19)

for every segment in the example magnet.

This implies that there exists a longtitudinal force even in a longitudinal
portion of a permanent magnetic field directly in front of a magnetic pole:


         (e-)--Lf->          N---S          <-Lf--(e-)

This also means that one possible test of this theory is to do calorimetry
on a diode tube both with and without a magnet near the collector plate
with a nearby magnetic pole facing the plate from the back side:


           |    |------------(-)
           |    |
           |    |
           \/\/\/


           ------
              |
              ------------- (+)

           ------
           | N  |
           |    |
           |    |
           |    |
           | S  |
           ------

One alternative is to form a ring of discharge tubes in plane XY and place
on the z axis the vertical tubes - over the center of the ring:

               O -
               |
               |
               O +

           0---OO---O     <---- ring of discharge tubes in plane xy

               O +
               |
               |
               O -

The discharge tubes could be connected in series.  Wiring is not shown as
it is irrelevant to the longitudinal force for large high speed discharges.
Excess energy would show up primarily as heat and radiation at the +
terminals of the z axis tubes.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     MARINOV:ANNUS HORRIBILIS

The following is an excerpt from an ad by Marinov of the same title as
above.  Bold letters (vectors) are changed here to capitals. The partial
derivative symbol is denoted here as  . Note however that the letter
capital S below is a scalar. Pi = 3.14159... and u0 is "mu sub zero."
There are some references here to photos which are not legible to me.

Marinov writes: "The Lorentz equation is wrong.  If there are two electric
charges q, q' moving with velocities V, V' and the vector-distance from q'
to q is R, according to the Lorentz equation the force with which q'V' acts
on qV is given by the following Grassman formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}        (1)

Numerous experiments done by other authors (Hering's experiments are from
the beginning of the century!) and by me showed that the force acting on qV
can not only be transverse to its velocity, as required by (1), but also
longitudinal.  Any rational man when seeing at least one falsifying
experiment rejects the respective formula (Popper), however for thousands
and thousands of Betonkoepfe even hundred experiments were not enough.  In
the photograph there is one such falsifying experiment which (as well as
the other) can be carried out by children: A cylindrical magnet is cut
along one of its axial planes and the one half is turned up-down (the
magnetic forces themselves do the rotation).  Around this magnet, there is
a trough filled with mercury in which the copper ring which can be seen at
right swims (the children take the salt solution and suspend the ring on
threads).  After sending current of some tens of amperes from the battery
at left, which is regulated by the rheostat, the ring begins to rotate.
That's all!"

"The Lorentz-Marinov equation is the right one.  As according to (1) Fg' is
not equal and oppositely directed to Fg, I obtained Marinov formula by the
most simple and natural symmetrization of (1) (take into account that R =
-R')

   Fm = (Fg - Fg')/2

      = (U0 q q')/(8 Pi r^3){V'*R)V + (V*R)V' - 2(V*V')R}     (2)

Proceeding from (2) and assuming phi <> 0,  A/@t <> 0, I obtained the most
simple calculations that the force with which an electric system acts on a
test charge q moving with velocity V is

   F/q = - grad phi -  A/@t + V x B + VS = Eior + V x B + VS    (3)

where phi, A are the electric and magnetic potentials generated by the
system at the point of the charge's location, Bior = rotA is the Lorentz
magnetic intensity, Swhit = -divA/2 is the Whittaker magnetic intensity and


   Bmar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V x V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]   (4)

   Smar = -(u0/(8 Pi)) integral[ q'(V * V')(R*V)/ (v^2 r^3) ]

are the Marinov vector and scalar magnetic intensities.  B = Bior + Bmar is
called the vector magnetic intensity and S = Swit + Smar is called the
scalar magnetic intensity, (3) is called the Lorentz-Marinov equation.  If
neglecting the last term and under B we understand Bior, we obtain the
Lorentz equation which I call the Lorentz-Grassman equation.  That's the
whole theory!"

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 22:31:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA14248;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:18:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:18:57 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980324001820.008d0470 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:18:20 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: NEW MARINOV THEORY
In-Reply-To: <351743D8.18AA interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"dXZSO2.0.RU3.E1r5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16904
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:25 AM 3/24/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Now, let's review the field directions in Scott's drawing.  Note that
>with his current direction, the FIELD OF THE RING ACTING AS A DOUBLE
>CONDUCTOR will be directed OUT of the page.  Now, if it were free to
>rotate, the magnet assembly would try to rotate CW from the top to
>align its upper B field with that of the ring double conductor.

Ha! (laughing WITH you Frank).  You've got the directions reversed.  The
mag assy will rotate so that it's field tries to cancel the B produced by
the ring.  (If you doubt this, simply bring 1 bar magnet towards another
identical bar magnet and watch what happens).  Thus your "magnetic"
analysis predicts the same direction of rotation as the radial current
analysis (at least with the exterior brushes)....but for different and more
compelling reasons.

I think you may have really hit the nail on the head here, Frank.  The
effect you have found would not depend upon ring thickness at all!

BTW, George, get wonderfully small bearings from either Stock Drive (Long
Island, NY) or Small Parts (Florida).









>Note that UNDER THE RING DOUBLE CONDUCTOR, the current B will be
>directed INTO the page and the bottom portion of the magnet assembly
>would want to rotate CW from the top to align with it!  Hey, top and
>bottom - both CW from the top view!
>And, the circuit - in this case, the ring, - would experience a
>counter-torque CCW from the top.  Just because we let the ring rotate
>under the brushes doesn't change the fact that it's just a ring-shaped
>double conductor that is under a mutual torque-counter torque from
>a couple of magnetic regions that act like a compass needle forced
>to lie parallel to a current when they really want to align ACROSS
>the current direction parallel to the current B.
>
>Thus, Stenger predicts that my ring will rotate CCW from the top in
>Scott's sketch and not CW as Scott correctly predicted using the
>radial current theory of Marinov torque.  I further predict that the
>detailed method of brushing the current into the ring, be it outside,
>inside, one outside - one inside, will have almost zero effect on the
>torque of the motor.
>As a side note here, this is not the only motor that is a bear to
>explain from the  J X B point of view.  Try a synchronous AC machine
>with a permanent magnet rotor.  But if you try, Maxwell and Lorentz
>will do the job, IMHO.
>
>To summarize I think the mysterious Marinov motor torque is caused by
>the same effect that causes a compass needle to align with the B
>field of a near-by conductor - that B field being at right angles to
>the current direction.  So get over the details of the brush-ring
>region of the motors - GET THE BIG PICTURE OF THE OVERALL B FIELD OF THE
>RING AS JUST A DOUBLE CONDUCTOR AND NOTE THAT THE MARINOV MAGNET IS
>JUST TRYING TO ALIGN ITSELF WITH THE TOP AND BOTTOM B FIELDS OF THIS
>CONDUCTOR!
>
>Stenger has spoken - I retire to await the onslaught of contrary
>opinions.  AND, I must finish my Marinov motor.
>
>And, thanks Hank and George for your MARINOV MADNESS comments.
>
>Frank Stenger
>
Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 23 22:58:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA16319;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 22:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803240357.VAA15234 endeavor.flash.net>
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: A friend needs help...
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:11:05 -0600
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: <"UPjVP3.0.v-3.7Zr5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16905
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Mark & Jay!

I have a file on a desktop cold fusion experiment you can do with a
nickel...it ain't quite the same thing but it does show an interesting heat
anomaly...I'll see where the file is and get back to you....very simple,
very cheap and with measurable results.

----------
> From: Mark A. Collins <themacman macsrule.com>
> To: vortex-l eskimo.com
> Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com
> Subject: A friend needs help...
> Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 1:10 PM
> 
> A kid who goes to my church asked me to post a question to this list
> since he's seen some of the very cool discussion that go on. I wasn't
> sure where to find the info he wanted, and I'm not even sure it's
> releasable, but I'll ask for him anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark A. Collins
> themacman macsrule.com
> 
> =====================================
> 
> 
> Hi! My name is Jay Garrett. I'm a 9th grader at a school in California.
> I read an article on Cold Fusion in Popular Science (September 93, if I
> remember correctly), and I wanted to see if I could make a small scale
> reactor like Pons & Fleischmann did in 1989... I read Dr. Eugene
> Mallove's book Fire from Ice, and was wondering if someone could help me
> find out specifics for the reactor like voltages, materials, etc. The
> Popular Science article mentioned CF from normal water using a pourous
> nickel cathode and Potassium Carbonate for the salting agent...
> 
> I would really be grateful for any help you could give me!
> 
> Thanks a million!
> 
> 
> Jay Garrett
> jaygarrett hotmail.com
> 
> "...the choice is still yours. You must decide between Gaia
> and The Foundation." -- R. Daneel Olivaw
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 23:22:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA23000;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:08:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:08:59 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:05:08 GMT
Message-ID: <351b5a6e.7007742 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <54dc7992.35173fdf aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <54dc7992.35173fdf 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: <"jloNv2.0.Hd5.9mr5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16906
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:08:45 EST, VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com> wrote:

>  In a steady state closed system of H2 gas at a known pressure, 
>if a hydrino reaction does occur, (the H atoms shrink) should not the 
>pressure of the system show a decrease?

Not really.  The volume of the molecules is pretty small compared to the
volume of a gas except at very high pressures.  See Van der Waals
equations for more details.

The change in pressure will be mainly due to changes in temperature.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 23 23:40:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA21157;
	Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:38:15 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <bafcbb4c.3517625d aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 02:35:55 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"ClflY.0.PA5.ZBs5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16907
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-24 02:21:00 EST, you write:

> Not really.  The volume of the molecules is pretty small compared to the
>  volume of a gas except at very high pressures.  See Van der Waals
>  equations for more details.
>  
>  The change in pressure will be mainly due to changes in temperature.
>  
>  -- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

Maybe I didn't phrase this correctly. Will the pressure change if, in a pure
H2 
atmosphere in a know volume, if *all* the H atoms were shrunk to their
ultimate radius ( Mill says the end up as soft x-rays) , so that you end up
with _no_ H at all in the volume? 

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
las Vegas

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 01:22:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA29672;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 01:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 01:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b13d05d0e499 [199.237.131.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:25:07 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: NEW MARINOV THEORY
Resent-Message-ID: <"7fhFK1.0.VF7.Pht5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16908
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:25 AM 3/24/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>Thus, Stenger predicts that my ring will rotate CCW from the top in
>Scott's sketch and not CW as Scott correctly predicted using the
>radial current theory of Marinov torque.  I further predict that the
>detailed method of brushing the current into the ring, be it outside,
>inside, one outside - one inside, will have almost zero effect on the
>torque of the motor.
>As a side note here, this is not the only motor that is a bear to
>explain from the  J X B point of view.  Try a synchronous AC machine
>with a permanent magnet rotor.  But if you try, Maxwell and Lorentz
>will do the job, IMHO.

Excellent analysis Frank!  It appears you accidentally exchanged the words
for the current direction "right to left" vs "left to right" at the
beginning, but your other directions all look good, at least to me, and
your arrows are right, provided the motor's N pole faces to the right.
Scott's drawing <http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif> shows
(+) to the left and (-) to the right, so his current flow is left to right
there.  It looks like your prediction is right on about being able to
reverse the brushes though, and that is highly disappointing for free
energy, which gives you an even much higher probability of being right
IMHO!

Thus far, the only thing I've managed to come close to showing about the
Marinov motor itself is that, unless I made a mistake, it should not work
even by Marinov's formula, due to the force being too small. On the other
hand, Marinov's equation shows some interesting posibilities in the near
light speed regime - thus giving *me* a high probability of having made a
mistake for the same reson you have a high probability of being correct!


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 03:17:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA09923;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <002301bd5714$99f3dc20$628cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: GUT 2000 by April 1st?
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:04:16 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"dip2D3.0.yQ2.LJv5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16910
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The Principle of Complimentarity, or The Correspondence Principle:

"When a new, more specialized theory is put forth,it must reduce to the more
general
(and usually simpler) theory (s) under normal circumstances."

I think that the Vortex L List discussions have accomplished just that!

Hot and Cold Fusion, Partially charged "Quarks" and Superstring Theory, etc.

All wrapped up by All Fools Day?  :-)

Regards,   Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 03:37:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA12549;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:32:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b13d4363109c [12.64.4.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 01:30:18 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Marinov motor solution?
Resent-Message-ID: <"D7ENj3.0.y33.Ndv5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16911
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vorts -

I wish I could understand the solution offered here where the more or less
homogenous magnetic field of the whole split-conductor/ring wants to align
itself with the magnetic fields from the magnets. How does the torque from
that get applied to the ring itself? If that's what actually happens then
fine; but even then, to me it still looks like a force longitudinal to the
current in the ring, or at least torsional with it, has to do the work. B,
I, and F all have to be orthogonal, and I still can't see that.

With the radial current idea almost certainly dead, I end up wondering how
in the world some B pointing any which way you want can end up applying
torque to the ring. I hate to be the one slowing the list down here, but
somebody has to bring up the rear, so please bear with me.<g>

Could somebody please explain in small words where the I X B is in the
geometry of this solution?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 03:59:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA15480;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <35174904.14FC1A4 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:47:48 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, but weird? (With small correction)
References: <v01530504b13af8b480b3 [199.237.131.239]>
	 <3.0.5.32.19980322200512.008c5b00 mail.eden.com> <3.0.1.32.19980323125553.00b376f8@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rky2f2.0.mn3.y-v5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16912
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
 
At 07:11 3/23/98 +0000, Taylor J. Smith wrote:
 
Based on Horace Heffner's recent posts, would
you modify your expression for the
"force vectors F" ?
 
 I'd like to, Jack, but I can't see how, yet.....:(
 
 Can you help?
 
Hi Scott,

I'm still digesting the Phipps article, and
Horace is definitely overloading my circuits
with his fascinating ideas.  If I can help,
it will take me a while.  Greg Watson knows
a lot about fields.  I wonder if he would be 
willing to contribute.

Jack Smith

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 04:22:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02276;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:10:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:10:01 -0800
Message-ID: <3517A0CC.66C1 skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:02:20 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
References: <3.0.1.32.19980311224044.00be1ab0 spectre.mitre.org>								
	 <35085C84.2D04 skylink.net> <v03007800b12e4469dcf2@[198.133.146.230]>				
	  <350934D5.666F skylink.net> <35094F72.3B09@interlaced.net>		
	 <v03007804b12f876ac05c [198.133.146.230]> <350B076C.59B6@skylink.net>		
	 <350C0B9F.7505 interlaced.net> <v03007800b13314113c7d@[198.133.146.230]>
	 <v03007800b133265c8899 [198.133.146.230]> <v03007808b13c653b9d74@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"77W0R3.0.TZ.MAw5r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16913
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
> The dA/dt force, of which  v dot grad A  is a part, does indeed describe a
> component of force that can be parallel to charged particle motion. THis is
> not a violation of Lorentz force,  f = q(E + v cross B), but a part of it,
> because dA/dt is part of what all the rest of us call E.  

OK good. We agree there is a longitudinal force on a moving charge 
entering or leaving a magnetic field -- given by q(v dot del)A. The term 
(v dot del A) has the dimensions of an electrical field, just as the 
(v cross B) term has the dimensions of an electrical field. I suppose we 
can say it is already extant in the Lorentz force equation -- incorporated
in the term E. But is it? Where do we find this induced electric field 
(v dot del)A, anywhere in Maxwells equations?

Also it is interesting to note that if you take two separate current
elements moving in line, calculate the A field of one, and in the 
laboratory frame calculate the induced E field on the other, you will
get one-half the value the Lorentz force which would exist if they 
were moving in parallel -- exactly the Longitudinal "magnetic" 
force determined to exist empirically by Ampere.  

> BTW, that article
> in the last IE that followed Kooistra's article, purporting to correct EM
> theory, is wrong, because it starts off with faulty vector analysis to go
> from the macroscopic form of EM equations to the microscopic or
> differential equation form. The error has to do with treatment of  v dot
> term.

I hope when you get some time you can point specifically to the error in
Phipp's paper. It looks to me that what he has essentially done is to
incorporate the (v dot del)A term into Maxwell's equations simply by 
using the full time derivative rather than partial time derivatives.
It makes good sense to me.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 05:10:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21841;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:56:08 -0500
From: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Sender: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "vortex-L eskimo.com" <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199803240756_MC2-37C3-80AD 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 FAA21817
Resent-Message-ID: <"0wcbF.0.6L5.fyw5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16914
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Attempting to understand something I read about Schauberger's "trout
turbine".  The description used is that the water inrush is "analagous to
the hyperbolic centripetal spiral movement".

I posted the question on the Science/Math Forum but it clearly has them
stumped.

I now understand the terms in isolation, but no-one appears to be able to
relate them as an overall concept.

Any offers?

Regards
Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 06:20:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03787;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 06:08:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 06:08:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b13d6a5e3917 [12.64.4.145]>
In-Reply-To: <199803240756_MC2-37C3-80AD compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:53:54 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"jD6z11.0.4x.sux5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16915
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Soo -

   >  The description used is that the water inrush is
   >  "analagous to the hyperbolic centripetal spiral
   >  movement".

Sounds like a description of water going down the drain to me.

What's a trout turbine? In this country, most of our trout are still diesel
powered.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 07:19:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16089;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b13d7c82b1d1 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 06:16:28 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Resent-Message-ID: <"wLNF6.0.Gx3.lry5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16916
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:35 AM 3/24/98, VCockeram wrote:

>Maybe I didn't phrase this correctly. Will the pressure change if, in a pure
>H2
>atmosphere in a know volume, if *all* the H atoms were shrunk to their
>ultimate radius ( Mill says the end up as soft x-rays) , so that you end up
>with _no_ H at all in the volume?



Vince,

The gas pressure will not be measureably reduced due to the atomic volume
(the size of the atom) being reduced.  Remeber that the idealgas laws
assume a molecule to be a point, so you can't get any smaller than that!

That said, it is not known what will happen because there is no data on
hydrino diffusion.  If glass, quartz, copper, or most important, your
seals, are vulnerable to hydino diffusion, then the gass volume will
quickly reduce.

In earlier posts I extolled the possible virtues of Br as a hydrino
creation catalyst.  This was partially due to the fact that many years ago
I had heard anecdotes about an unexplained H diffusion from HBr ampules
which were sealed by melting the glass neck.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 08:24:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25512;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3517D7BA.37BA interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:56:42 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: George - MARINOV MADNESS
References: <01bd56b8$8d81b0e0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com> <35174B3D.6430@interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"O4o6f3.0.YE6.hcz5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16917
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:
> 
> George Holz wrote:
> >
> (snip some good comments)
> 
> > Wish I had your low torque bearings, can you suggest a source
> > from which to purchase some.
> 
> Not really, George, but let me look thru my junk boxes to see what I
> have in inventory - 

Hey, George, I happen to have a shaft-and-bearings set as follows:
	> One, 1/4 inch dia. stainless steel, non-magnetic shaft
	> Each end of the shaft is bored and tapped for an 8-32 screw
	> There are two bearings on the shaft - both 0.2 inch thick
	  and 5/8 inch OD.
	> The bearings are retained on the shaft with two snap rings
	  each (4 total).
	> There is 1/2 inch of free shaft at one end, and about 13/32
	  inch of free shaft at the other end.
The bearings are low loss ball bearings and would fit into a 5/8 inch
hole for mounting.  The shaft and bearings only weighs 35 grams so,
if you want them, send me a mailing address and I'll get them off to
you.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 09:10:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04515;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980324102817.00b3dc88 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:28:17 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor solution?
In-Reply-To: <l03102801b13d4363109c [12.64.4.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KmK1K2.0.R61.HT-5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16918
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:30 3/24/98 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote:

>Could somebody please explain in small words where the I X B is in the
>geometry of this solution?

Darnit, Rick.  If you had just kept quiet, we could've blissfully stumbled
along thinking we understood it finally....<g>

I agree that there must be a way to use I X B to "see" the same result...or
something is wrong...

I don't see it yet.....:(

Scott

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 09:13:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05032;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3517D415.2C33 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:41:09 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: MARINOV  MADE SIMPLE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GVg1-2.0.XE1.oW-5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16919
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

When I wrote my Marinov torque theory, it was very late and I may have
had some holes in my exposition due to sleep deprivation.  So, here
goes again.

My theory of Marinov torque simply says that it is identical to the
basic effect that causes a compass needle to align ACROSS a nearby
wire carrying a steady DC current.  See below:

	compass needle under torque> -------------->
	----------------------------|--------------|-------> current
				    A	   	   B


Now, we all know that in the above situation, the needle would exert
a small torque ON THE WIRE'S MAGNETIC FIELD and that if we let it turn,
it would rotate CW from the top to point out at us.
If you don't believe this, try it!  Hang a bar magnet (needle) on
two strings, run a #12 wire under it, flow 10 or 20 amps of current
thru the wire and see the bar magnet try to rotate to lie NORMAL to the
wire!  Congratulations, you have just made a Marinov motor limited to
a turn angle of several degrees!

Now, in the above sketch, the wire segment between points A and B must
be under a CCW torque (from the top) as a mutual reaction against the
compass needle.  If we cut the wire at A and B but maintained the
conduction path with a blob of Hg at each cut, the wire segment A,B
would try to rotate so that A came at us, and B away from us.
I'm assuming here that we have fixed the needle to ground so that it
cannot rotate.  Soon, the circuit would break and the current would
stop.  But, suppose we had a bunch of wires mounted like spokes of a
wheel on a vertical shaft under the magnet.  As soon as one segment
of wire rotates away from contact, another segment takes its place and
is, in turn, forced to rotate out of line... and so on and so on.
Hey, let's just replace the rotating spokes with a copper disk and
replace the blobs of Hg with brushes - eureka! a rotating motor.
But, we are wasting the magnetic field UNDER the wire, so, lets put
a second needle (bar magnet) below the wire pointing its B opposite
to the one above.  This magnet will cause an additional torque to add
to the other one.
I have not studied this in detail, yet, but it looks like if we consider
the magnetic flux from the ends of the bar magnets crossing the
conductor (now a rotating disk) we might have a kind of "bipolar"
motor with current flowing from disk rim (A) to center through the
up-pointing magnet flux on the left, and from center to rim (B) through
the down-pointing flux on the right.
It seems that this effect works just fine if you cut out the center of
the disk and make a ring out of it.  Then, you can stick the magnetic
circuit thru the rotating ring and we have a Marinov motor kind of
thing!
I'm beginning to see this effect pretty good in my own head, but I
think we need to have a serious exchange of viewpoints here to clarify
the big picture.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 11:10:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20434;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:40:32 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: MARINOV MADNESS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0nZ43.0.1_4.t__5r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16920
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

Forgive me for not responding to direct posts here, but it's a time of
creativity dammit!  I'll try to read all directed to me.

Well, my Marinov motor, in the configuration shown on Scott's sites,

	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
and
	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif

DOES NOT WORK, - at least with currents of (guessing) 20 to 30 amps.
If I had ZERO bursh drag, maybe I could see something but the brush
drag dominates the friction by far.
Maybe my magnets are not strong enough (Radio Shack ceramics) or maybe
I have them in the wrong configuration.

I'm going to play with the magnet configuration a bit to see if I can
get ANY ROTATION AT ALL.  If this fails, I thought I would pause and
maybe run some experiments to try to clarify my compass-needle-near-a
-conductor theory.  I thought I might:

	1. Mount a strong bar magnet with its length horizontal,
	   fastened to the lower end of a vertical shaft.
	2. Run a heavy conductor (#12 copper or so) in a horizontal
	   line under the magnet shaft.
	3. Run 40 or 50 amps thru the wire and check that the magnet
	   will orient itself across the wire if started parallel to
	   the wire.  This much is high-school physics but I want to
	   get a solid base point.
	4. If I get a good reorientation with the straight wire, then
	   I will replace the portion of the wire near the magnet with
	   a copper ring with the wire connected to each end of a single
	   diameter of the ring.  Repeat the current test to see if
	   the magnet action is about the same.  If it is, then I
	   guess we can conclude that the ring must be subjected to
	   a counter torque - do you agree?

Back to the labor-a-tory - ha ha ha, hee hee hee ..........

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 11:46:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA27631;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13dbac55296 [199.237.131.225]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:37:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: GUT 2000 by April 1st?
Resent-Message-ID: <"7BMch3.0.bl6.Gj06r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16921
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:04 AM 3/24/98, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>The Principle of Complimentarity, or The Correspondence Principle:
>
>"When a new, more specialized theory is put forth,it must reduce to the more
>general
>(and usually simpler) theory (s) under normal circumstances."
>
>I think that the Vortex L List discussions have accomplished just that!
>
>Hot and Cold Fusion, Partially charged "Quarks" and Superstring Theory, etc.
>
>All wrapped up by All Fools Day?  :-)
>
>Regards,   Frederick


I don't know about a GUT Fred, but I can guarantee I'll have a fully
generalized  gut by then.  8^)

Ah yes, April 1st, anniversary of the SMOT.  What a day, what a play!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 12:19:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA03418;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:08:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:08:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980324135921.00b3dfd0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:59:21 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
In-Reply-To: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"KIj6z1.0.Dr.xA16r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16922
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 13:40 3/24/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Well, my Marinov motor....DOES NOT WORK.

As was suggested earlier, try removing the Fe plates (taped the magnet
stacks together or something). That'll give you a lot more leakage flux.
The design apparently RELIES upon leakage flux....not a very efficient
usage of the magnetic material.



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 Mar 24 12:59:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA09956;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:45:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:24:46 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5762$e3585370$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"TU6aV3.0.UR2.ej16r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16923
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



Frank Stenger wrote:
>Vortexians:

>
>Well, my Marinov motor, in the configuration shown on Scott's sites,
>
>DOES NOT WORK, - at least with currents of (guessing) 20 to 30 amps.
>If I had ZERO bursh drag, maybe I could see something but the brush
>drag dominates the friction by far.
>Maybe my magnets are not strong enough (Radio Shack ceramics) or maybe
>I have them in the wrong configuration.
>
>I'm going to play with the magnet configuration a bit to see if I can
>get ANY ROTATION AT ALL. 

Hi Frank,
Do not worry about the theory yet, make the experiment as much
like the previous Marinov motors as possible and get it
rotating first.
I suggest first removing the steel bars at the top and bottom of
the magnet stacks. If this is not enough, you need shorter
magnets to increase the torque. Have you tried giving the 
ring a small shock to break the brush static friction.
Jeff has successfully used #24 bare copper wire for brushes.
With 20 amps you should have reasonable torque with the
right magnet configuration.
Thanks for offering the shaft/bearing assembly. I'm going to
check the local hobby stores first to see if I can do
something quickly. I've already sent for the two
catalogs Scott recommended. ( thanks for the info. Scott )

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 13:07:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11146;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:55:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199803241955.LAA10565 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: Cool STM site to see the wave nature of atoms, STM images.
Resent-Message-ID: <"qLoLV.0.2k2.3r16r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16924
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

http://www-i.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 13:14:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11638;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:53:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199803241953.LAA10423 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: Equivalency, the Achille's Heel of QM and GR
Resent-Message-ID: <"NYWHm2.0.hr2.5u16r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16925
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Equivalency, the Achille's Heel of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity:
By Ross Tessien
March 24, 1998

 I predict that within 10 years (before 2008), someone will win a Nobel
 Prize when they derive the equations of quantum mechanics using a string
theory that reject the present notion that mass and energy are equivalent.
In any logical aether theory, aether must be conserved, and, the amount of
aether associated with a "particle wave", is, the "mass" of that particle
wave. Rejecting "Equivalency", will eliminate a wide variety of mysterious
phenomena from astrophysical observations, by showing where our ***present
theories***, and NOT our present **observations**, are incorrect.  

We have observed the anomalies, but we do not presently believe our eyes,
because we do not know what to substitute in place of our theories such that
our predictions are improved, and match our astrophysical observations.  The
error lies in our belief that mass and energy are equivalent, they
absolutely cannot be in any rational aether based universe.  And, they
absolutely will not ever be in any string theory that unifies GR and QM
because multi dimensional string vibrations ARE, simple multi dimensional
wave resonances.  

The notion of strings simply appeases the present belief that there is no
need for a rational understanding of structure at scales smaller than are
supposed to be "knowable" according to QM's "Uncertainty Principle".  But QM
teaches that this uncertain behavior is a property of the particles
themselves, and ignores the role of the quantum vacuum, or more correctly,
QM ignores the role of wave energy in the quantum vacuum which originated
from matter resonances in distant parts of the universe.  We think that
"empty space", is indeed empty, rather than an ocean.

Thus, rather than simply thinking that like Brownian motion where fine dust
particles are jostled around by the water in which they are immerssed, that
particles are really waves immersed in an ocean of aether, we instead think
that particles are some knowledgeable, mysterious, quantum mechanical beasts
in charge of their own destiny, and out to confound humans.  This
attribution of properties to matter is frankly, absurd.  We do so in
ignorance of the role of the rest of the universe, as Mach tried in vain to
point out.

The instant you include the whole universe in the role of events here, and
now, accounting for the time delay for the waves to have arrived from
distant parts of the universe, and allowing them to be out of frequency
match and attenuated due to the normal 1/R^2 reduction in wave amplitude, we
find that the waves from the distant universe normally play a minor role in
our local spacetime waves, and matter behaviors.  However, it becomes clear
that we must consider not only local phase interactions of solitons, but as
well, the cumulative effect of frequency interference of distantly emitted
waves.

When we do this, we learn that we can account for, and anticipate, the
existence of 5 forces.  Nuclear strong, weak, electric, gravity, and
cosmological.  These arise from soliton to soliton phase interference,
soliton exchange into and out of composite solitonic structures, soliton to
spacetime to soliton phase interactions, frequency interference filtering,
and aether emission, respectively.

The fact that we believe that mass and energy are equivalent, has resulted
in our present theories failing to anticipate the cosmological thrust
imparted upon the rest of the universe as two particles fuse, emit aether,
and push the rest of the universe away from that local, normally, away from
the interior of stars.  The flow of aether out of stars is what we are
failing to account for, and so we think our sun is supported by the energy
released, and that it has a mass of what we have come to call, one solar
mass.  But, if correct, then the aether model tells us that we are missing
half of the outward thrust when we account only for the thrust imparted by
the heated particles, and fail to realize that the aether of the ocean we
live in is also flowing outward.

Thus, our sun, must have a mass of 2 solar masses, according to the number
of grams assigned to the term, "solar mass".  

But, both the gravitational inward thrust, and the outward cosmological
thrust, are point symmetric, and follow the same reduction in intensity.  So
we have never noticed the existence of this buried effect.  However, when we
look at assymetric distributions of stars (ie galactic circular velocities
etc leading to the dark matter problem), or assymetric temporal aether flow
(ie right after ignition of stars, ergo T-tauri and Flare stars), in every
case we find that our gravitational theories and our QM application to
things we see, confound us and fail to match our expectations based on our
present theories.

The error is buried so deep in our present theories, that no sane physicist
would dare conceive of supposing that Equivalency is incorrect.  The fact
is, if it is incorrect, then the mass must be emitted, and therefore it must
exist as aether.  But today we believe that the Michelson Morley experiment
proved that aether did not exist.  This is nonsense.  It proved there is no
wind that blows light around whipping past the surface of the planet earth,
nothing more nothing less.

In that experiment, they believed that their apparatus was made of matter,
one thing, and that light would be blown lateraly by aether, a different
thing.  When you replace "particle" by "vortex resonance in aether", this is
no longer a valid assumption.  When you replace "particle" by "multi
dimensional vibrating strings", this is again, no longer a valid assumption.
But strings are a silly notion to use for 4 space.  Vibrating aether gives
you multidimensional vibrations automatically, in a logical manner.

It also demands, however, that fusion reactions result in an emission of
that medium, and that this bulk flow curve spacetime away from the
exothermic region.  It is this as yet unknown spacetime curvature that is
not accounted for which confounds astro physicists time and again every time
they get into studying the details of how stellar systems behave, and how
individual stars behave including our sun.  The first evidence that is tied
directly to the expansion of the universe is the recent supernova
observations which indicate that the universe is accelerating in it's
expansion.  

This, however, fails to identify the origin of the expansive thrust.  ie, it
doesn't identify the origin of the action to induce the acceleration, and
instead simply notes the expansion to exist.  It is thus believed that the
quantum vacuum energy density did it, magically.  There is no reason to
expect this to occur based on present theories.  But if you consider the
solitonic model, not only do you expect it, if it were not there then I
would say there is no aether.

If black holes did not have jets, if new born stars did not blast jets out
of the axis of rotation, if old stars did not shed planetary nebulae after
ceasing to blow their gases away and accumulating a "fog bank" of ions and
atoms when they became red giants, then I would say that the aether model is
incorrect.  But since each of these things exist, I must say that I am
convinced that the aether model is correct, and that our present idea that
mass and energy are equivalent is instead incorrect.

For the past several years, I have been studying the ramifications of a very
simple assumption.  It has always bothered me that there could exist any
such thing as a force of attraction such as gravitation, nuclear strong, or
electric attractive forces.  I made the assumption that there exist in
nature, no intrinsic tensile means of transferring action

It turns out to be possible to have things "apparently" attract one another,
but the attractions are due to wave interference's and precession of the
solitonic waveforms, and not some "tensile" force field exchanged between
particles, as is presently believed.  Thus effectively, what we think of as
a particle, plus a force field, had to be replaced with a "resonant" wave
structure in 4D.  These are essentially solitonic resonance's, and it turned
out that Thomson (Kelvin) had studied a very similar standing wave
structures, pulsating spheres, in the 1870's (as I later learned).

Thomson, however, knew nothing of sub atomic physics, neutrons, protons or
fusion, and thus "mass to energy conversion".  I am convinced that our
belief that the property of the universe that corresponds to "mass", is NOT
equivalent to the property of the universe which corresponds to "energy".

In this model, it turns out that the logical property of an aether soliton
universe which matches our property "mass", is the amount of aether
associated with the density gradient of that soliton.

In other words, the solitonic model replaces our present notion of particle
and fields with the single dynamic geometric resonance in the medium, and
there is a density gradient associated with that resonance, and thus the
mass of the particle becomes a measure of that local density gradient minus
the amount of aether that would have been there if there had only been
"spacetime" wave structures in the region of the "particle".

This, is not in accord with Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity because
in those theories, it is assumed that mass is not a conserved property of
the universe.  In the aether model, aether must be conserved, and so
implicitly mass must also be conserved, and what we think of as empty space
must be an ocean of that aether, buzzing in a variety of topologies.
Therefore in stars, where it is believed that mass is disappearing, aether
must instead be spewing forth, and inducing gravitational like interactions
which we are not presently accounting for.

That result, I now am positive, is the root of the vast majority of the
"mysterious" phenomena associated with astro physics.  From the moment stars
first ignite, until they run out of hydrogen fuel, jets, flaring, coronal
heating, coronal mass ejection's, dark matter around galaxies, and most
recently, cosmological expansive accelerations confound researchers and defy
explanation via application of GR and QM.

The converse is true too, aether must be flowing into black holes and
condensing.  Thus, a singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole
does not pull stuff inward.  Rather, aether is flowing in and due to
spherical convergence, attains a velocity c at the event horizon.  At that
radius, the aether has enough KE to induce itself to condense (inertially
confined hydraulic jump) at some smaller radius, and thus there must exist
an inertially confined core inside of the event horizon.

To my knowledge, no other aether theorist presently associates "amount of
aether", with "mass".  Thus, no other aether theorist anticipates the above
phenomena.  I have compiled a very large number of examples of phenomena we
have observed, and which confound our researchers.  These are easily
understood in terms of aether conservation.  All four forces we know of are
unified (Electro weak are phase angle interactions, and gravitation is a
frequency interference interaction).  

G thus becomes not a measure of how hard matter pulls on other matter, but
rather a measure of how hard matter near to other matter is pushed away from
Hubble frequency shifted resonance's of matter in the distant universe.

Additionally, due to the aether emission it turns out that there must be two
ways for matter to gravitate.  The first is due to wave interference, and
the second is due to bulk aether flow, the study of which I named "Aether
Tectonics" as a tongue in cheek descriptive name.  This emission from stars
leads to the expectation that the universe must be open, and that there must
be a cosmological expansive interaction as has recently been established,
tentatively, via supernovae studies.  

I acknowledge that I may be incorrect.  However, if there is basis to the
models I am studying, then our present belief that there exist four and
possibly five force fields, attractive and repulsive forces, etc., are about
as sensible as our old belief that there existed concentric spherical shells
upon which each of the planets rode around the flat earth.  

I am writing a book, and putting up a web site soon so that you can see the
images, and come to understand the ideas I am researching.  I will include
images of the astrophysical observations obtained from Hubble, Anglo
Australian Telescope, VLA, VLBI, SOHO, SOI, and numerous other research
groups.  The book is being illustrated, and I hope to have it ready to
submit to publishers near the end of the summer, 1998.

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 13:14:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12506;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:55:59 -0500
From: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Sender: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199803241056_MC2-37C7-86E2 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 NAA12306
Resent-Message-ID: <"nalFl3.0.F33.Iz16r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16926
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Rick

<What's a trout turbine?>

That appears to have been some kind of working title (I'm only half through
the book) he subsequently gave it the less pretentious name "implosion
machine" (!)  It was apparently based on his observations of how a trout's
gills worked....I think he had a thing about fish.

<water down the drain>

Saucers in the sky, maybe.  Quote from book.....

"If water or air is rotated into a twisting form of oscillation known as
"colloidal", a build up of energy results which, with immense power, can
cause levitation.  This form of movement is able to carry with it its own
means of power generation.  This principle leads logically to its
application in the design of the ideal airplane or submarine...requiring
almost no motive power."

Well, Hitler liked it.

<most of our trout are still diesel powered.>

You mean they gave up surfing???

-Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 13:26:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14500;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3518216C.1BAD interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:11:08 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: MARINOV MADNESS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rmlGE2.0.GY3.AA26r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16928
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Some new results and more thoughts:

I just completed some simple tests all of you can do with minimum
setup.
First, I stuck all 8 of my Radio Shack ceramic magnets together to form
one large bar magnet 3 inches long by one magnet in cross section.
I stretched a #12 solid copper wire across a bench between some uprights
to make a straight run on conductor about 5 feet long.
I mounted the composite bar magnet atop a vertical shaft right under
the wire.  The setup looked like this:

 left support		A			B	right support
 |--------------------->------------------------->--------------------|
	current---->
			NNNNNNNNNNNNXSSSSSSSSSSSS  <-- magnet rest
				    |			position
				    |
				    | <--- shaft and bearings.  The
					   whole rig was tilted about
					   5 degrees to the right and
					   the magnet unbalanced to
	 				   provide a restoring force to
					   the parallel null position.

I passed a current thru the wire in series with a 1 ohm power resistor
to provide a current of about 11 to 12 amp from a 12 volt marine
battery.  As expected, the magnet rotated CW from above (note the pole
locations on the magnet and the current direction) about 45 degrees
from the null.
I then replaced the center portion of the wire with a copper ring made
from 3/8 in. copper tube, so that the wire connections were 180 deg.
apart (on opposite ends of a diameter).  Repeating the first test with
about 11 to 12 amps, it looked about the same as with the straight-thru
wire.
I quickly tapped the wire against the battery terminal WITHOUT THE 1
OHM RESISTOR and the magnet jerked around rapidly and kept spinning as
I broke the circuit.  The ring + wire conductor bucked a lot from the
reaction force.  The total circuit had about 10 feet of #12 wire, so
a resistance of about 0.0162 ohms.  If the battery voltage were still
10 volts or so, the current pulse could have been 500 to 600 amps.
No wonder the vigorous response!
Does anyone doubt that the results would have been the same if I
used a DOUBLE CONDUCTOR WITH THE WIRES ABOUT 4 INCHES APART?
The current would be in the same direction in both wires.  If you guys
think this would be a worthwhile test, I might do it.
As has been mentioned before, the reaction of the straight wire leading
up to the ring on each side is probably important, as the field of the
3" long magnet certainly extended way beyond the 4" dia. copper ring.
A test with a 5 foot long double conductor would be interesting because
all the single-wire parts of the circuit would be far from the magnet
field.

Well, my magnets don't seem to work in a "Marinov configuration" with
my rotor and ring.  I could have too little current (probably no more
than 20 or 30 amp at best with the present brushes) or my magnets may
be too weak.  I might try to arrange the magnets as bar magnets over
and under the ring, parallel to the "brush diameter" of the ring.
But, then, that would not be a Marinov motor, I guess.  Sigh.

I'm suffering from Marinov burnout - I think I'll cool it for a bit
and see what you guys come up with.  :-)
I need to clean up the fabrication-frenzy mess I made in my garage!

Has Vince made any hydrinos yet?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 13:49:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAB02253;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:45:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:45:55 -0800
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:31:16 -0800
Message-Id: <199803242131.NAA20529 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: See Aether Density Gradients with your own two eyes;
Resent-Message-ID: <"mI5GP2.0.jY.Ec26r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16930
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The wave structures you see here are the interference pattern of all of the
solitonic oscillations, aka particles fields, in the local region of
spacetime.  These are aether density gradients in a sense.  Actually,
positive and negative charge are excesses of oscillatory wave energy at 0
and 180 degrees phase angle relative to local spacetime oscillations,
respectively.  So, what you are seeing is the intensity gradient of those
waves combined with the phase angle rotation as the probe moves from a
region with more positive to more negative wave intensities.  (ergo the
propensity for electrons to tunnel goes up or down respectively).

http://www-i.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/images/stm11.jpg

Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 14:01:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA19898;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:44:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007810b13dd14422bc [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:12:26 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"OnI033.0.os4.6b26r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16929
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Stenger wrote:
>Well, my Marinov motor, in the configuration shown on Scott's sites,
>
>	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
>and
>	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/mar-flux.gif
>
>DOES NOT WORK, - at least with currents of (guessing) 20 to 30 amps.
>If I had ZERO bursh drag, maybe I could see something but the brush
>drag dominates the friction by far.
>Maybe my magnets are not strong enough (Radio Shack ceramics) or maybe
>I have them in the wrong configuration.

Kooistra's and Holz' motors have the magnets on the horizontal legs, top
and bottom of the torus. You have yours on the vertical legs. However, the
leakage fields are qualitatively the same either way, as far as I can see
at a glance.

[snip]
>	4. If I get a good reorientation with the straight wire, then
>	   I will replace the portion of the wire near the magnet with
>	   a copper ring with the wire connected to each end of a single
>	   diameter of the ring.  Repeat the current test to see if
>	   the magnet action is about the same.  If it is, then I
>	   guess we can conclude that the ring must be subjected to
>	   a counter torque - do you agree?

No. I claim that a lot of the torque reacts on the two feed wires, and only
a small fraction of the total torque acting on the torus rotor actually
reacts on the ring stator. This is by classical EM. So, a test has to
measure torque on the ring directly.

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 Mar 24 14:07:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA22586;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:58:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b13dd10f59cb [12.64.4.145]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980324102817.00b3dc88 mail.eden.com>
References: <l03102801b13d4363109c [12.64.4.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:12:25 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor solution?
Resent-Message-ID: <"itEQs.0.lW5.0o26r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16931
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott -

   >  Darnit, Rick.  If you had just kept quiet, we
   >  could've blissfully stumbled along thinking we
   >  understood it finally....<g>

Oops, my apologies! I never intended to trip up my fellow stumblers.<g>
Just want to know how this darn thing works.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 14:08:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09393;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:01:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:01:25 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-L" <vortex-L eskimo.com>
Subject: Marinov info from Jeff Kooistra
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:34:06 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5764$30b44ab0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"CRwOY2.0.ZI2.oq26r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16933
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Received from Jeff Kooistra on 3/24/98 at 12:53 PM.

George,
        Hot news--Phipps confirmed that his motor version behaves like any
normal motor in terms of energy usage, so there is back EMF.  Also, I'm
abandoning Wesley's whole view of the "torus."  I think he screwed up and
his love affair with the A field is where the problem lies.  In short,
making a torus like he shows, will yield different results because the
magentic sense inside the torus doesn't mean what he thought it did.  Tell
Vortex guys that the only decent way to duplicate Marinov on the cheap is
to use two vertical bar magnets stuck together, or vertical stacks of
powerful magnets, capped or not, it won't matter much.
        I think I can now explain the motor in qualitative terms with pure
action at a distance current element interactions.  This works to explain
both the normal rotation and the reverse effect with horizontal magnets
attached to vertical steel bars.  This works in all cases, but Lorentz
fails with the lack of force dependency on any radial current element, and
in that it predicts a rotation the reverse of observed when a shell is
used.
************************************************************
>>Frank Stenger has taken up your challenge-<<
        More power to him.  Looks like he's on the right track.  Brushes
are a real bitch problem without using Hg in a pool, and I'm tempted to go
that way, but practicality lies along the way of letting the "torus" go
round and making the ring the stator.
        His ceramic magents are kind of weak I'd think, unless he has more
potent ones than me--my rare earths are damn near impossible to pry apart
with fingers.
>>Michael J. Schaffer<<
        Actually, I sympathize with him--there are a ton of bad theories
out there, starting with Marinov's and Wesley's.  I'm content to show that
Lorentz fails in this little Marinov motor instance--after that, the
theorists can go after the "real" answer at their leisure
        Anyway, thanks George.  Do I have your mailing address?  I can send
you a copy of the next IE article as soon as it's in hand.
Jeff


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 14:09:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10376;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:03:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:03:27 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The New E&M Force, part 1
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:21:16 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd576a$c7cd43b0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"-CF7j3.0.MX2.fs26r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16934
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


I wrote:
>>Michael,
>>I am unsure why the magnetic force term being proposed would have
>>any significant affect on the instruments you mention. These instruments
>>use massive magnets and the particle exits with essentially the same
>>velocity with which it entered. >
Michael Shaffer replied:
>That's my point, it shouldn't. But Stirniman claims there should be a big
>non Lorentz force in this situation.
My point here is that even if there is a large non Lorentz component as
proposed by by Robert Striniman, it would not change the energy of
the particle. It would pick up the energy on exiting that it lost on
entering.
It seems like some effects would be detectable, however, if you were
looking for them.

I wrote:
>>As I understand this, you are saying that
>>the longitudinal force is electrostatic in the frame stationary with
>>respect to the electron where dA/dt is non zero. Doesn't this make
>>it the magnetic from the frame stationary with respect to the lab.
Michael replied:
>dA/dt is time-varying. This is the usual "induction EMF."
>
I agree that from the lab frame, with the magnet making a small
movement in response to the particle, this is the correct
interpretation. However from the point of view of the particle,
it sees a large dA/dt due to it's motion into the magnetic field,
causing Robert's, Ampere's, Phipps' etc.
longitudinal force, which is of course electrostatic in the
particle frame. This force is however magnetic in the lab frame
and represents an additional longitudinal term in the Lorentz
force law. There can be no "induction EMF" in the lab frame
since A is not changing in the lab frame. I think you are using
an electrostatic dA/dt force in the lab frame but denying it
as an electrostatic force in the particle frame.

Michael wrote in response to Kooistra's last report:

>  Which thing rotated? Magnetized torus or ring? If it was the magnetized
>torus, then yes, it should have rotated in the same direction according to
>Lorentz. The TEST is to look for reversed rotation of the Cu ring when it
>is contacted on its inner radius. Longitudinal drag says same direction,
>Lorentz says opposite.

To keep this simple, the ring (foil shell) rotated, and the rotation
direction was
the same whether the brush contact was applied to the inside or outside
of the ring. This is the test you requested.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 14:10:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11262;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:06:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:06:38 -0800
X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13dd207b849 [199.237.131.228]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:50:57 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Elaboration on Frank's Model of Marinov Motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"tCfFO2.0.dl2.Zv26r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16935
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Given a Marinov motor:

                           ^              -----> Fy
   Q4                      |  Iy
                           |              ^
                       <---         Q1    |
         X X X X          Ix              |Fx
           ------                         |
       O  /      \ X X X
         / O    X \  X    X
   XX O |        X |     X X X X
(-)---->| O        |<------------(+)
   OO O |        X |    O O O O O
         \      X /  X
       O  \ O    / X
           ------ O
         O O O
                           ^              ---> Fy
                           |  Iy
    Q3                     |              |
                       ---->       Q2     v
                         Ix               Fx


  O - magnetic field out of page (N pole below page, S pole above)
  X - magnetic field into page (S pole above page, N pole below)
  Qi - Quadrant number

Current is right to left.

B is strongest in quadrant Q1 and Q3 due to the effect of the B field
associated with each leg of the ring (and brush wires) upon the neighboring
quadrant.  In the above configuration, the ring will rotate counter
clockwise, regardless of brush position, inside or outside the ring.  This
is because the I x B forces are largest in quadrants 1 and 3 (I here taken
to be the vector il).

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 14:16:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA22673;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:58:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b13dd5a36d08 [12.64.37.14]>
In-Reply-To: <199803241056_MC2-37C7-86E2 compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:41:27 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"YXMYV.0.zX5.Mo26r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16932
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Soo -

  > Well, Hitler liked it.

Geez, what sort of stuff *have* you been reading lately, Soo?!

I've always had a bit of interest in Schauberger's notions because some of
them seem like they could be reduced to practice fairly easily, but I'm
still a bit leery of the far fringe - where, IMHO, Schauberger's theories
live. If I stir my coffee, does the liquid rise a bit near the sides of the
cup because of antigravitational force arising from the vortex?

Naw, but seriously...water is one of if not the most magical of substances,
and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it had some astonishing properties
most of us haven't even imagined yet let alone understand. Soo, this is
kindergarten here. We're trying to figure out a simple little electric
spinner ring with some magnets in it, and we're having a damn hard time
doing it. Now you want we should explain water-based UFO drives to you? Ask
again in 300,000 years or so when our brains have had a chance to catch up
a bit. My credit cards might just be about paid off by then too, and I
could afford to buy some H2O for the experiments.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 15:20:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05652;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351837C1.6259 skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:46:25 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
References: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"JQuGg1.0.CO1.mn36r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16936
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> maybe I could see something but the brush
> drag dominates the friction by far.

Brush connections should not be needed to demonstrate this effect.
Maybe get rid of brushes entirely. Split the conductor ring into  
two c-shape parts, and tape and balance a couple of batteries and 
small resistors on each side of the ring, minimizing battery lead 
length to connect directly across each of the splits. If the motor 
works as advertised, it should rotate. If motion is due to the 
longitudinal force, the motor should operate just as well if the 
source of current is allowed to rotate with the ring. 

Reversing the magnetic core should reverse the direction of rotation.
Reversing the direction of current should reverse the direction of
rotation. Removing the magentic core should eliminate rotation. 

There is no way that leakage flux can contribute to a longitudinal
rotational force in the ring. The Lorentz force due to leakage flux,
no matter how much flux, or any asymmetry in leakage flux, is always
transverse to the direction of current flow. 

There is a question of whether a Lorentz force which might rotate the
ring is introduced at the point of contact of current between the brushes 
and ring. Eliminating brushes would serve to eliminate this question. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 17:08:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02534;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:01:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:01:14 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b13e017b8426 [12.64.37.14]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b13dd207b849 [199.237.131.228]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:36:45 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Elaboration on Frank's Model of Marinov Motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"fVWxS2.0.lc.IT56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16938
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  This is because the I x B forces are largest in
   >  quadrants 1 and 3 (I here taken to be the vector il).

I still can't see where the force from any I X B works with any of its
components tangental to the ring so as to propel it around. All the force
vectors I can visualize here are only radial, unless some current in the
ring is radial. Where am I going wrong?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 17:08:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03611;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:03:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:03:25 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980324180043.00b40b74 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:00:43 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "vortex-L" <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov info from Jeff Kooistra
In-Reply-To: <01bd5764$30b44ab0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"BcHMn1.0.st.KV56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16939
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 15:34 3/24/98 -0500, George Holz wrote:

>Received from Jeff Kooistra on 3/24/98 at 12:53 PM.
>
>George,
>        Hot news--Phipps confirmed that his motor version behaves like any
>normal motor in terms of energy usage, so there is back EMF.

Back EMF yet!....and you guys still think it's not a Lorentz
engine!?...(sigh)  

Hey Frank, here's the answer to your brush problems:  DRIVE your ring with
an external motor and see how much power your Marinov GENERATOR can produce!



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 Mar 24 17:09:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02440;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:01:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:01:04 -0800
Message-ID: <35183AE0.684C skylink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:59:44 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
CC: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
References: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net> <351837C1.6259@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9NSqg2.0.Rb.5T56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16937
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just wrote:

> Brush connections should not be needed to demonstrate this effect.
> Maybe get rid of brushes entirely.

Sorry. I'm also getting Marinov Motor and Longitudinal force 
burn out. Last message was wholly incorrect. Disregard. Disregard. 
Maybe there is a way to eliminate brushes. Right now, I don't 
see how. Time for a time out.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 17:22:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08637;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:14:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:14:23 -0800
Message-ID: <009f01bd577f$ea31b070$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Per Joe Champion's reporting
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:52:32 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"NI-2_.0.262.cf56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16940
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



> However, Joe has not been reporting what was really
>observed nor recorded.  In particular, I'll refer here to
>the results from some time ago some readers here may remember,
>where supposedly Haffnium was produced in large amounts from
>an Hg-based cell.


> At the time, the news was exciting, and several asked
>for more details.  Joe had said that gram-level quantities
>or more were being produced.  Amazing indeed.


Jim with respect, it was Joe Champion reporting the observations of Dan
York.  Furthermore, grams of the material was sent from Dan to another
vortexer who performed the test.  The tests were accomplished by XRF.  More
impressive is Dan YOrk only sent a small fraction of the material collected
from the experiment(s).

As far as me amplifing results, this is not true.  Dan York accomplished the
tests, Dan York sent out the material for analysis, Dan York received the
results and I reported them.


> Apparently Joe amplified these results into basically a
>tall tale.  Perhaps Joe is seeing what he wants to see, rather
>than what is really there.  There may be other motivators for
>him as well, but I won't get into that here.  In any case, he
>did not report the 'facts'.


If "I" amplified the results on experiments that others accomplished, then I
must have co-collaborators in my inability to recount the observations, this
includes  Dan York and others!


> I find Joe to be a likeable and interesting fellow,
>but if he's unwilling or unable to recount accurate results,
>it seems more like he's chasing a rainbow.


That's right, for everyone knows that there is gold at the end of a rainbow!

Joe Champion
http://www.transmutation.com


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 17:22:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11388;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:18:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:18:14 -0800
Message-Id: <199803242325.SAA29591 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Per Joe Champion's reporting
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 98 18:27:59 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
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 PAA06016
Resent-Message-ID: <"u4iGv2.0.Rn2.Fj56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16941
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Jim Uban wrote about Joe:

>Vo-s,
>	Joe Champion posted this week to Dr. Miles and vortex,
>stating, per transmutation:
>
>> With respect to the many people that read this thread, please understand
>> that if the numerous people that report facts, no matter how estrange that
>> they may be, in the eyes of the recording observer they are real.
>
>	However, Joe has not been reporting what was really
>observed nor recorded.  In particular, I'll refer here to 
>the results from some time ago some readers here may remember, 
>where supposedly Haffnium was produced in large amounts from
>an Hg-based cell.

etc.

Let me add a recent observation about Joe's approach. After Jim Uban and I had done a fair amount of work -- getting no obvious Au as we had been expecting per Joe's detailed instructions -- we basically temporarily gave up.  Then I received more communic
ations from Joe, in which he told me that "I did not give you the complete protocol." (!!!) In other words, he claims he had not told us *everything* necessary to do the Au-making, even though he had previously told us we HAD all the info at our disposal.
 (Joe, I certainly hope you will agree you said this to me, because that's how I recall it.)

Joe then told me some more steps -- agina under NDA -- that had to performed and I agreed to do them ‹ IF he sent me a detailed fax describing exactly EVERYTHING to do. I was to receive that fax the next day. It never came. I subsequently e-mailed a brief
 note and asked why it had not come. No repsonse. I then lost interest again. 

Joe claims that there is commercial scale production going on. I *do* have independent information from a top figure in the company that about half the company that is supposed to be making the stuff believes Joe, the other half thinks badly of him -- i.e
. his methods are worthless.

I think if Joe ever wants total credibility he is going to have to make an absolutely iron-clad (gold-clad) demonstration that can be widely replicated.

I intend this message to help Joe, to help him understand that we cannot go on with this iterative approach and testimonials. 

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  Tue Mar 24 17:27:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA15992;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:25:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:25:05 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b13e0341eedf [12.64.66.69]>
In-Reply-To: <351837C1.6259 skylink.net>
References: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:01:48 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"aMK2h.0.mu3.gp56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16942
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert -

   >  There is a question of whether a Lorentz force which
   >  might rotate the ring is introduced at the point of
   >  contact of current between the brushes and ring.
   >  Eliminating brushes would serve to eliminate this
   >  question.

Bingo. I was thinking along these lines, that having the EMF source riding
on the ring would eliminate some problems. Taking even further advantage of
the self-contained current source, shouldn't a ring with the current all in
one direction around the whole ring rotate around a bar magnet of single
(normal, not split & flipped) polarity? Then further, shouldn't a pair of
such rings mounted close and coaxially counter rotate against each other
without any magnets?

I've been looking through Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic
Induction, and Gravity", and there are some examples like that of a pair of
charged coaxially oriented thin rings. When one receives angular
acceleration, the other rotates in the opposite direction. He doesn't go on
to a similar current carrying case with the rings, although there is a
current carrying solenoid with a charged thin-walled cylinder coaxially
inside it that rotates when the current in the solenoid changes.

These sound like simple experiments to set up. What's a good current value
to expect from a 9v battery without ruining them in short order? I've got
several sitting around, some wire and some small bearings; I might try
this. Maybe a coil to simulate a larger current in a single metal ring.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 17:35:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16098;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:25:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:25:14 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b13e0c9e2215 [12.64.66.69]>
In-Reply-To: <35183AE0.684C skylink.net>
References: <3517FE20.13 interlaced.net> <351837C1.6259@skylink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:22:40 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"kk8Hr.0.Gx3.sp56r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16943
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert -

   >  Last message was wholly incorrect. Disregard.
   >  Disregard.


LOL - busted me too!!!

Oh well...that other stuff might be relevant anyway.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 17:47:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26283;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:42:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:42:56 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007811b13e11542f78 [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <3518216C.1BAD interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:43:12 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"uZqMP.0.zP6.O466r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16944
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Stenger wrote:

[snip]
>I then replaced the center portion of the wire with a copper ring made
>from 3/8 in. copper tube, so that the wire connections were 180 deg.
>apart (on opposite ends of a diameter).  Repeating the first test with
>about 11 to 12 amps, it looked about the same as with the straight-thru
>wire.

   Right on! It's the leads and the net current through both sides of the
ring that make that Marinov motor work!

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 Mar 24 18:10:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03982;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351850F6.5969 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:33:58 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Schaffer - MARINOV MADNESS
References: <v03007810b13dd14422bc [198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"aOXNn1.0.8-.kQ66r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16946
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
> 
(snip)

> No. I claim that a lot of the torque reacts on the two feed wires, and only
> a small fraction of the total torque acting on the torus rotor actually
> reacts on the ring stator. This is by classical EM. So, a test has to
> measure torque on the ring directly.

OK, Mike, then I guess I'll have to try to get rotation with brushes
on my actual motor model - but it's hard to get high current AND low
brush drag!

Frank Stenger


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 18:11:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03993;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3518535F.3752 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:44:15 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov info from Jeff Kooistra
References: <01bd5764$30b44ab0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"75nLB1.0.J-.lQ66r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16947
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holz wrote:
> 
> Received from Jeff Kooistra on 3/24/98 at 12:53 PM.
>
(many snips)

> George,
 Tell
> Vortex guys that the only decent way to duplicate Marinov on the cheap is
> to use two vertical bar magnets stuck together, or vertical stacks of
> powerful magnets, capped or not, it won't matter much.

 Brushes
> are a real bitch problem without using Hg in a pool, and I'm tempted to go
> that way, but practicality lies along the way of letting the "torus" go
> round and making the ring the stator.
>         His ceramic magents are kind of weak I'd think, unless he has more
> potent ones than me--

Thanks, George - and thank Jeff for me for all the good tips!

Frank Stenger


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 18:12:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03971;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35185444.2749 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:48:04 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Elaboration on Frank's Model of Marinov Motor
References: <v01530500b13dd207b849 [199.237.131.228]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jSoVE2.0.yz.iQ66r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16945
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip further analysis of the Marinov motor)

Thanks for the analytical looks at this, Horace - I'll need to give
this close study when I'm up to it!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 18:47:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03800;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:43:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:43:29 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b13e0fdecbde [199.237.131.221]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:49:27 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Magnetic pressure, Biot's law, and Marinov's motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"EX9ts3.0.zw.Dz66r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16948
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Suppose we look at a closeup of a single brush contact point of a Marinov
motor which has no internal magnet and current flowing:



             O | X
             O | X
             O | X       Q1
             O | X
             O | X
             O | X A
             O | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
               |<------------------(+)
             X | OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
             X | O B
             X | O
             X | O
             X | O      Q2
             X | O
             X | O
             X | O


  O - magnetic field out of page (N pole below page, S pole above)
  X - magnetic field into page (S pole above page, N pole below)
  Qi - Quadrant number

Current is right to left.

Note that there are areas of high flux density at A and B that place a
repellant force on the ring in the upward direction in the upward leg and
the lower direction on the lower leg.  The exact magnitiude of th eforce
can be calculated using by repetitively applying Biot's law for two current
segments l and l' carrying current i and i' with centers at distance r and
a mutual angle of theta:

    F = k l l' i i' cos(theta)/r^2


Suppose we now impose a N to S into the page magnetic field (X) which is
sufficient to cancel the O's above.  We would then have something
approaching:


               | X
               | X
               | X       Q1
               | X
               | X
               | X A
               | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
               |<------------------(+)
             X |
             X |   B
             X |
             X |
             X |        Q2
             X |
             X |
             X |



  X - magnetic field into page (S pole above page, N pole below)
      (Actually now represents points of double strength flux)
  Qi - Quadrant number


Now note that the magnetic pressure is only present at A, thus pushing the
ring  upward (counter clockwise).  Another way to look at  this is as if a
current ring is placed about the brush point carrying a current A
sufficient to generate the superimposed field B.  It is then possible to
apply Biot's law to all the elements to calculate the CCW force.

What is most interesting about this is that the thinner the ring gets, i.e.
the more right angled the brush point current path gets, the greater the
force on  the current segments near the brush, because 1/r^2 --> infinity.
This concept also demonstrates that the best place to place the magnets is
directly above the brush points.  Also of interest is that the force is
distributed along both the ring and the brush wire, it is not just located
at the radial portion of the current entry path at the brush.

The above diagram could also represent an inside brush on the opposite
side, so if it were (+) then the ring would rotate clockwise. This
demonstrates that the rotation direction is independent of brush position,
and dependent on current direction, and the direction of B at the brush
site.

Frank, if you want to make your motor really spin, just place a C magnet
over a brush location.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 18:53:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA06869;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:50:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:50:54 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b13e22ca3e05 [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:57:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov info from Jeff Kooistra
Resent-Message-ID: <"gze7O2.0.5h1.C476r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16949
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>At 15:34 3/24/98 -0500, George Holz wrote:
>
>>Received from Jeff Kooistra on 3/24/98 at 12:53 PM.
>>
>>George,
>>        Hot news--Phipps confirmed that his motor version behaves like any
>>normal motor in terms of energy usage, so there is back EMF.
>
>Back EMF yet!....and you guys still think it's not a Lorentz
>engine!?...(sigh)
>
>Hey Frank, here's the answer to your brush problems:  DRIVE your ring with
>an external motor and see how much power your Marinov GENERATOR can produce!

What a fantastic idea!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 20:00:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA24542;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:55:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 19:55:34 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Marinov motor solution?
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 03:53:20 +0000
Message-ID: <19980325035310.AAC7677 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"cO8n32.0.L_5.o086r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16950
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick,
> <snip>
>Could somebody please explain in small words where the I X B is in the
>geometry of this solution?
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI
>
I am really fascinated, and unabashedly utterly confused.

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 20:33:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24471;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:29:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:29:44 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35182F75.C7FDD7CE ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:11:01 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Cold Fusion Patents Run Out of Steam
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4F0DE2EB1795B95FAF388891"
Resent-Message-ID: <"17gO12.0.F-5.rW86r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16951
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.
--------------4F0DE2EB1795B95FAF388891
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/other/technology/story/11179.html>

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville
--------------4F0DE2EB1795B95FAF388891
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="11179.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="11179.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/o
	ther/technology/story/11179.html"

<html>

<head>
<!-- SCRIPT_FILENAME =3D /hot/www/news/news.html -->
<!-- SCRIPT_NAME     =3D /news/news -->
<!-- SCRIPT_URI      =3D http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/other/techn=
ology/story/11179.html -->
<!-- SCRIPT_URL      =3D /news/news/email/other/technology/story/11179.ht=
ml -->

<!-- PATH_INFO       =3D /email/other/technology/story/11179.html -->




  =

  =



<!-- IN_STORY   =3D true -->
<!-- STORY      =3D /email/other/technology/story/11179.html -->


<!-- set this to the url this file is in -->
 =

 =

 =

 =

<!-- BASE_URL   =3D /news -->
<!-- SCRIPT_URL =3D /news/news/ -->
<!-- IMAGE_BASE =3D http://static.wired.com/news/images/ -->


<!-- initial navigational gif values -->
<!-- these are reset down below where appropriate -->
 =

 =

 =

 =

 =


<!-- set ad, nav and TITLE and META info --> =

  =


  =

  =

  =

  =

  <TITLE>Technology News from Wired News</TITLE>
<META name=3D"keywords" content=3D"technology news, wired, wired news,
Technology News headlines, Wired, technology news stories, HotWired,
technology news headlines, computer news, TECHNOLOGY NEWS online, wired
magazine, news about technology">
<META name=3D"description" content=3D"Technology news from Wired News. Re=
ad the
latest technology news stories, covering the Internet, the World Wide Web=
,
computers and general technology issues.">
</head>
<!-- Technology news from Wired News. Read the latest technology news
stories, covering the Internet, the World Wide Web, computers and general=

technology issues. -->




<!-- Set Other SECTION variables -->  =





<!--  set SPECIAL Report variable -->




<!-- SECTION    =3D technology -->
<!-- ADSECTION    =3D technology -->
<!-- SPECIAL    =3D (none) -->
<!-- NAV_IMAGE  =3D http://static.wired.com/news/images/nav_tech.gif -->
<!-- NAVSTRIP_IMAGE =3D http://static.wired.com/news/images/navstrip_tech=
=2Egif -->
<!-- TOOL_IMAGE =3D http://static.wired.com/news/images/search_off.gif --=
>



<body background=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/background2.gif" =
text=3D#000000 link=3D#6666CC vlink=3D#006600>



<!-- WHITE BACKGROUND FOR IBD -->






<img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/masthead.gif" USEMAP=3D"#=
masthead.map" height=3D26 width=3D595 border=3D0 alt=3D"[Internet news fr=
om Wired News. Read the latest Internet news stories, scan technology new=
s headlines. Wired News also provides cyber-culture and political news ab=
out the wired world]">
<!-- main table -->
<table cellpadding=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 border=3D0 width=3D595>

<!-- put both sub tables in here -->
<tr>

<td width=3D457 valign=3Dtop>
<!-- body table -->
<table cellpadding=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 border=3D0 width=3D457>
<tr>




<!-- NETCASTER crawler cache-->

<layer visibility=3D"hide">
<a href=3D"images/index.html"></a>
</layer>





<!-- NAVIGATION - NAV_IMAGE, NAVSTRIP_IMAGE and TOOL_IMAGE set at top -->=


<td align=3Dleft valign=3Dtop width=3D135>
    <img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/spacer.gif" height=3D=
2 width=3D135 alt=3D"[]"><br>
    <img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/nav_tech.gif" USEMAP=3D=
"#nav1.map" border=3D0 width=3D135 height=3D130 alt=3D"[Navigation bar]">=
<br>



<!-- COBRANDING INCLUDE - ASIS -->
 <br>
 =

 <br>
<!-- COBRAND =3D default -->
 <!-- END COBRANDING INCLUDE - ASIS -->
 =



<form method=3Dget action=3D"http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/redirect/100=
20/http://stocks.wired.com/stocks_quotes.asp">
<a href=3D"http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/redirect/10010/http://stocks.w=
ired.com/"><img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/stocks.gif" wi=
dth=3D135 height=3D59 border=3D0 alt=3D"[Stocks]"></a>
<input type=3Dtext name=3D"Company" size=3D11 maxlength=3D100><br>
<input type=3Dimage src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/go.gif" na=
me=3D"go" border=3D0 width=3D42 height=3D18 alt=3D"[GO button]"></form><b=
r>
<!--start email stuff-->
<form method=3Dget action=3D"http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/redirect/100=
21/http://www.wired.com/news/download/email.html">
<a href=3D"http://www.wired.com/news/download/email.html"><input type=3Di=
mage src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/delivered.gif" name=3D"de=
livered" border=3D0 width=3D135 height=3D22 alt=3D"[Get Wired News Delive=
red]"></a><br>
<input type=3Dtext name=3D"email" size=3D11 maxlength=3D80 value=3D"enter=
 email"><br>
<input type=3Dimage src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/go.gif" na=
me=3D"go" border=3D0 width=3D42 height=3D18 alt=3D"[GO button]"></form><b=
r>
<!--end email stuff-->
<img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/search_off.gif" USEMAP=3D=
"#nav2.map" border=3D0 width=3D135 height=3D86 alt=3D"[Search]">
<a href=3D"http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/redirect/10012/http://www.wire=
d.com/wired/"><img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/wiredcover.=
gif" border=3D0 width=3D132 height=3D129 alt=3D"[WIRED magazine]"></a>
<br>
<br>

</td>

<!-- BODY -->
<td align=3Dleft valign=3Dtop colspan=3D1 width=3D322 rowspan=3D2>
<!-- News content table -->
<table cellpadding=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 border=3D0 width=3D322>

<!-- include the proper section index if we're in a story, -->
<!-- of just include the story -->


  =

<!-- DEFAULT_BACK_URL=3D/news/news/technology/index.html -->
<!-- BATCH=3D3048 -->
<!-- PUBDATE=3D890770020 -->
<!-- VERSION=3D6 -->
<!-- HEADLINE=3DCold Fusion Patents Run Out of Steam -->
<!-- BYLINE=3D<a href=3D"mailto:newsfeedback wired.com">Wired News Staff<=
/a> -->
<!-- DECK=3DThe hunt for cold fusion may be nearing an end, as  its paten=
t holder has given up hope on making it a reality. <b>Also: </b>Universit=
y of Hawaii researchers say they will soon be able to grow decaffeinated =
coffee beans. -->


<tr>
<td align=3Dleft valign=3Dtop width=3D322 colspan=3D2>
<img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/spacer.gif" width=3D10 he=
ight=3D5 alt=3D"[]"></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td align=3Dright valign=3Dtop colspan=3D1 width=3D30>






<a href=3D"/news/news/technology"><img border=3D0 src=3D"http://static.wi=
red.com/news/images/x.gif" width=3D30 height=3D15 border=3D0 alt=3D"[Back=
]"></a>
</td>

<td valign=3Dtop align=3Dleft width=3D292>
<font face=3D"helvetica, arial" size=3D3><b>Cold Fusion Patents Run Out o=
f Steam</b></font><br>
<font face=3D"geneva, arial" size=3D1><b><a href=3D"mailto:newsfeedback w=
ired.com">Wired News Staff</a> </b></font><br><br>
<font face=3D"geneva, arial" size=3D1 color=3D#ff0000>12:07pm&nbsp;&nbsp;=
24.Mar.98.PST</font><br>
<!-- START_OF_BODY -->
<font face=3D"geneva, arial" size=3D2>The flag bearer for cold fusion is =
throwing in the towel.  The University of Utah has said it will not defen=
d its patents on cold fusion, a move that will allow the intellectual pro=
perty of professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, of Southampton U=
niversity (England), to lapse.  =

<p>Pons and Fleischmann once held the attention of the scientific communi=
ty after their 1989 revelation that they had found a cheap, easy way to p=
roduce hydrogen energy, another name for cold fusion. Ordinarily, nuclear=
 fusion can be safely achieved for only fractions of a second with equipm=
ent producing intense electromagnetic fields and heat at very high cost. =
Pons and Fleischmann maintained that they could achieve fusion at room te=
mperature with a large energy gain.  =


<p>Their announcement touched off a controversy in the scientific communi=
ty which largely maintained that cold fusion was a hoax. Still, researche=
rs around the world tried to duplicate the efforts of Pons and Fleischman=
n. It also spawned the development of cold fusion laboratories, including=
 one in Tokyo. For believers in cold fusion, the US government killed off=
 much of the potential work in the country by denying grants and funding =
for any research. =


<p>Nevertheless, millions have been spent trying to make cold fusion a re=
ality. Japan cut off funding for cold fusion research last summer after s=
pending US$20 million. For their own efforts, the University of Utah has =
spent more than $1 million on the project. =


<p>- - - =


<p><b>Growing Decaffeinated Coffee Beans:</b>The home of Kona Coffee coul=
d become the land of the world?s first decaffeinated coffee bean, reports=
 <cite>New Scientist</cite>. Researchers at the University of Hawaii at M=
anoa who successfully isolated the genetic culprit that lends java beans =
their amphetamine-like buzz. They will plant tissue cultures based on the=
ir work this summer in the hopes of brewing their first cup of coffee ear=
ly in the next century. =


<p>The key to making the plant kick the caffeine habit is to stop the pro=
cess before it starts. To do this, researchers found the gene that makes =
xanthosine-N7-methyl transferase, the enzyme that starts the caffeine pro=
duction in a coffee bean plant. To stop the gene, the scientists used a b=
acterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, as the agent for transferring a gene=
 to turn off the caffeine production. In laboratory experiments, research=
ers found that plants with this altered gene produce 3 percent of their n=
ormal amount of caffeine. With a caffeine-free plant, the researchers hop=
e to produce a bean that will retain its full flavor, an element that is =
sometimes lost in post-harvest treatments to make decaf beans.</font> =

<!-- END_OF_BODY -->
<br><br>

<!-- start of newsbot query -->
<!-- generic newsbot text -->
</b><font face=3D"geneva, arial" size=3D2><i>
Check on other Web coverage of this story with <a href=3Dhttp://www.hotwi=
red.com/cgi-bin/redirect/10018/http://www.wired.com/news/wirednewsbot.htm=
l><b>NewsBot</b></a></i></font>
<!-- end generic newsbot text -->
<!-- end of newsbot query -->   =



<br>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align=3Dright valign=3Dtop colspan=3D1 width=3D30>
    =

    =

        =

    =

<a href=3D"/news/news/technology"><img border=3D0 src=3D"http://static.wi=
red.com/news/images/x.gif" width=3D30 height=3D15 border=3D0 alt=3D"[Back=
]"></a> =

</td><td><img border=3D0 src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/navst=
rip_tech.gif" USEMAP=3D"#navstrip.map" alt=3D"[Navigation strip]" height=3D=
17 width=3D126>
<br><br>
<font face=3D"geneva, arial" size=3D2><a href=3D"/news/rantrave.html">Ran=
ts & Raves</a>: Send your rants and raves to Wired News.
<p>
<a href=3D"mailto:tips wired.com">Tips</a>: Have a story or tip for Wired=
 News? Send it.</font>
<br><br><font face=3D"geneva, arial" size=3D1><a href=3D"/wired/full.copy=
right.html">
Copyright</a> &copy; 1993-97 Wired Ventures Inc. and affiliated companies=
=2E<br>

All rights reserved.</font>
</td>
</tr>

<MAP NAME=3D"navstrip.map">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,0,14,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/top_sto\
ries/index.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"15,0 31,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/busine\
ss/index.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"32,0,48,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/cultur\
e/index.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"49,0,65,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/techno\
logy/index.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"66,0,83,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/politi\
cs/index.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"84,0,100,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/worldwatch/i=
ndex.html">
</MAP>




</table>

</td>
</tr>

<!-- end body table -->

<!-- bottom feeder -->
<tr>
<td width=3D137 align=3Dleft valign=3Dbottom>
<br>
<img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/hotwired3.gif" width=3D13=
5 height=3D106 USEMAP=3D"#nav3.map" border=3D0 alt=3D"[HotWired and HotBo=
t]">
</td>
</tr>

</table>


</td>
<!-- ad strip & buffer -->
<td width=3D138 colspan=3D1 align=3Dleft valign=3Dtop>
<!-- column table -->
<table cellpadding=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 border=3D0 width=3D138>
<tr>
<!-- BUFFER -->

<td align=3Dleft valign=3Dtop colspan=3D1 width=3D9>
<img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/spacer.gif" height=3D1 wi=
dth=3D9 alt=3D"[]">
</td>
<!-- GENERAL NEWS & AD -->
<td align=3Dleft valign=3Dtop width=3D129>
<img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/spacer.gif" height=3D4 bo=
rder=3D0 width=3D129 alt=3D"[]"><br>
<a href=3D"http://nsads.hotwired.com/event.ng/Type=3Dclick&ProfileID=3D15=
67&RunID=3D3100&AdID=3D4181&GroupID=3D1&FamilyID=3D374&TagValues=3D2.5.6.=
25.157.159.166.171.172.175.179.180.181.182.183.186.196.197.199.208.333.34=
9.374.389.412.436.526&Redirect=3Dhttp:%2F%2Fwww.techfunding.com%2Fwired%2=
Findex6.html" TARGET=3D"_top"><img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/adverti=
sing/blipverts/techfunding/tfih6b.gif" BORDER=3D1 height=3D125 width=3D12=
5 alt=3D"Click here to flatten broker"></a>

<br><br>
    =

    =

      =

        =

<!-- start of package area in sidebar -->




<!-- end of package area in sidebar -->
  =

        =

        <img src=3D"http://static.wired.com/news/images/icon_tech.gif" wi=
dth=3D34 height=3D40 alt=3D"[technology]"><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><b>TECHNOLOGY</b>
<br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><b><i>Today's Headlines</i></b><=
/font>
<br>
<br>
<b><font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technol=
ogy/story/11178.html">QuickTime Meets the Java App</a></font><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11177.html">Japan OKs Cheap Wireless Calls</a></font><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11179.html">Cold Fusion Patents Run Out of Steam</a></font><br><br=
>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11171.html">IBM's Crackers-For-Hire Strut Their Stuff</a></font><b=
r><br>
</b>

<b><font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technol=
ogy/story/11142.html">Cisco Stuffs Voice into Data</a></font><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11128.html">LSI Unveils All-in-One Chip</a></font><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11118.html">For Most, Phones Are Still Just a Rumor</a></font><br>=
<br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11107.html">FBI Spam: 'Look Out for Terrorists'</a></font><br><br>=

<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11094.html">Sun's New Headache: H-P's Java Brew</a></font><br><br>=

<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11093.html">China Looks to the Heavens</a></font><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11077.html">A Quantum Step Closer to Elusive Computer</a></font><b=
r><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11080.html">Network Associates Sidesteps Crypto Controls</a></font=
><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/11069.html">The Universe: Only a Mouse Click Away</a></font><br><b=
r>
</b>

<b><font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technol=
ogy/story/11154.html">Crucial Tech: Character Recognition</a></font><br><=
br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/10873.html">Updata: Pushover?</a></font><br><br>
<font size=3D2 face=3D"helvetica, arial"><a href=3D"/news/news/technology=
/story/10964.html">Reverse-Engineering the Psyche</a></font><br><br>
</b>

      =

    =

 <br>
    =

    =

      =

        <!-- -->
      =

    =

<a href=3D"http://nsads.hotwired.com/event.ng/Type=3Dclick&ProfileID=3D15=
86&RunID=3D3102&AdID=3D4269&GroupID=3D1&FamilyID=3D384&TagValues=3D2.5.6.=
25.157.159.166.171.172.175.179.180.181.182.183.186.196.197.199.208.334.34=
8.374.389.412.436.526&Redirect=3Dhttp:%2F%2Fad.preferences.com%2Fclick.ng=
;spacedesc%3DMercuryRising_Wired_125x125_RunOfSite_Any" TARGET=3D"_top"><=
img src=3D"http://ad.preferences.com/image.ng;spacedesc=3DMercuryRising_W=
ired_125x125_RunOfSite_Any?r=3D1998.3.24.22.7.52.0" BORDER=3D1 height=3D1=
25 width=3D125 alt=3D"Mercury Rising stars Bruce Willis and opens April 3=
=2E"></a>

</td>
</tr>    =

</table>
<!-- end ad strip -->

<!-- this is an invisible gif for reporting purposes -->
<img src=3D"http://www.wired.com/special/modx/news.gif" height=3D1 width=3D=
1 alt=3D"[]"><br>
</td>

</tr>
</table>
<!-- end main table -->

<br>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!-- end no frames ibd table -->







</body>

<MAP NAME=3D"nav1.map">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,0,125,27" HREF=3D"/news/news/top_stories/i=
ndex.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,28,125,48" HREF=3D"/news/news/business/ind=
ex.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,49,125,70" HREF=3D"/news/news/culture/inde=
x.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,71,125,90" HREF=3D"/news/news/technology/i=
ndex.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,91,125,113" HREF=3D"/news/news/politics/in=
dex.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,114,125,130" HREF=3D"/news/news/worldwatch=
/index.html">
</MAP>


<MAP NAME=3D"nav2.map">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,17,115,35" HREF=3D"/news/news/archive.html=
">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,36,115,52" HREF=3D"http://www.hotwired.com=
/cgi-bin/redirect/10017/http://wwww.wired.com/wired/toc.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,53,115,71" HREF=3D"http://www.hotwired.com=
/cgi-bin/redirect/10016/http://www.hotbot.com/">
</MAP>

<!-- THIS IS THE MAP FOR hotwired3.gif -->
<MAP NAME=3D"nav3.map">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,3,115,36" HREF=3D"http://www.hotwired.com/=
cgi-bin/redirect/10028/http://www.wired.com/news/download/outlook.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,42,115,69" HREF=3D"http://www.hotwired.com=
/cgi-bin/redirect/10022/http://www.wired.com/news/download/pointcast.html=
">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,82,115,106" HREF=3D"http://www.hotwired.co=
m/cgi-bin/redirect/10013/http://www.hotwired.com">
</MAP>

<MAP NAME=3D"navstrip.map">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,0,14,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/top_stories/in=
dex.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"15,0 31,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/business/inde=
x.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"32,0,48,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/culture/index=
=2Ehtml">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"49,0,65,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/technology/in=
dex.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"66,0,83,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/politics/inde=
x.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"84,0,100,16" HREF=3D"/news/news/worldwatch/i=
ndex.html">
</MAP>

<MAP NAME=3D"masthead.map">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"0,0,242,26" HREF=3D"/news/who.html">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"243,0,323,26" HREF=3D"http://www.wired.com/w=
ired/">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"324,0,401,26" HREF=3D"http://www.hotwired.co=
m">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"402,0,478,26" HREF=3D"http://www.livewired.c=
om">
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"479,0,566,26" HREF=3D"http://www.hotbot.com"=
>
<AREA SHAPE=3Drect COORDS=3D"567,0,595,26" HREF=3D"http://www.wired.com/h=
ome/">
</MAP>


</html>



















--------------4F0DE2EB1795B95FAF388891--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 21:03:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05105;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00d301bd57aa$92a4e9a0$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Per Joe Champion's reporting
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:57:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ck8YJ2.0.cF1.8u86r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16952
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Mallove said:

>Let me add a recent observation about Joe's approach. After Jim Uban and I
had done a fair amount of work -- getting no obvious Au as we had been
expecting per Joe's detailed instructions -- we basically temporarily gave
up.  Then I received more communications from Joe, in which he told me that
"I did not give you the complete protocol." (!!!) In other words, he claims
he had not told us *everything* necessary to do the Au-making, even though
he had previously told us we HAD all the info at our disposal. (Joe, I
certainly hope you will agree you said this to me, because that's how I
recall it.)
>
>Joe then told me some more steps -- agina under NDA -- that had to
performed and I agreed to do them ‹ IF he sent me a detailed fax describing
exactly EVERYTHING to do. I was to receive that fax the next day. It never
came. I subsequently e-mailed a brief note and asked why it had not come. No
repsonse. I then lost interest again.
>
>Joe claims that there is commercial scale production going on. I *do* have
independent information from a top figure in the company that about half the
company that is supposed to be making the stuff believes Joe, the other half
thinks badly of him -- i.e. his methods are worthless.



Gene, please get a fucking life!  I never said that I did not give the total
protocol, I said (which I am sure that you remember) that I found a better
method.  Did I send it to you?  NO!  The reason is simple, I am trying to
fulfill the request of many with data and at the same time feed my family.
I frankly do not give a damn whether anyone in Vortex or the scientific
community believes me.

I have an open door policy at my facility.  Anyone can come in and view,
observe, replicate take the knowledge with them, make their own metals and
publish.  However, I must feed my family and to do so requires that I
manufacture metals.

I apologize for the failure in your tests.  Did I receive a phone call from
you during the process and request for assistance?

Don't belittle yourself to the group with your answer.  I receive a
communication after the fact.  That is extremely helpful in troubleshooting
a problem!

Barry has visited on and off for the past 18 months.  At first I felt it
important to make him a believer.  Now I do not care, for he has observed an
open book.  It would be nice if he has independent replication, but if he
doesn't I did my best.

Barry has observed significant amounts of metal. Did I salt it for his
benefit? What's the point.

Barry and Monti went to Dallas and observed anomalies.  Did I have slide of
hand?  If I did, then I have one up on Hal's remote sensing, for that means
I have remote doing!

The bottom line is anyone of an intelligent nature (this covers anyone with
the capacity of sipping wine without guzzling) has the right to enter my
facility, without signing anything.  So maybe I am living in a imaginary
world.  I guess I am in the same league with P&F, CETI and numerous others.
Or maybe there is a difference, I have the ability to sell my meager product
to a jewelry store and I don't image that the power companies are paying for
heat today.

For over two years there has been a procedure for electrochemical
transmutation posted on the Internet. It's current location is:

http://207.204.154.110/champion/ht_pt.htm

It is straight forward and simple.


Respectfully submitted,

Joe Champion
http://www.transmutation.com



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 21:08:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA06232;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803250502.XAA14689 endeavor.flash.net>
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <KeelyNet-L lists.kz>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:56:45 -0600
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: <"UHU0e2.0.8X1.7196r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16954
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts Soo et al!

There was an article many years ago, I think by Walter Baumgartner who is
probably one of the best still living Schauberger experimenters....in it,
he said Schauberger claimed you could take a hollow egg and a water faucet,
turn the water on full blast and insert the egg with the fat end facing
upwards, into the stream, the egg would float in the stream, much like how
fish float perfectly still underwater in a very rapid current.

I also once had an article about a scientist who developed a type of flight
using a shape he called 'aerodynes'.  The article had a picture showing a
couple of these things hanging in the air.  Same principle as the egg in
water, though he simply had a fan mounted on a hollow teardrop shape, where
the tear was facing downwards.

A power wire went to the fan motor on the top of the aerodyne....I keep
meaning to do an experiment with that and get misdirected by all the other
bubble gum that needs chewing.

Anyway, thought this would be useful if not interesting.  I tried the egg
in the water stream using one of those hollow L'eggs plastic eggs, but I
think it was too heavy or the water flow wasn't of sufficient velocity. 
The whole idea fascinates the heck out of me and could lead to something
useful, like a powered balloon shaped flying machine.....cheers!

----------
> From: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
> To: vortex-L eskimo.com
> Subject: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:56 AM
> 
> Attempting to understand something I read about Schauberger's "trout
> turbine".  The description used is that the water inrush is "analagous to
> the hyperbolic centripetal spiral movement".
> 
> I posted the question on the Science/Math Forum but it clearly has them
> stumped.
> 
> I now understand the terms in isolation, but no-one appears to be able to
> relate them as an overall concept.
> 
> Any offers?
> 
> Regards
> Soo
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 21:08:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA30947;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:56:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 20:56:38 -0800
Message-ID: <35188E93.7F73 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:56:51 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Scott - Marinov info from Jeff Kooistra
References: <3.0.1.32.19980324180043.00b40b74 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8HgP-2.0.RZ7.4w86r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16953
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
(snips)

> Hey Frank, here's the answer to your brush problems:  DRIVE your ring with
> an external motor and see how much power your Marinov GENERATOR can produce!
> 
Yeh, "it's dead, Jim" (Scott)!  I just did that early this evening,
Scott.  I removed the pole pieces from the magnets, connected my
10 megohm DMM on millivolt scale, and spun the thing up with my
electric drill.  Not a peep of EMF at several hundred RPM!
I don't believe in permanent magnet brush motors that won't generate!
I know my magnets are weak but 100 times zero is zero!
I give up - dump the gifs Scott (I hard copied them!)when you're in need
of drive space - and thanks for your support.  
To George I leave my worldly Marinov remains - if he wants the shaft!
Oh well, I learned how to make a really nice slip ring.  No experiment
is ever a complete waste.  
And don't lose any sleep over Stenger's Marinov theory either, it
doesn't seem to hold water.  See, Rick, you stalled long enough
so there is no need to try to figure it out!
And someone come up with another good idea for Horace to analyze -
before he dumps the list again!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 21:17:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02076;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:14:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:14:14 -0800
Message-ID: <351892AE.7A8E interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:14:22 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Magnetic pressure, Biot's law, and Marinov's motor
References: <v01530500b13e0fdecbde [199.237.131.221]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3YdZQ.0.LW.aA96r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16955
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> Frank, if you want to make your motor really spin, just place a C magnet
> over a brush location.
> 
Well, OK, Horace, if I can pull out of my Marinov depression!  I'll
let you know the results.  BTW, I wonder if the lead wires need to
be dressed NORMAL to the tangents to the ring at the brush points?
Is it no fair using tangential brush springs?  Anyone?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 21:55:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03325;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:48:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:48:26 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980324234849.008cf290 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:48:49 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: generator patent
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3f1zu1.0.np.dg96r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16956
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I have previously alluded to having participated in the design of novel
motor/generators.  Hot off the US Patent press is new evidence of that:

United States Patent  5,731,645    Clifton, et. al.   Mar. 24, 1998

Integrated motor/generator/flywheel utilizing a solid steel rotor 

Inventors: 
Clifton; David B. (Leander, TX); Pinkerton; Joseph F. (Austin, TX);
Andrews;   James A. (Austin, TX); Little; Scott R. (Austin, TX). 

When we were designing it, I was sure it was Lorentz-force machine....now
I'm beginning to wonder....<g>.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 24 22:00:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02076;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:14:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:14:14 -0800
Message-ID: <351892AE.7A8E interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:14:22 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Magnetic pressure, Biot's law, and Marinov's motor
References: <v01530500b13e0fdecbde [199.237.131.221]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3YdZQ.0.LW.aA96r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16955
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> Frank, if you want to make your motor really spin, just place a C magnet
> over a brush location.
> 
Well, OK, Horace, if I can pull out of my Marinov depression!  I'll
let you know the results.  BTW, I wonder if the lead wires need to
be dressed NORMAL to the tangents to the ring at the brush points?
Is it no fair using tangential brush springs?  Anyone?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 22:25:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA13364;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:20:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:20:23 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980325002053.008c99a0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:20:53 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: the Marinov Generator - NOT!
In-Reply-To: <35188E93.7F73 interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980324180043.00b40b74 mail.eden.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6STQi.0.jG3.a8A6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16957
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:56 PM 3/24/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>I removed the pole pieces from the magnets, connected my
>10 megohm DMM on millivolt scale, and spun the thing up with my
>electric drill.  Not a peep of EMF at several hundred RPM!

WOW!  That seems like a very significant result, Frank.  I don't understand
it yet (as usual) but it tells me that we must be dealing with a system
that is somehow guaranteed to produce ZERO volts.  Otherwise you would have
at least seen a few mV!!!!  Hell, I saw 10's of mV being "generated" by the
vortex in the Potapov device...






Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 24 23:29:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA29239;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530505b13e5cf6e8d6 [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:30:13 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Elaboration on Frank's Model of Marinov Motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"JOAc93.0.l87.p5B6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16958
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:36 PM 3/24/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Horace -
>
>   >  This is because the I x B forces are largest in
>   >  quadrants 1 and 3 (I here taken to be the vector il).
>
>I still can't see where the force from any I X B works with any of its
>components tangental to the ring so as to propel it around. All the force
>vectors I can visualize here are only radial, unless some current in the
>ring is radial. Where am I going wrong?
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

You are right. I was away from the house when I finally realized it.  I
don't see any I x B action either. It may be there somehwere, but I don't
see it.  The magnetic pressure thing looks pretty obvious though, what do
you think of that?  I think the issue can be boiled down to a (nearly)
planar model:


       Ring (-)
        \               O
      ---\---------------------------------(-)  Leakage field simulator
      |   \  C          X            ------(+)  coil
      |    \                         |
      |   O \ X                     X|O
      |      \   A        X          |
     O|X      )<---------------------------------(+)  Brush
      |      /            O          |
      |   X / O                      |
      |    /                         |
      | B /           X              |
      ---/----------------------------
       (-)            O

  O - magnetic field out of page (N pole below page, S pole above)
  X - magnetic field into page (S pole above page, N pole below)

The question is whether the increased field density at points A B and C can
produce longitudinal motion in the ring (drawn with a straight line
approximation.)

It seems to me that the upward motion of the ring would relieve some
magnetic pressure at A, thus should happen sponataneously. The energy to
rebuild the field at A comes from electrons from the brush, which thus
supply the energy to continue the process.

Since this is a planar model, it appears that all flux in this plane should
be vertical.  An exception to this is the wires themselves, which are 3D.
The ressure at A, for example, should push some of the X field lines into
the brush wire and the ring also. It is possible to get lateral field lines
inside the ring from this distortion of the internal field by unbalanced
external pressure.

As for reversing the process, I do not see any mechanism for generating a
current.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 23:36:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA29861;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13e641b96b0 [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:35:41 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: generator patent
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bdsh-3.0.UI7.pAB6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16959
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:48 PM 3/24/98, Scott Little wrote:

>United States Patent  5,731,645    Clifton, et. al.   Mar. 24, 1998
>
>Integrated motor/generator/flywheel utilizing a solid steel rotor
>
>Inventors:
>Clifton; David B. (Leander, TX); Pinkerton; Joseph F. (Austin, TX);
>Andrews;   James A. (Austin, TX); Little; Scott R. (Austin, TX).

Congratulations Scott!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 24 23:47:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA01300;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:40:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b13e5d351160 [12.64.66.181]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:38:30 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: quick & dirty rail gun
Resent-Message-ID: <"k3cYb1.0.EK.aJB6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16960
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts -

Got the marine battery out and checked the fluid, just in case I get
inspired to do a Marinov motor test of some sort using an external battery.
Had some small diameter brass tubes handy, so I laid two parallel and one
across it, and touched the wires from the battery briefly to the ends of
the two parallel tubes. Sure enough, the cross tube takes off down the
rails. No magnets or anything, just current.

I can visualize lines of flux bunching up in the corners where the
crosstube crosses the rails, and how that wants to 'straighten out',
imparting thrust to the cross tube.

Hey, just thought of something. The rails carry current in opposite
directions, so they should attract. If I were to nicely pivot the ends of
the rails on bearings so they're free to swing horizontally in a
cantilevered arrangement, and they are bridged by the rolling cross tube
farther on for better leverage, when I connect the circuit they should:

a. swing towards each other by mutual attraction.
b. do nothing as the 'straightening' force balances the attraction.
c. open out away from each other, overcoming the magnetic attraction.

If 'b' or 'c', that would tend to support the Marinov motor solution
offered by Frank and Horace of a lateral thrust tangental to the ring being
somehow produced at the turn between the brushes and the ring. But I still
don't see how that can be explainable in terms of I in the ring crossing
some B in a way that produces some net vector components of both I and F in
parallel. Still waiting for someone to explain that.  :)

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 00:13:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA03145;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:10:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:10:33 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b13e663b3023 [12.64.67.53]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530505b13e5cf6e8d6 [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:10:10 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Elaboration on Frank's Model of Marinov Motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"1ovPo2.0.3n.tlB6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16961
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

 > The magnetic pressure thing looks pretty obvious though,
 > what do you think of that?

I like it, but I want to see where it goes, and eventually see some I X B.
See the "rail gun" post - I just tried something simple that seems to show
some of that Graneau/rail-gun effect, and it looks like that magnetic
pressure thing.

I thought of one other possible source of current that could produce a
longitudinal component tangental to the ring. In the rings that have some
width, there's room for current to take a path away from the brushes that's
not strictly tangental, nor necessarily self cancelling in both directions.
It could wander up or down on the wall of the ring. Don't know why the
current would do that - hall effect?  Magnetic fields are needed to have
some radial component relative to the ring for this, and need to be
unevenly distributed near the brush area for some assymetry to develop -
otherwise, this would just cancel out too. It's a long shot, but it's all I
got at the moment. A thin wire ring would defeat this.

Anything off-tangent opens the door. Eddy currents in a broad ring near the
brushes are a possibility too.

By the way, if there really is a longitudinal force from magnetic pressure,
then shouldn't a charged dielectric SMOT ball shoot out from the denser
fields in the narrow part of a smot ramp, like your OU electron gun?
Charged matter might behave differently than free particles for some reason
- then again maybe not.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 00:43:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA07819;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13e6f2f5e04 [199.237.131.232]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:42:33 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Elaboration on Frank's Model of Marinov Motor
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ezj67.0.1w1.W9C6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16962
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:10 PM 3/24/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Horace -
[snip]
>
>Anything off-tangent opens the door. Eddy currents in a broad ring near the
>brushes are a possibility too.

Well, here is an idea. - the current tends to take the shortest path, so a
larger proportion of the current will migrate to the inside of the ring at
90 deg. from the brushes, and then back to the outside when going to the
exit brush. That's a double whammy, because the magnetic field reverses
directions at 90 degrees.


>
>By the way, if there really is a longitudinal force from magnetic pressure,
>then shouldn't a charged dielectric SMOT ball shoot out from the denser
>fields in the narrow part of a smot ramp, like your OU electron gun?
>Charged matter might behave differently than free particles for some reason
>- then again maybe not.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

Not by Marinov's equation, as far as I can tell. My derivation is

    Fl = (h v v')/2c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)

where 0.5 < h < 1 (about) for the electron heading directly into the magnet
face. The problem is the energy would be indectectable, due to being at
least 10^-20 times a macro scale force.  The problem is the energy is
proportional to (vv'/2c^2)^2.  That's a very small number unless *both* v
and v' are near light speed.

Personally, I think an important issue to resolve is why Frank Stenger's
careful results are so different from Jeff Kooistra's.  Maybe the magnet
configuration?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 00:46:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA07193;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:42:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:42:06 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b13e746396dc [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:48:18 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov - How about a salt water armature?
Resent-Message-ID: <"c7sFW3.0.Im1.TDC6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16963
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Instead of mercury, why not use a see-through trough of salt water for the
ring. Add a little pepper and see whats happening.  Would have to raise the
voltage to get 20 A.  Also would have to contend with H2 generation.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 01:16:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA12348;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:11:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 01:11:28 -0800
Message-ID: <35193AA0.390D itl.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:10:56 -0800
From: Nick Palmer <nick7 itl.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Re: HEF and things]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YRIf7.0.l03.-eC6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16964
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rich Murray wrote:
> <Our own Hal Puthoff, puthoff aol.com,is famous for helping to invent and practice remote viewing after 1972 at Stanford Research Institute.
 
 I don't think Hal *invented* remote viewing! While it's come up though,
 what is your current view on this subject, Hal? I seem to remember a
 report that you used the technique to "foresee" fluctuations in
 the price of silver options (commodities market). Did this promising
 initial experience fade away or are you now scandalously rich ;)?
 
 Nick Palmer - Jersey FoE

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 02:19:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA00956;
	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:04:35 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:04:35 -0800
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:03:31 -0500
From: uban world.std.com (Jim Uban)
Message-Id: <199803242103.AA04645 world.std.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Per Joe Champion's reporting
Resent-Message-ID: <"e_YuI1.0.RE.T_16r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16927
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vo-s,
	Joe Champion posted this week to Dr. Miles and vortex,
stating, per transmutation:

> With respect to the many people that read this thread, please understand
> that if the numerous people that report facts, no matter how estrange that
> they may be, in the eyes of the recording observer they are real.

	However, Joe has not been reporting what was really
observed nor recorded.  In particular, I'll refer here to 
the results from some time ago some readers here may remember, 
where supposedly Haffnium was produced in large amounts from
an Hg-based cell.
	At the time, the news was exciting, and several asked
for more details.  Joe had said that gram-level quantities
or more were being produced.  Amazing indeed.

	Some may know that I've been working on and off
over the last 1.5 years to see if there is a strong reality
to Joe's processes.  Most recently, with the help of Dr. 
Mallove at his facilities.  My past results and our newer 
ones have been null to date.  I can't say the work has been
comprehensive, but those are the results, using supposedly
Joe's best processes.
	You may also know that Dr. Barry Merriman has been
digging into Joe's work, with an open mind, aimed at replication
or no, to a much greater degree than I have.  In this regard, I 
asked Barry if he had ever dug into the Hf results announced
by Joe, since they were so startling.

	Barry replied, and I won't post his note, since I've
not asked his permission to do so, that he had polled all the
facilities which had carried out the analysis of the Hg to see
if there were any unusual products.  These were the labs which
Joe supposedly based his comments on.  Turns out there were 
no macro amounts of any element which would be considered strange 
or unusual.  The Hf was present, but only in trace quantities, 
and in an amount which could be reckoned as simple contaminant 
of the Hg.
	Apparently Joe amplified these results into basically a 
tall tale.  Perhaps Joe is seeing what he wants to see, rather 
than what is really there.  There may be other motivators for 
him as well, but I won't get into that here.  In any case, he
did not report the 'facts'.

	I find Joe to be a likeable and interesting fellow,
but if he's unwilling or unable to recount accurate results,
it seems more like he's chasing a rainbow.

	Jim

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 02:23:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA16751;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 02:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 02:21:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b13e77f1596c [12.64.67.53]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:19:55 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: rail gun (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"TQ6vc1.0.f54.-gD6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16965
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I said:

   >  Hey, just thought of something. The rails
   >  carry current in opposite directions, so
   >  they should attract.

... uh, try reversing that, you idiot ...

   >  If I were to nicely pivot the ends of the rails
   >  on bearings so they're free to swing
   >  horizontally in a cantilevered arrangement,
   >  and they are bridged by the rolling cross
   >  tube farther on for better leverage, when I
   >  connect the circuit they should:
   >
   >  a. swing towards each other by mutual
   >  attraction.
   >  b. do nothing as the
   >  'straightening' force balances the attraction.
   >  c. open out away from each other,
   >  overcoming the magnetic attraction.

Geez. Stirniman, it's all your fault!<g> And I'm still looking in my
drawers and parts bins for those batteries with two like poles, too!

Anyway, tubes free to roll on a pair of conducting rails do appear to want
to 'straighten the bend'. I don't know how valid the following is, since
almost everything else I have written tonight has come out bass ackwards,
but just simulating this action with a pair of magnets tends to help me
visualize things.

Hold two SMOT magnets (their long side faces polarized) together end to end
on a flat surface with their like poles on the y-z plane (z axis is
perendicular to the flat surface), and use a piece of tape (or just finger
pressure) to make a hinge between the like-pole faces. The magnets flip out
a bit past 90 degrees, and still want to strongly repel each other along
paths in both y *and* x (x representing the Marinov ring tangent here, y
the brush wire) axes. In the case of magnets, it's easy to visualize the
fields curving around and pushing against each other, so it's just a
*simulation* of the field density pinch where brush current turns to become
ring current - the fields around the brush wire and ring current are
altogether different in their direction and goemetry of course.

If you're dexterous, try this with three magnets. Two magnets with opposite
poles on the same plane stick together end to end ok, and represent the
divided current leaving the brush. The third 'brush' magnet right between
them balances its repulsion until you let it go to one side or another,
then there's powerful tangental thrust on the 'ring' magnets. Got 12
fingers? Try a fourth magnet to simulate an unbalancing influence.

If Horace's magnetic density pinch is responsible, it does make sense
provided there's enough assymetry between what the left and right ring
currents see as they leave the brushes. Maybe that's all the magnets inside
the Marinov motor do - just skew things enough so that one side 'wins'. No
magnets, the system is inherently self-balanced and the ring doesn't turn.

Anybody else get the impression that both Heffner *and* Kooistra are
somehow right about this?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 02:37:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA18180;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 02:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 02:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:34:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: I think it's only good for water
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980325102725.3090A-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"u8TP53.0.-R4.HuD6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16966
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortex,

You solve the energy problem you solve the water problem too. I thought
other way round, water then energy problem. I'm probably back to pure
empiricism - the phase changing vesicles will only condense water if the
water stuck to their surfaces can be made to flow away, so that more will
condense.

This puts a limit on the size of the vesicles, probably have to be small.
To small and separation is difficult from the water, to big and the water
won't flow. I have no equations to model and design experiments.

I think it may show the phase changing catalyst principle but it *won't*
be a substantial source of energy (probably). I can persue it but it's not
good for the soul to pursue something too long. To see it working, I
should be happy with that.

There are other approaches. The capacitor Bauer wrote about. Now I like
things that are 'solid state' and avoid messy chemistry. Never know I
might even have a shot at cold fusion, I can get D2O easily or these
magnetic anamolies.

More study after a break methinks.
Cheers,
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 04:37:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA28107;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 04:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 04:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <013401bd57e9$0b371e40$3e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Off Topic,  Gopher Wars
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 05:24:17 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"9bJAM1.0.5t6.-YF6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16967
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The Rio Grande (river) falls about 500 ft in 30 miles and is diverted
upstream into a system of canals to irrigate the Rio Grande Valley farmland.
The "pocket gophers" burrow 10 cm diameter tunnels beneath the surface to
feed on the plant roots. With flood irrigation the tunnels "pipe" the water
from the terraces from one level to the next (as much as 6 feet)and cause
washouts large enough to bury a house in, and destroy crops, not to mention
the cost of restoration.It is not unusual to have a mile of tunnels/acre.

My personal battle employed piping the exhaust
of my car and tractor into the tunnels, (fouls the spark plugs and overheats
the engines)cyanide "bombs",(effect unknown). Wind driven
ground thumpers (chases them to the neighbors
farm which washes out to my place). Castor bean
"trees" the roots of which poison the gophers because they can't
regurgitate.Climbed one once and met this giant that had some cool stuff
including a goose that laid golden eggs...

Built a high gain geophone (with headphones)that picked up the ground  wave
of the local AM radio station and amplified gopher activity to where it
sounded like a freight train, with the thought that I could get'em with a
round from a 30:06,but this tended to break your eardrums.

Gas warfare with a bottle of SO2 (using a gas mask) turned 4 acres of
alfalfa as white as snow didn't do much good either. The crop did recover
though and the SO2 treatment with the alkaline soil gave the best yield
ever.

Final solution, gopher traps, employed by the neighbor's teen-age daughter,
50 cents for females, 25 cents for males,until it got embarrassing checking
for gender and the wife said I was a "Male Chauvinist Pig", the bounty went
to a flat 50 cents each.

Penny, the teenage trapper, got almost all of them for less than $150.00,
including "emigrants" from neighboring farms. I spent at least 20 times that
on "high tech" warfare.   :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 06:10:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11380;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35190E7E.29A8 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:02:38 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: the Marinov Generator - NOT!
References: <3.0.1.32.19980324180043.00b40b74 mail.eden.com> <3.0.5.32.19980325002053.008c99a0@mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y353m3.0.in2.3xG6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16968
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:
> 
 Hell, I saw 10's of mV being "generated" by the
> vortex in the Potapov device...
> 

Right!  And I have used a "one-turn" disk dynamo as a flux meter with
good success.  I'll try that test again and make sure I have good brush
contact - I'm using gold-plated finger stock sections for brushes.

Hey, congrats on the patent, Scott!  Remember the watch word: "An erg
saved is a free-energy erg earned."  Hank needs to get these flywheel
units into his electric car!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 06:16:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12854;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351910BE.CE671076 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:12:14 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Per Joe Champion's reporting
References: <00d301bd57aa$92a4e9a0$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"BPTNx.0.l83.k4H6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16969
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Joe Champion wrote:

> I frankly do not give a damn whether anyone in Vortex
> or the scientific community believes me.

Stick to your guns Joe.  Electricity was still called a hoax even after street
lights were installed and working.  Independent verification goes along way,
product in your hand goes even farther.  Hang in there.

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 06:24:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA24010;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:22:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:22:36 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:22:29 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: "vortex-L eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
In-Reply-To: <199803240756_MC2-37C3-80AD compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980325062005.5451E-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"QrObl3.0.4t5.gCH6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16970
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Soo wrote:

> Attempting to understand something I read about Schauberger's "trout
> turbine".  The description used is that the water inrush is "analagous to
> the hyperbolic centripetal spiral movement".

I suspect this refers to Schauberger's devices shown in various books:
viewed from the top, the water moves in a spiral, viewed from the side,
the water moves along the surface of a hyperbola (like a bowl with a drain
hole in the center)

But I'm no 'living water' expert, so I could be barking up the wrong
flume.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 06:42:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28022;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:41:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:41:03 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:40:55 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
In-Reply-To: <199803241056_MC2-37C7-86E2 compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980325063353.5451F-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"3K-UR.0.kr6.-TH6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16971
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Soo wrote:
> <most of our trout are still diesel powered.>
> 
> You mean they gave up surfing???

Hi Soo!

Imaginary conversation-

 Schauberger: trout use no energy, they swim by creating self-acting
             vortices which extract etheric energy.

 Science:    Bosh!   Go away please!

 Science: (later, in 1996(?))  Hey, trout swim in turbulent streams by
                               interacting with vortices!  They do almost
                               no work themselves!

(will the other shoe drop?  Will fluid vortices turn out to be energy-
producing mechanizms?) 

The fish/vortex article was in SciAm within the last couple of years.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 07:32:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA09813;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:29:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:29:37 -0800
Message-Id: <199803251528.KAA03139 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: Per Joe Champion's reporting
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 98 10:31:04 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aVzRU1.0.6P2.WBI6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16972
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Joe Champion wrote:

>Gene, please get a fucking life!  I never said that I did not give the total
>protocol, I said (which I am sure that you remember) that I found a better
>method.  Did I send it to you?  NO!  The reason is simple, I am trying to
>fulfill the request of many with data and at the same time feed my family.

OK, Joe, I just got myself a life (last time I checked, I had a pulse) -- 
and now I'm ready to do the new method. You said that we had actually 
*achieved transmutaions* in our penultimate small sampel of processed Pb. 
Now, just send me the details on the precise method of treating that 30 
to 50 gram sample and we should get quite visible Au, as you said.  We'll 
do it.

>I frankly do not give a damn whether anyone in Vortex or the scientific
>community believes me.

This, I do not believe. EVERYONE wants to get some respect -- oir the 
last laugh! If you have something, you deserve the satisfaction of being 
vindicated.

>
>I have an open door policy at my facility.  Anyone can come in and view,
>observe, replicate take the knowledge with them, make their own metals and
>publish.  However, I must feed my family and to do so requires that I
>manufacture metals.

Good, I will try to come and visit you on site some day -- travel plans 
permitting. Then I can watch how the true master(s) do it -- assuming we 
have not mastered the technique by then.. 

>
>I apologize for the failure in your tests.  Did I receive a phone call from
>you during the process and request for assistance?

Nope, I was waiting for the fax --- maybe I should have called you though.
>
>Don't belittle yourself to the group with your answer.  I receive a
>communication after the fact.  That is extremely helpful in troubleshooting
>a problem!
>
>Barry has visited on and off for the past 18 months.  At first I felt it
>important to make him a believer.  Now I do not care, for he has observed an
>open book.  It would be nice if he has independent replication, but if he
>doesn't I did my best.

I await Barry's report on all his activities. I understand from him that 
he is writing one. I hope he will share it with us all. I'll publish it 
in Infinite Energy, IF he lets us -- with your comments onit if there 
need to be any.
>
>Barry has observed significant amounts of metal. Did I salt it for his
>benefit? What's the point.

Joe, I do NOT think you have salted anything -- that was pretty clear 
from the TAMU work. 
>
>Barry and Monti went to Dallas and observed anomalies.  Did I have slide of
>hand?  If I did, then I have one up on Hal's remote sensing, for that means
>I have remote doing!
>
>The bottom line is anyone of an intelligent nature (this covers anyone with
>the capacity of sipping wine without guzzling) has the right to enter my
>facility, without signing anything.  So maybe I am living in a imaginary
>world.  I guess I am in the same league with P&F, CETI and numerous others.

No, no, no! You are NOT in their league. They (at least CETI) has fully 
reproducible results and these have been published and even patented. The 
CG group have a money-back-deal device that IS being reproduced at major 
labs right now (some results should be reported at ICCF-7 if they are 
cleared).  And P&F results have been replicated many times, by Mel MIles, 
Italian groups, the French Atomic Energy Commission, etc. -- including 
the MIT PFC and Harwell labs...

>Or maybe there is a difference, I have the ability to sell my meager product
>to a jewelry store and I don't image that the power companies are paying for
>heat today.

Joe, please send me copies of the *receipts*. I will publish those and 
help clear you for good.

Best wishes,

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 Mar 25 07:48:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13504;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:47:08 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:47:08 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:47:05 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7388.286.18101944 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <013401bd57e9$0b371e40$3e8cbfa8 default>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: Off Topic,  Gopher Wars
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"k8f5N.0.sI3.vRI6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16973
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 25-Mar-98, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:

>Penny, the teenage trapper, got almost all of them for less than $150.00,
>including "emigrants" from neighboring farms. I spent at least 20 times that
>on "high tech" warfare.   :-)

 Wasn't there a fellow, somewhere in the southwest, that sucked them up
 with a huge truck sized vacuum and sold them to Asia for food? :)
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 08:07:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17796;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:05:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:05:16 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b13edad1982d [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 07:11:14 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov - direction of force
Resent-Message-ID: <"mjGoe3.0.uL4.xiI6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16974
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In the longitudinal force equation

     Fl = (v v' h)/2c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)

h is derived from the distance vector R, which is from q' to q, not q to q'
as I interpreted it.  Therefore, the longitudinal force in the longitudinal
magnetic field at the face of a magnet, for example, is *away from the
magnet*.

The example experiments I posed should look like the following:

           ------
           | N  |
           |    |
           |    |
           |    |
           | S  |
           ------

           |    |------------(-)
           |    |
           \/\/\/


           ------
              |
              ------------- (+)


One alternative is to form a ring of discharge tubes in plane XY and place
on the z axis the vertical tubes - over the center of the ring:

               O +
               |
               |
               O -

           0---OO---O     <---- ring of discharge tubes in plane xy

               O -
               |
               |
               O +

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 10:40:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28104;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:48:26 -0500
From: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Sender: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199803251248_MC2-37EB-616B 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 KAA28013
Resent-Message-ID: <"6NSV73.0._s6.pqK6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16976
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Bill

<viewed from the top, the water moves in a spiral, viewed from the side,
the water moves along the surface of a hyperbola>

And also, it appears, the water spiralled around itself, so that as it was
travelling along and down, it was also following yet another internal
spiral path (apparently he got this idea from studying  antelope horns).  I
can't make out how he made it do that without using complex piping.....or
even how you could construct piping to simulate that effect.  There's only
a diagram of the device, no internal cross-section shown.

I know in his log flume designs he had small paddles at intervals along the
construction to "turn" the water over on itself, so presumably it was
something along those lines.  

-Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 14:23:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10690;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13f1aba9bcc [199.237.131.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 11:48:08 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: The Grassman Formula? Help!
Resent-Message-ID: <"lmIZa1.0.sc2.f6O6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16977
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The Grassmann Formula:

   Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}

was Marinov's starting place.  I can't seem to find it in any text book.
It sounds familiar, but I've read so much stuff I don't know what's
accepted and what's not anymore. Is this some wild-eyed thing like
Marinov's ideas, or is this well accepted physics derivable from Lorentz
(i.e. from F/q = E + V x B)?

Marinov states it is based upon the Lorentz equation, but I see no hint of
the expression for Fg including electrostatic forces. If V and V' are 0,
then Fg = 0, so there is no electrostatic force. Yet Marinov derives from
this:

   F/q = Eior + V x B + VS

where he implies that F/q = Eior + Vx B is the Lorentz law portion, and VS
is his added force.

What's going on?



Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 15:18:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18708;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:03:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:07:18 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5842$c235bf30$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"CIku1.0.7a4.CrO6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16978
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick wrote:
>I still can't see where the force from any I X B works with any of its
>components tangential to the ring so as to propel it around. All the force
>vectors I can visualize here are only radial, unless some current in the
>ring is radial. Where am I going wrong?
>
>- Rick Monteverde
-
>And Horace agrees:
>You are right. I was away from the house when I finally realized it.  I
>don't see any I x B action either. It may be there somewhere, but I don't
>see it.  The magnetic pressure thing looks pretty obvious though, what do
>you think of that? 
-
I think you are getting somewhat closer to my mental picture
of what is happening. You are calling it magnetic pressure,
earlier I called it minimizing total magnetic field energy and
Michael called it the Maxwell stress tensor. I think that if
you use this technique correctly to calculate the forces, you 
will find a longitudinal force that causes ring rotation. This
technique gives answers based on our ability to calculate
fields rather than using the Lorentz law. 
-
The different techniques give different answers, which should
not be the case if they are both correct. The Lorentz
force law does not predict the experimental results
correctly. The forces are correctly predicted by the total field
energy changes with motion of either the ring or the
torus. Force is always in the direction that minimizes 
field energy. The direction of motion and the
qualitative strength of the longitudinal force can be
correctly estimated for all the experiments reported so far.
-
I believe that this is another example of inconsistency in
standard physics without a change in the Lorentz force law.
Other examples are Phipps' derivation in IE and Striniman's
observation that in the frame of the particle,a charged 
particle entering a magnetic field sees a dA/dt which
must result in a longitudinal force.
-
So, where do I still think Horace's model could be improved?
The model must be able to predict both ring and torus
rotation correctly. The forces that are present at the brush
points do not affect the torus, the force is between the
ring and the brush. I think that this force is actually
quite small because the ring creates a nearly zero
magnetic field at the connection point. The current is
flowing in opposite directions in the ring at this point
causing the fields to cancel, at least when using an
Amperian current element based model and in
actual measurements.
-
Look at it from the point of view that the leakage
fields from the torus are stronger closer to the
torus, so that they interact more strongly with the
fields inside the ring. As Horace shows in his
diagrams, the fields created inside the ring by the
ring current are in opposite directions and field
energy is minimized when fields in opposite
directions result in lower fields in a volume.
Same direction fields give higher field energy
in a volume and cause forces which avoid this 
condition.
-
I think that it is quite clear that if there is no
current in the ring, there is no asymmetry
in the ring fields, and it would be quite an
accomplishment to get an EMF out. 
I've got to leave now, but comments are encouraged
for tomorrow's discussion.
-
George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 20:29:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25038;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:23:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b13f5ad4a83b [12.64.4.102]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd5842$c235bf30$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:14:38 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"JiTW83.0.576.2XT6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16979
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George -

   >  The forces are correctly predicted by the
   >  total field energy changes with motion of
   >  either the ring or the torus. Force is always
   >  in the direction that minimizes field energy.
   >  The direction of motion and the qualitative
   >  strength of the longitudinal force can be
   >  correctly estimated for all the experiments
   >  reported so far.

A few questions on that...

Are you saying then that this effect is dependent on charge velocity? Is
there assumed to be an electron drift velocity difference between the two
sides of current flow around the ring? I haven't built one of these yet,
but am I correct to assume that the propelling force exists full-blown
_before_ the ring (or magnet assembly) begins to rotate? And does the
ring's rotation once it does get going have any thing further to do with
the force tangental to the ring? Would it continue to rotate in the 'wrong'
direction, for instance, if you manually started it off that way, or would
it slow to a stop and then reverse itself?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 20:52:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29251;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:40:59 -0800 (PST)
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 <ewall-rsg worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Per Joe Champion's reporting
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 02:11:34 +0000
Message-ID: <19980326021132.AAA22610 HOME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"mFSct.0.x87.OnT6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16980
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Joe Champion wrote:
><snip>
>Gene, please get a fucking life! 
<snip>
>Don't belittle yourself to the group with your answer.  I receive a
>communication after the fact.  That is extremely helpful in troubleshooting
>a problem!
><snip>
>
>Respectfully submitted,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Joe Champion

NON-SEQUITAR MAXIMUS
[Loosely translated bad Latin:  'This really doesn't follow at all!']

Joe,

I appreciate that you are an individual doing something that most people
consider to be more than a little strange and are probably somewhat alienated.  

Gene Mallove is your ally if you are genuine.  He is not only willing to
give you the benefit of the doubt, which is no small feat, but he is far
from condescending.

I cannot tell if your work is actually producing transmutation, but if you
are, it seems reasonable to believe that the isotopic shift would be
demonstratable and you could do a lot more to enrich yourself by providing a
minute sample of product (doesn't even have to be a precious metal) to
someone for isotope analysis, as Jed suggests.  So, what's up?

Ed Wall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Wed Mar 25 23:56:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA08320;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 23:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 23:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b13f58f5c7a8 [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:51:49 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"-zB591.0.t12.kVW6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16981
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:07 PM 3/25/98, George Holz wrote:

>So, where do I still think Horace's model could be improved?
>The model must be able to predict both ring and torus
>rotation correctly. The forces that are present at the brush
>points do not affect the torus, the force is between the
>ring and the brush.

Actually there should be an equivalent torque on the magnet.  The leakage
field is in effect stretched over into the area of high magnetic intensity
by the distortion caused by the current in the brush leads, and the current
in the loop itself, as Frank Stenger's experiments showed.  I think Frank
was on the right track, and it was his insight that caused me to focus on
the magnetic poressure idea.  The same "magnetc pressure" concept can be
used to describe Frank's initial experiment with the magnet over the
conducting wire.  The field from the magnet is displaced, i.e. stretched,
over to the high pressure side.  The stretching of the magnet's field pulls
the magnet.  The stretching is due to pushing of the field lineds from the
brush leads compressed the torus magnet field near the brush contact point,
e.g.at point A below:

         X X X X
           ------
       O  /      \ X X X
         / O    X \  X    X
   XX O |        X |  A X X X X
(-)---->| O  SN    |<------------(+)
   OO O |        X |    O O O O O
       B \      X /  X
       O  \ O    / X
           ------ O
         O O O

Now, this I find strange! The torque on the magnet should be CCW, just as
it is on the ring!?  All the torque in the system is applied one way or the
other by the brush current, and to the brush leads, ie. the right to left
current, just like Frank suggested.  Odd that this force on the brush leads
*can* be described by the Lorentz formula.


>I think that this force is actually
>quite small because the ring creates a nearly zero
>magnetic field at the connection point.


This can not be true. The maximum magnetic intensity outside the ring but
in the plane of the ring is at points A and B above.  Note the magnet
directions above, SN represents the tops of the "split magnets".


>The current is
>flowing in opposite directions in the ring at this point
>causing the fields to cancel, at least when using an
>Amperian current element based model and in
>actual measurements.


As with the rail gun, the maximum field intensity should be right at the
current bend point.  The superimposed leakage field from the torus magnet
only serves to diminish the field on one side of the brush lead and enhance
the other. A probe should be placed at A above.


>-
>Look at it from the point of view that the leakage
>fields from the torus are stronger closer to the
>torus, so that they interact more strongly with the
>fields inside the ring. As Horace shows in his
>diagrams, the fields created inside the ring by the
>ring current are in opposite directions and field
>energy is minimized when fields in opposite
>directions result in lower fields in a volume.
>Same direction fields give higher field energy
>in a volume and cause forces which avoid this
>condition.
>-
>I think that it is quite clear that if there is no
>current in the ring, there is no asymmetry
>in the ring fields, and it would be quite an
>accomplishment to get an EMF out.


Amen.  If there were a feedback mechanism to amplify a current once a small
one one was started in the ring, then the small current induced by the
Lorentz force acting on the lateral current entering the ring at the brush
point should get things initiated.  Frank Stenger's experiment showed this
not to happen, however.



Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 00:30:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA00961;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:26:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:26:51 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD69C xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Marinov - How about a salt water armature?
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:47:44 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"OYJYJ3.0.DE.15X6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16982
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Also Chlorine would be generated. Be careful
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	hheffner corecom.net[SMTP:hheffner@corecom.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 12:48 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Marinov - How about a salt water armature?
> 
> Instead of mercury, why not use a see-through trough of salt water for
> the
> ring. Add a little pepper and see whats happening.  Would have to
> raise the
> voltage to get 20 A.  Also would have to contend with H2 generation.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 00:40:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA19464;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:03:18 +1000
Message-Id: <199803260203.MAA15866 nornet.nor.com.au>
X-Sender: mindtech pophost.nor.com.au
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: Peter Nielsen <mindtech nor.com.au>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"qfFPv1.0.zl4.gDX6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16983
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> Schauberger: trout use no energy, they swim by creating self-acting
>             vortices which extract etheric energy.
>

I'll buy that. But maybe cancelling vortices would be more accurate. As a
result of his experiments with "hydronic" radiation, Wally Minto found
swimming fish emit scalar waves. 

> Science: (later, in 1996(?))  Hey, trout swim in turbulent streams by
>                               interacting with vortices!  They do almost
>                               no work themselves!
>
>(will the other shoe drop?  Will fluid vortices turn out to be energy-
>producing mechanizms?) 
>
>William J. Beaty                                  
>

Well, there was the Schauberger turbine. Crank up a vortex in water, remove
the mechanical drive and reconnect to a load. The reaction chamber was
egg-shaped. Running water past an egg produces a _Phi ratio_ vortex. In
terms of energy translation, what's the real message here?

Peter Nielsen

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 01:04:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA18468;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:01:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:01:44 -0800
Message-ID: <35199D27.7BF9 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:11:19 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Notes on Marinov]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"ztDtb.0.lV4.pbX6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16984
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Message-ID: <35194B53.501A interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:22:11 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Notes on Marinov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Horace and Scott,

I reran the checks for EMF on the Marinov motor in the configuration in
Scotts drawing (http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif)
- less the steel pole caps.  I "freshened up" the brushes to make sure
I was bearing on new gold plating, and I increased the brush force for
extra good contact.  These brushed are sections of gold-plated finger
stock used for sealing up rf cavities and equipment cabinets, etc.
I used short sections of this stock which put 4 little fingers in
contact with the copper ring at each of the two brush sites.
The copper ring itself is 1/2 inch wide, 3.1 inches in average diameter
and 0.040 inches thick.  This means the ring is about equivalent to a
#6 solid copper wire in cross section.  The brush-to-brush resistance
of the two ring halves in parallel then calculates to about 82
micro-ohms.
I again connected my DMM (10 megohms input), set on the mv scale, across
the brushes and spun up the ring to the max chuck speed of my Sears
3/8 inch hand drill.  The DMM was absolutly dead - no indication at
all. The meter will register 0.1 mv and has ambient open-probe readings
of between 50 and 100 mv.  The meter was nice and quiet connected to
the brushes - at rest and at speed.

When I started this Marinov caper, I was trying hard to explain why
the motor should work.  Now, I find that I'm mostly trying to explain
why I get zero EMF at open circuit and at speed.
I realize now that my attempt to develop the Marinov torque from the
compass needle and straight current model was flawed.
What I did approach in the development was a kind of spoked-wheel motor
generator which would work by the Lorentz concept.  BUT, you can't
change the spoked wheel to a disk - the disk would become an
eddy-current brake of the type used in kilowatt-hour meters.
The spoked wheel, however, could function as a motor/generator if
the gaps were filled in with plastic and the outer rim machined and
fitted with brushes.  The wheel needs only to be placed beside a bar
magnet so flux goes thru a conducting pair of spokes in opposite
directions thru each of the two spokes.  But this is really just a
version of the flat "pancake" rotor motor - an example of which I happen
to have in my junk ben.  IT DOES NOT REDUCE TO A MARINOV MOTOR.

Thus, unless the Marinov motor effect has a threshold effect wherein it
requires a minimum flux density to even start working, then I am at a
loss to explain my negative results (zero EMF at speed).

Horace, I considered trying to fit my C-magnet over one brush contact
as you suggested, but then I realized that how could I possibly hope
to measure any local voltage difference in a #6 size conductor without
some kind of across-diameter EMF in parallel on both sides of the ring-
as the longitudinal effect is supposed to provide?  I would think I
would at least need a C-magnet for each brush set for additive voltages-
right?  What do you think?

I'm about to get back to chasing ball lightning!  Another thing that
I've never witnessed for myself - sigh!  Will someone out there please
make an anomally common place so that I can see it. :-)

Frank Stenger




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 01:08:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA18709;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:01:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:01:59 -0800
Message-ID: <35194B53.501A interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:22:11 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Notes on Marinov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gsfoq3.0.qV4.pbX6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16985
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace and Scott,

I reran the checks for EMF on the Marinov motor in the configuration in
Scotts drawing (http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif)
- less the steel pole caps.  I "freshened up" the brushes to make sure
I was bearing on new gold plating, and I increased the brush force for
extra good contact.  These brushed are sections of gold-plated finger
stock used for sealing up rf cavities and equipment cabinets, etc.
I used short sections of this stock which put 4 little fingers in
contact with the copper ring at each of the two brush sites.
The copper ring itself is 1/2 inch wide, 3.1 inches in average diameter
and 0.040 inches thick.  This means the ring is about equivalent to a
#6 solid copper wire in cross section.  The brush-to-brush resistance
of the two ring halves in parallel then calculates to about 82
micro-ohms.
I again connected my DMM (10 megohms input), set on the mv scale, across
the brushes and spun up the ring to the max chuck speed of my Sears
3/8 inch hand drill.  The DMM was absolutly dead - no indication at
all. The meter will register 0.1 mv and has ambient open-probe readings
of between 50 and 100 mv.  The meter was nice and quiet connected to
the brushes - at rest and at speed.

When I started this Marinov caper, I was trying hard to explain why
the motor should work.  Now, I find that I'm mostly trying to explain
why I get zero EMF at open circuit and at speed.
I realize now that my attempt to develop the Marinov torque from the
compass needle and straight current model was flawed.
What I did approach in the development was a kind of spoked-wheel motor
generator which would work by the Lorentz concept.  BUT, you can't
change the spoked wheel to a disk - the disk would become an
eddy-current brake of the type used in kilowatt-hour meters.
The spoked wheel, however, could function as a motor/generator if
the gaps were filled in with plastic and the outer rim machined and
fitted with brushes.  The wheel needs only to be placed beside a bar
magnet so flux goes thru a conducting pair of spokes in opposite
directions thru each of the two spokes.  But this is really just a
version of the flat "pancake" rotor motor - an example of which I happen
to have in my junk ben.  IT DOES NOT REDUCE TO A MARINOV MOTOR.

Thus, unless the Marinov motor effect has a threshold effect wherein it
requires a minimum flux density to even start working, then I am at a
loss to explain my negative results (zero EMF at speed).

Horace, I considered trying to fit my C-magnet over one brush contact
as you suggested, but then I realized that how could I possibly hope
to measure any local voltage difference in a #6 size conductor without
some kind of across-diameter EMF in parallel on both sides of the ring-
as the longitudinal effect is supposed to provide?  I would think I
would at least need a C-magnet for each brush set for additive voltages-
right?  What do you think?

I'm about to get back to chasing ball lightning!  Another thing that
I've never witnessed for myself - sigh!  Will someone out there please
make an anomally common place so that I can see it. :-)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 01:09:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA18559;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:01:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:01:51 -0800
Message-ID: <3519A2C4.4460 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:35:16 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Grassman Formula? Help!
References: <v01530500b13f1aba9bcc [199.237.131.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qcv8B2.0.6X4.tbX6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16986
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> The Grassmann Formula:
> 
>    Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}
> 
> was Marinov's starting place.  I can't seem to find it in any text book.

Horace, the only thing I could quickly locate was in the McGraw-Hill
Ency. of Physics.  H. G. Grassmann was an early developer of vector
algebra along with W. R. Hamilton in the middle of the 19th century.
Says it was brought to its present form by Heaviside and Gibbs.
It tells nothing of his specific work.  EM theory was not exactly
firmed up at that time - maybe he did some early work in EM theory.
Old is not necessarily good, though many on this list revel in "lost
knowledge".  However, maybe he did some good work that retains validity!
It's just that a lot of good people were doing EM guessing in those
days, not all of it worked out, I'm sure.

Frank S.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 01:12:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA27138;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351989FB.40FD skylink.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:49:31 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Magnetic pressure, Biot's law, and Marinov's motor
References: <v01530500b13e0fdecbde [199.237.131.221]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6jPgH1.0.wd6.YhX6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16987
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> Suppose we look at a closeup of a single brush contact point of a Marinov
> motor which has no internal magnet and current flowing:

Yes, I've seen this kind of thing before. If you take two torroidal
ball bearings, and put a conductive shaft that fits nicely in the
inner circumference of each of the bearings, between the two bearings, 
and touch an battery across the two bearings, the shaft will spin
rapidly -- in either direction, depending on which way it gets started
moving, and depending on the relative direction in which the battery
cables make contact to the outer circumference of the bearings.

No stray flux is necessary for the above rotation to take place.
It is possible that something like this is happening in the Marinov
motor. Although, I don't see why the magnetic core in the Marinov
motor, or any stray flux from the core, should matter in this effect.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 01:47:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20192;
	Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:13:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:13:25 -0800
Message-ID: <01c401bd5808$a1500300$3e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic,  Gopher Wars
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 09:10:26 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"qiJAc3.0.Mx4.YqI6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16975
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: Frederick J. Sparber <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Off Topic, Gopher Wars


>On 25-Mar-98, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>
>>Penny, the teenage trapper, got almost all of them for less than $150.00,
>>including "emigrants" from neighboring farms. I spent at least 20 times
that
>>on "high tech" warfare.   :-)
>
> Wasn't there a fellow, somewhere in the southwest, that sucked them up
> with a huge truck sized vacuum and sold them to Asia for food? :)

I think so.   :-)

I hauled a shop vac out to the yard to do that to an ant hill. Must've
sucked up to at least
20,000 of them.    :-)

Next round is going to be several gigacuries of Cs137 mounted on a 12 ft
wide grain drill, pulled behind a Patton tank shielded with a 1/2 meter
thickness of depleted uranium.

Might do "Custom" food sterilization on the side to defray expenses.   :-)

Regards,     Frederick


>--
>    .-.                                                               .-.
>   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
>  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
>-/--Chuck
Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
>    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
>           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
>            `-'                                               `-'
> http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 04:27:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00752;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:26:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:26:20 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980326070722.006ace6c agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:25:06 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3AROG1.0.fB.gba6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16989
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 07:59 AM 3/23/98 -0600, John E. Steck wrote:
>..... I can't really help him any further without seeing the geometry
>(which he may not want to share at this time).
>


I was thinking the visual geometry was plain enough as small jpgs. But
apparently not. So i tried to clarify with much bigger JPEG and GIF
diagram. These are at same URL, near bottom of page:

  http://www.agate.net/~insearch/concentrSpirSphereFlats.html

Is this what you mean by "geometry", or do you mean something else, (like
equations)?   When it comes to software formatted files, i can provide
those also, (eg: *.dxf, *.iges, *.stl , etc..).   Your candid opinion about
the merit of this as an experimental idea would be appreciated. There is
more to it, but if this doesn't grab one's interest, then let silence be my
clear answer.

 If this interests anyone else, please just let me know.  
Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 04:38:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA04770;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:34:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:34:34 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b13ff428ba48 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 03:26:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Notes on Marinov]
Resent-Message-ID: <"gVizC.0.MA1.Oja6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16991
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:11 PM 3/25/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Horace, I considered trying to fit my C-magnet over one brush contact
>as you suggested, but then I realized that how could I possibly hope
>to measure any local voltage difference in a #6 size conductor without
>some kind of across-diameter EMF in parallel on both sides of the ring-
>as the longitudinal effect is supposed to provide?  I would think I
>would at least need a C-magnet for each brush set for additive voltages-
>right?  What do you think?

I think it will  work fine on only a single contact point vicinity.
Doesn't even have to be directly over the contact point, just up close from
the brush lead side.  Only has to increase flux pressure (magnetic
intensity) in the direction of motion, and reduce it on the approach side
of the brush.   I suspect that with your motor there is probably not room
for the armature in the gap of your strong C magnet, but getting it close
might work.  Also you could simply use the SMOT magnets N down over one
brush point and N up over the other.

>
>I'm about to get back to chasing ball lightning!  Another thing that
>I've never witnessed for myself - sigh!  Will someone out there please
>make an anomally common place so that I can see it. :-)
>
>Frank Stenger

Frank,

It is really strange that your well crafted motor does not work while Jeff
Kooistra's aluminum fooil with hand held copper wire brushes motor does
work.  It would be nice to know what the critical difference is.  Magnet
strength, position, ... what?  I think the real anomaly is that the better
built it is the less results you get - kind of reminds me of CF, etc.  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 04:39:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA03915;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:32:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:32:59 -0800
Message-ID: <005d01bd58b3$176dbd20$288cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic, Gopher Wars
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:30:36 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"wNx2V3.0.5z.vha6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16990
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25  Mar 1998, Steve Ekwall wrote:

>30:06 ? .. a .22 is about 1.5 cents per  in quantity.

I was involved in a local skirmish with a gopher in the front lawn. I got
out the .380 "Llama" a baby .45 (7 rounds in the clip and one in the
chamber)and dug away the end of the tunnel and waited... laying on the
ground with
both hands holding the weapon pointed at where "he" was going to make an
appearance. When he did, I fired point blank from a a distance of 8 inches!

Thinking of the gory mess, I started to shovel
a decent burial site right there. I found the slug but no gopher! They must
have fantastic reflexes.

Not having a lot to do that day, I gave it another shot (so to speak)same
results.

On the third try, when I dug back on the tunnel
it was back-filled solid for at least 10 feet.We both called it a day.

I had a contractor in with a back-hoe to dig a trench about a foot wide and
3 1/2 feet deep for a septic tank drain field.

We had called it quits for a one-hour lunch and
when we got back we found that we had cut across a gopher tunnel about six
inches below grade. There was about 3 cubic feet of dirt
that the gopher had pushed out into the trench
in trying to close the end of his tunnel.

I figure weight-for-weight he was outdoing a 200 horsepower back-hoe.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 05:18:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17503;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:14:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:14:20 -0800
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:12:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic, Gopher Wars
In-Reply-To: <005d01bd58b3$176dbd20$288cbfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980326055414.10134A-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"okG5o1.0.IH4.fIb6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16992
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
-snip-
> out the .380 "Llama" a baby .45 
> appearance. When he did, I fired point blank from a a distance of 8 inches!
> 
ROFL *
-snip-
> 
> I figure weight-for-weight he was outdoing a 200 horsepower back-hoe.  :-)
> 
> Regards,    Frederick
> 
I don't envy one little bit, and wish I had your answer (reminds me
somehow of little Sudam Hussans digging in in Iraq and sticking their
tounges out at you... (did you ever see the movie "Caddy Shack"?)). 
----
No parts found? :) I tested a .300 Winchester MAGnum (about a 4" shell) on
a crow on a telephone line once, *POOF* he only left his feathers.. about
10~20 of 'em flittering down. I still don't know where HE went! <g>
----
Sorry you $pent so much on high-tech, We just had a court order here in
Colorado that favored the developer in a hog.infested housing area.. they
started a poisioning campain yesterday...
----
Maybe REVERSE science here.. like a Pied Piper pheromone sexy attractive
kind of thingy .. hummm   :)


Good luck to you & yours
-=se=-
ekwall2 diac.com

----

"The squirrel in our attic (hand feed by the wife every morning) had found
a mate and they have 4 healthy hungry teens now.  eating my 2x4.s"

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 05:34:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13984;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:40:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
cc: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic,  Gopher Wars
In-Reply-To: <013401bd57e9$0b371e40$3e8cbfa8 default>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980325210226.18306A-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"V_bBg1.0.OQ3.oRb6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16993
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
-snip-
> Built a high gain geophone (with headphones)that picked up the ground  wave
> of the local AM radio station and amplified gopher activity to where it
> sounded like a freight train, with the thought that I could get'em with a
> round from a 30:06,but this tended to break your eardrums.

30:06 ? .. a .22 cal is about 1.5 cents per/ in quantity (invite and have
an open semi-annual sight-in (longest distants wins:)


> Final solution, gopher traps, employed by the neighbor's teen-age daughter,
> 50 cents for females, 25 cents for males,until it got embarrassing checking
> for gender and the wife said I was a "Male Chauvinist Pig", the bounty went
> to a flat 50 cents each.
> 
> Penny, the teenage trapper, got almost all of them for less than $150.00,
> including "emigrants" from neighboring farms. I spent at least 20 times that
> on "high tech" warfare.   :-)

Sounds like this was the best idea yet!... hope she doesn't "go-off-to
school" down the road (then THEYYY'RRRREEEEEE Back!)..
   I'm only responding as we have had similiar trouble here.. (and NO to
those animal-lovers out there, many a hole by a 2 pound critter has killed
a 800 pound horse with a broken leg (not counting human legs) ,#4#, it
doesn't compute. 
   Thought about Military action as in Desert Storm, where the tanks were
just equiped withbull-dozer blades on the front and buried the trenches of
un-friendlies in front of them.. (but these little critter ARE resiliant
to say the least... also making 'back-doors' to avoid the gas attacks:)
   We (Colorado) have a guy who takes a vaccumm truck and just "sucks" em
out and they appear non-the worse for the wear.  Recent news, says they
are going for as much as $40-$150 dollars for those who want 'em in a hole
or two in their back yard to hand feed-em ... they say they are great
pets!
   The "Suction-Truck" is a modified street sweeper-sucker type unit and
appearently works pretty well, although, doesn't re-fill the hole. 
   I'm reminded of the FINAL answer that Austrailia HAD to come up with
with the introduction of the rabbit / hare / hoppity hop.  DNA to virus
infiltration at the reproductive level. (leaked early if I remember, but
work(s) well!  :)
-------------------------
If you suck 'em - you can sell 'em! (maybe(?$)) humm, a crop as it were.
Nasty havest I'd imagine year after year..
-------------------------
For those on the PETA side of the fence-here.. Lets bring back the Kodiak
Bear and Grizzly to Every Home.. they like to eat 'em for lunch.. you
shouldn't feed your Bear tofu all the time :) Oh, BTW, PETA is attacking
Fly-fisherman this month in Colorado. (poor little fishies)
-------------------------
All in all, at 1.5 cents and a Brisnell Scope I like the .22.
For $ crop go suck 'em -mail 'em to California :)
For xXx DNA attacks (more money (sigh))


---
Did ya hear that two rabbits got away from the zoo last month?, so far
they have recaught 112 of them! :)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 05:55:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA19042;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:47:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:45:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Cornwall RO <R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk>
X-Sender: remi exeter
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic, Gopher Wars
In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980326055414.10134A-100000 november>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980326133802.13682B-100000 exeter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"nxVS_3.0.Gf4.enb6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16994
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Steve Ekwall wrote:

> Maybe REVERSE science here.. like a Pied Piper pheromone sexy attractive
> kind of thingy .. hummm   :)

Genetically engineer wheat (or whatever the buggers eat) to make
gopher testosterone or estrogen. That way you'll get very butch female
gophers or rather camp male gophers - that can't be good for their
reproductive success!

I can just see it, 'Oh darling, you expect *me* to live down that burrow
hole.'

or...
'We demand state aid to improve our gopher dwellings. We're staging a
sit-in and hunger strike'

Oops! I've done it again, I've done my Melvin impression. 
Remi.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 06:31:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA25043;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00c301bd58c1$869cd740$288cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic,  Gopher Wars
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:14:37 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"DaHMz2.0.B76.FEc6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16996
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Off Topic, Gopher Wars


John Steck wrote:
>
>
>If it's an ant mound, bury a soaker hose around the perimeter and keep the
>ground saturated.  One of the biggest natural enemies of burrowing insects
>is...... mold.
>
>Low tech enough?  Works on underground hornet and bumble bee nests too.

Sounds very practical John, thanks for the tip.

BTW. I hear that DOE has funded further research on genetically-engineered
worms that thrive on radioactive wastes.

I guess this will solve the nuke waste disposal problem in the long run?

Regards,    Frederick
>
>
>--
>John E. Steck
>Prototype Tool Engineering
>Motorola CSS, Libertyville
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 06:30:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA07350;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:25:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:25:44 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351A655C.94973F19 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:25:32 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: El Nino slows Earth down
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------AFD7C3C25E09F5ADC4B00BE4"
Resent-Message-ID: <"mJOsb2.0.mo1.cLc6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16997
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.
--------------AFD7C3C25E09F5ADC4B00BE4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2553484831-68e>
-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville
--------------AFD7C3C25E09F5ADC4B00BE4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="story.cgi"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="story.cgi"
Content-Base: "http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/st
	ory.cgi?id=2553484831-68e"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Full Story</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<A HREF=/main/cgi/main_merc.cgi?action=main&><IMG SRC="/ib/web/bar/merc/main.gif" ALT="INFOBEAT | " WIDTH="180" HEIGHT="20" BORDER="0"></A><A HREF=/main/cgi/main_merc.cgi?action=userprofile&><IMG SRC="/ib/web/bar/merc/userprofile.gif" ALT="Profile | " WID
TH="60" HEIGHT="20" BORDER="0"></A><A HREF=/main/cgi/main_merc.cgi?action=feedback&><IMG SRC="/ib/web/bar/merc/feedback.gif" ALT="Feedback | " WIDTH="60" HEIGHT="20" BORDER="0"></A><A HREF=/main/cgi/main_merc.cgi?action=about&><IMG SRC="/ib/web/bar/merc/a
bout.gif" ALT="About | " WIDTH="60" HEIGHT="20" BORDER="0"></A><A HREF=/main/cgi/main_merc.cgi?action=terms&><IMG SRC="/ib/web/bar/merc/terms.gif" ALT="Terms | " WIDTH="60" HEIGHT="20" BORDER="0"></A><A HREF=/main/cgi/main_merc.cgi?action=custom&><IMG SRC
="/ib/web/bar/merc/custom.gif" ALT="Custom" WIDTH="60" HEIGHT="20" BORDER="0"></A>

<br>
<table cellpadding=5 width=480 border=0><tr><td>
<HR>
<a href=http://adserver.merc.com/adserver.cgi?version=1.0&action=adclick&eid=1&id=85b883e0cf54a5f70c878849858dfa63396><img src=http://adserver.merc.com/adserver.cgi?version=1.0&action=adimage&eid=1&id=85b883e0cf54a5f70c878849858dfa63396&area=mm.web.web.st
ory.banner.top HEIGHT=60 WIDTH=468 border=0></a>

<HR>
</table><P>
<pre>
06:28 PM ET 03/25/98

El Nino slows Earth down

	 
	    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - El Nino, the phenomenon disrupting
the weather in the Pacific and the Americas, has made the days
longer than usual, the U.S. space agency said Wednesday.
	    Feb. 5 was the longest day of all, about 0.6 milliseconds
above normal, and the cumulative increase since El Nino began
late last year amounts to about a tenth of a second -- the time
it takes to blink.
	    The extra day length has since slipped back to about 0.4
milliseconds and the Earth will eventually speed up again as El
Nino dissipates, said a statement from the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
	    The change comes about because the atmosphere has been
speeding up and because the angular momentum of the Earth and
the atmosphere combined has to remain constant. In other words,
the Earth slows down to compensate.
	    The instrument making these extraordinarily small
measurements is the Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)
network, a global array of telescopes coordinated from NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
	    The network measures the times at which radio signals from
quasars reach the telescopes. As the earth speeds up or slows
down, the time gap for reception of the same signal differs by a
miniscule amount.
	    The same network measures the movement in the Earth's crust
due to plate tectonics.
	 ^REUTERS 
</pre>
</BODY></HTML>

--------------AFD7C3C25E09F5ADC4B00BE4--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 08:14:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA00645;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:11:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:11:05 -0800
Message-Id: <199803261610.LAA25433 mail.enter.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <chronos mailman.enter.net>
From: "Robert G. Flower" <chronos mail.enter.net>
Organization: Applied Science Associates
To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner), vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:42:51 -0500
Subject: Re: The Grassman Formula? Help!
Reply-to: chronos enter.net
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <v01530500b13f1aba9bcc [199.237.131.230]>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52)
Resent-Message-ID: <"h7haI.0.k9.Lud6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16998
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 25 Mar 98 at 11:48, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: 

> To:            vortex-l eskimo.com
> From:          hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
> Subject:       The Grassman Formula? Help!
>
> The Grassmann Formula:
> 
>    Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}
> 
> was Marinov's starting place.  I can't seem to find it in any text book.


The starting point for all modern developments of longitudinal EM
forces (incl. Marinov, Aspden, Graneau, et. al.) is James Clerk
Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", Sections #510 to
#526. These appear on pp. 163 - 174 of Volume 2 of the 3rd edition
(published in paperback by Dover and widely available).

Maxwell derives not one, not two, not three, but FOUR (count 'em!)
electrodynamic force laws based on empirical observations. They all
reduce to the SAME force law when integrated around a CLOSED
NON-DEFORMABLE circuit, but predict different forces between
separate infinitesimal current elements of OPEN and/or DEFORMABLE
circuits.  

Regarding the second of his four possibilities, Maxwell states 
"Grassman assumes that two [current] elements in the same straight 
line have no mutual action."  

Maxwell clearly anticipated the current-day controversy and
confusion regarding longitudinal EM forces. See also: "History of 
Theories of Aether and Electricity" by E.T. Whittaker (1955), and 

"Electromagnetic Theory: A Critical Examination of Fundamentals" by 
Alfred O"Rahilly (1938, reprinted by Dover in 1965). 


As to Marinov's expression for the so-called "Grassmann 
Formula"

Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}

Could it be that this is intended to give the force between two
current ELEMENTS, not between two charged PARTICLES? 




Best regards,

Bob Flower

=============================================
Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates
> Scientific Software & Instrumentation <
> Quality Control Engineering <
=============================================

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 09:05:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA22046;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351A8390.28742161 ro.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:34:24 -0600
From: "Patrick V. Reavis" <preavis ro.com>
Organization: NASA Volunteer
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic,Gopher Wars{solved}
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <01c401bd5808$a1500300$3e8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"i69jX1.0.OO5.rEe6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16999
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hey folks,
drive on down to your nearest wholesale ice supplier and buy a few
chunks of dry ice.  Drop a piece or two into the hole and back-fill.  If
you find a second or third hole, leave them unblocked.
{catch and release is still my first choice}
good luck!
--
Patrick V. Reavis
Student at Large
       /\
      /  \
     / G  \
    ~~~~~~~~
    DELTA-G


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 09:23:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA01290;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:56:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:56:33 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351A5E84.4C3DED2D ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:56:20 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion Group - Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Off Topic,  Gopher Wars
References: <01c401bd5808$a1500300$3e8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rqsln.0.tJ.Dwb6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16995
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
 
> I hauled a shop vac out to the yard to do that to an ant hill. Must've
> sucked up to at least
> 20,000 of them.    :-)
> 
> Next round is going to be several gigacuries of Cs137 mounted on a 12 ft
> wide grain drill, pulled behind a Patton tank shielded with a 1/2 meter
> thickness of depleted uranium.


If it's an ant mound, bury a soaker hose around the perimeter and keep the
ground saturated.  One of the biggest natural enemies of burrowing insects
is...... mold. 

Low tech enough?  Works on underground hornet and bumble bee nests too.  



-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 09:41:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03137;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD6A0 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Off Topic, Gopher Wars
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:31:27 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"HT0iq2.0.nm.86f6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17000
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Remi
	I just watched "South Park" on the comedy channel last night,
featuring in this episode-- Big Al's Gay animal retreat. This may be too
American for you. If so, don't worry about it.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Cornwall RO[SMTP:R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 5:45 AM
> To: 	Vortex-L
> Subject: 	Re: Off Topic, Gopher Wars
> 
> On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Steve Ekwall wrote:
> 
> > Maybe REVERSE science here.. like a Pied Piper pheromone sexy
> attractive
> > kind of thingy .. hummm   :)
> 
> Genetically engineer wheat (or whatever the buggers eat) to make
> gopher testosterone or estrogen. That way you'll get very butch female
> gophers or rather camp male gophers - that can't be good for their
> reproductive success!
> 
> I can just see it, 'Oh darling, you expect *me* to live down that
> burrow
> hole.'
> 
> or...
> 'We demand state aid to improve our gopher dwellings. We're staging a
> sit-in and hunger strike'
> 
> Oops! I've done it again, I've done my Melvin impression. 
> Remi.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 09:42:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA20162;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:37:14 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:37:14 -0800
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:37:01 -0800
Message-Id: <199803261737.JAA01035 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: El Nino slows Earth down
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ot29K2.0.qw4.79f6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17001
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

><http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2553484831-68e>
>-- 
>John E. Steck

You may or may not recall that I predicted this prior to this coming out.
However, the effect is not one of the earth slowing down because the
atmosphere sped up, and conservation of angular momentum.  Notice something
important about their announcement, they just identify the fact that there
is a shift in the relative momentums, but not the impetus for transferring
the action such that the two ever got out of synch in the first place.

What is going on, is that the earth is not a symmetric spherical object.
Rather, it has lumps and lobes called mountains and oceans, which create a
mass assymetry just like weights on a bicycle tire.  The sun, OTOH, is not
just a simple stationary ball either.  It is oscillating at a variety of
frequencies.

The oscillations originate becase of aether emission, which we should know
today except for a mistake at the turn of the century.  It was believed that
the MM experiment proved there not to exist any aether.  Such a proof is of
course impossible, and all that WAS proved is that there is no aether wind
blowing past the earth.  But, they thought of the earth as material
particles, and aether as some whispy stuff to wave and be light.

When you replace "particle" with aether soliton, you get the earth as itself
being the wind blowing around the sun!  But you also get that mass is the
amount of aether associated with the soliton, and thus aether is emitted
during fusion reactions and provides a buoyancy thrust equivalent to the
thermal pressure.

E = mc^2

Everyone tells me I need a quantitative equation to prove that aether
exists.  Well, there it is.  That equation does not say, E = m.  Energy IS
NOT equivalent to mass, Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of
light squared.  To interpret that equation as meaning that you can take m on
one side and use it as E on the other side is just a high school math error.

Now of course, we don't err in calculating the energy we will find.  We err
in equating energy and mass in our minds.  

Mass, is a measure of how much aether is associated with a soliton.  Energy
is a measure of how much action that mass can impart to other aether if it
is in motion.

Thus, we should expect waves of aether to be coming out of the sun, it is
that simple.  The aether mass flow rate is modulated up and down as the
reactivity in the core modulates up and down.  That provides a gravitational
thrust away from the sun, which is of course the cosmological thrust and
responsible for the dark matter mystery, coronal heating, T-tauri jets etc etc.

But the waves, oscillating in cadence with the rotation of the earth, lead
to a net precession of the earths rotational velocity as the earth moves
around it's elliptical orbit.  The pulsations from the sun can be imagined
if you think of a bicycle wheel with a lump mass stuck on it.  Then, set it
spinning, and push the axle back and forth in cadence with the rotation of
the mass.  It will become a coupled oscillator if your input of energy is
greater than the frictional losses.

It will rotate at the same frequency as you push it back and forth.  If you
speed up your back and forth motion, or slow it down, the wheel's rotational
velocity will remain coupled and will endure some stresses as it shifts
frequency.  For the earth, this is the same thing.  As the earth moves from
Dec to Jun, it is moving away from the sun and the wave energy from the sun
is red shifted, and the earths rotational velocity slows down.  From Jun to
Dec it is the opposite and the wave energy is blue shifted and the earths
rotation speeds up.

So that is what the original source of the ACTION is.  And that is what is
driving the motions of the earth and of the oceans and of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere couples to the aether waves less well, I am learning.  

The warm water sloshes back and forth simply because of the change in
angular momentum of the earth.  All you need to understand that is to
consider the question, "If I have a helium balloon in my car, and I
accelerate or decelerate, which way will the helium balloon move relative to
the car?"

The answer is opposite to what most will expect, but it is identical to what
the lighter, warm water in El Nino does.  See my Aether Tectonics post at
dejanews.com posted about two months ago regarding El Nino and La Nina.


Ross Tessien




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 10:10:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08108;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:57:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v03007814b1404618de5d [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <54dc7992.35173fdf aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:56:52 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Resent-Message-ID: <"M6V6W3.0.W-1.MSf6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17002
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

VCockeram asked:

>  In a steady state closed system of H2 gas at a known pressure,
>if a hydrino reaction does occur, (the H atoms shrink) should not the
>pressure of the system show a decrease?

Pressure depends (in the ideal gaslaw) on the product of the temperature
and the number of particles (atoms, molecules or whatever) per unit volume.
Smaller particles normally obey the ideal gas law even better than larger
ones, unless the temperature is low enough to approach the liquefaction
temperature, in which case the pressure decreases below the ideal gas low
prediciton.

I don't know what kind of vacuum gauge you are using. If it directly reads
pressure, say by a diaphragm or a piezoelectric element, then it reats
actual pressure. However, be aware that many pressure gauges, especially
for lower pressures, work on other principles. Most of these respond to the
number of particles per unit volume, not to pressure; their scales are
marked in pressure units assuming a typical system temperature, usually
about 300 K.

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 Mar 26 10:57:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA01688;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 03:32:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 03:32:23 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: PsyPhyList <psyphy listp.apa.org>
CC: mind-l aquathought.com, rife-list@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:29:07 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7388.356.18101944 mail.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: [Off Topic] Humor (fwd)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"HNDyS2.0.lP.5pZ6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/16988
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

*** Forwarded message, originally written by Stephen J. Guastello on 25-Mar-98
**>
>the humour section...
>Subject:  Rocket Science
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes it DOES take a Rocket Scientist
>>>>Scientists at NASA have developed a gun built specifically to launch
>>>>dead chickens at the windshields of airliners, military jets and the
>>>>space shuttle, all traveling at maximum velocity.
>>>>The idea is to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with
>>>>airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields.   British
>>>>engineers heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the
>>>>windshields of their new high speed  trains.
>>>>Arrangements were made. But when the gun was fired, the engineers
>>>>stood shocked as the chicken hurtled out of the barrel, crashed into
>>>>the shatterproof shield, smashed it to smithereens, crashed through
>>>>the control console, snapped the engineer's backrest in two and
>>>>embedded itself in the back wall of the cabin.
>>>>Horrified Britons sent NASA the disastrous results of the experiment,
>>>>along with the designs of the windshield, and begged the U.S.
>>>>scientists for suggestions.
>>>>NASA's response was just one sentence,  "Thaw the chicken."

:^))
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 11:27:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA14085;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:24:04 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:24:04 -0800
Message-ID: <351AAC82.6525 macsrule.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:29:11 -0600
From: "Mark A. Collins" <themacman macsrule.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Gopher Wars
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"gYFPs1.0.nR3.Ijg6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17003
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Why not just ask them nicely to leave?

;-)

Mark A. Collins

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 11:32:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA14270;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:24:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:24:36 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C0AD6A2 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Off Topic] Humor (fwd)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:23:50 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"0nDhg1.0.mU3.njg6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17004
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

GE does the same sort of chicken testing for their jet engines. I have
seen reports of the testing when I worked there.

Hank
	

> ----------
> From: 	Chuck Davis[SMTP:roshicorp ROSHI.com]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 12:29 PM
> To: 	PsyPhyList
> Cc: 	mind-l aquathought.com; rife-list@eskimo.com;
> vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	[Off Topic] Humor (fwd)
> 
> *** Forwarded message, originally written by Stephen J. Guastello on
> 25-Mar-98
> **>
> >the humour section...
> >Subject:  Rocket Science
> >>>>
> >>>>Sometimes it DOES take a Rocket Scientist
> >>>>Scientists at NASA have developed a gun built specifically to
> launch
> >>>>dead chickens at the windshields of airliners, military jets and
> the
> >>>>space shuttle, all traveling at maximum velocity.
> >>>>The idea is to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with
> >>>>airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields.   British
> >>>>engineers heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the
> >>>>windshields of their new high speed  trains.
> >>>>Arrangements were made. But when the gun was fired, the engineers
> >>>>stood shocked as the chicken hurtled out of the barrel, crashed
> into
> >>>>the shatterproof shield, smashed it to smithereens, crashed
> through
> >>>>the control console, snapped the engineer's backrest in two and
> >>>>embedded itself in the back wall of the cabin.
> >>>>Horrified Britons sent NASA the disastrous results of the
> experiment,
> >>>>along with the designs of the windshield, and begged the U.S.
> >>>>scientists for suggestions.
> >>>>NASA's response was just one sentence,  "Thaw the chicken."
> 
> :^))
> -- 
>     .-.
> .-.
>    /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /
> \
>   /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /
> \
> -/--Chuck Davis
> -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
>     RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
>            \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
>             `-'                                               `-'
>  http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 11:55:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00585;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351AB180.118B macsrule.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:50:31 -0600
From: "Mark A. Collins" <themacman macsrule.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: El Nino & E=MC^2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xXnbX.0.09.j3h6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17005
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Energy is Mass. Matter is enourmous amounts of increasingly complex
vibrations of energy. Enourmous amounts just happens to mean C^2.

Matter is made up of energy. So C^2 amounts of energy in an very complex
fibration patter is what matter really is. 


Mark A. Collins
themacman macsrule.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 12:33:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA04892;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:26:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:26:22 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351AB90A.AB965C1C ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:22:34 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
References: <3.0.32.19980326070722.006ace6c agate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZtwNh1.0.uB1.hdh6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17006
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bo Atkinson wrote:

> Is this what you mean by "geometry", or do you mean something else, (like
> equations)?   When it comes to software formatted files, i can provide
> those also, (eg: *.dxf, *.iges, *.stl , etc..).

I was thinking more along 3D solids or surface IGES translations, but no
worry.  I went back to your site and the new graphic made things much clearer. 
I modeled up a five shell representation to evaluate the manufacturability and
now I see why you are leaning towards SLS.  

My screen dumps :
<http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/atkinson/sphere.html>

Quick and dirty, but you get the idea.  Take them for your site if you want. 
Let me know if I am seeing things correctly.  The layout is geometric not
mathematic.

> Your candid opinion about
> the merit of this as an experimental idea would be appreciated. There is
> more to it, but if this doesn't grab one's interest, then let silence be my
> clear answer.

Judge and jury ain't my style.  Still not sure where you are heading with this,
but I can give you some suggestions on how you might be able to cost
effectively get it made..  I am interested in hearing more of your planned
experiments with this geometry.  I think it may have some potential with some
of my own electromagnetic resonance ideas.

As is, you wont be able to laser sinter the geometry.  You will need to include
some supporting and bridging geometry to make it.  Not a big deal, it's done
all the time.  After sintering, break off or cut away the extras, and then
fully fuse the lattice in an autoclave.  From there it is up to you whether
infusing copper is necessary or not.  The structure will be porous, but
certainly conductive.

If you like what I have modeled you are welcome to take it to get quotes.  The
sphere is roughly 60mm tall and 75mm dia with 1mm walls.  The database is ProE.
 

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 12:44:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA10864;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530503b1405b8189a4 [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:03:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The Grassman Formula? Help!
Resent-Message-ID: <"i9wwA1.0.Nf2.rnh6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17007
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank Stenger and Bob Flower,

Thanks much for your help regarding Grassmann.  I posted my Marinov article
on two other groups, but have received no replies.  There doesn't seem to
be much interest. I don't know why.  The impact, if true, could be
profound.  I suppose that is true about all the age old LF stuff though.
It was an especially surprizing result (to me anyway) to find the
longitudinal force to be related to c so strongly, i.e. by vv'/c.

I think from the info you provided that the main clue is that Grassmann's
formula may have problems, and that is where to look.  I'll give a try at
looking at this from other perspectives than Grassmann's.

In addition, I think Marinov made a mistake in dividing by 2.  It seems to
me that:

    Fm = Fg - Fg'

which makes the longitudinal force:

    Fl = (v v' h)/c^2  (q1 q2)/(4Pi e0 r^2)

which looks nicer besides.

Another thing that strikes me as strange is the fact that Grassmann's
formula has no longitudinal component, yet Marinov's derivation does. This
has given me some ideas to pursue, and that will take me a while.


>On 25 Mar 98 at 11:48, Robert G Flower wrote:
[snip]
>As to Marinov's expression for the so-called "Grassmann
>Formula"
>
>Fg = (u0 q q')/(4 Pi r^3) {(V*R)V' - (V*V')R}
>
>Could it be that this is intended to give the force between two
>current ELEMENTS, not between two charged PARTICLES?


It sure looks like it!  Marinov only refers to "two electric charges q, q'
moving with velocity V, V'".   However, there is no electrostatic
component, and the two velocity vectors with charges are equivalent to two
current segments if a time interval delta t is involved.  Looks like a
take-off on Boit's law.  So, just how well is Biot's law respected?  Is it
taken to be an equivalent to Lorentz?  It is taken on current segments
forming closed loops, I think.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 13:07:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16069;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351AC148.A98 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:57:44 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PjGgT1.0.zw3.c7i6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17008
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace, George, Scott, Robert, Rick and all:

I can't seem to shake this Marinov thing so I decided to run some more
qualitative tests to help clarify my own understanding of the effect.

To run these tests, I drilled a hole in the center of an old wooden
picnic table and mounted one of my shaft-bearing sets + an aluminum
turntable in the hole with the shaft vertical.  This provided a nice
platform on which to set magnet groups to check any torques acting on
them around a vertical axis.

In all of these tests I used the same magnet groups shown in Scott's
  	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
drawing, if it's still up.
I used the magnets pretty much as shown BUT WITH NO STEEL CAPS.
I used various wooden separators between the groups of 4 magnets which
I will specify as required.

I retain the use of the old "compass needle near a current effect"
analogy for my own bennifit and I'll just refer to it as CCE for
compass-current-effect.

Test 1.	I'll draw squares instead of rings to make ascii easier.
	This ring test used my copper ring made of 3/8 inch OD copper
	tubing.  ID was 3 3/4 inches, OD = 4 1/2 inches.
	The ring was placed in the center of a #12 copper wire that ran
	the lengeh of the 6 ft. long table, down its long centerline,
	about 3 inches above the table top.  This gave room to clear
	the turntable and reach to the center of the magnet groups - 
	fine height adjustment made with wood spacers.  The test area
	was kept free of feromagnetic stuff except for the two small
	ball bearings in the turntable shaft assenbly, nearest one about
	1 inch below the turntable.
	In this first test, I just stuck the magnet stacks (always 4
	magnets per stack) together with no spacer.  From the top
	it looked something like this:

			-------------->--------------
			|			    |
			|      ---------------	    |
			|      |      S      |      |
			|      |             |      |
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|	    |---->-- current (-)
			|      |             |      |
			|      |      N      |      |
			|      ---------------      |
			|  			    |
			-------------->--------------

Now, as I understand it, this conforms to Marinov's description of the
split, reversed halves, magnet that every school kid can set up.
The above sketch shows the FINAL or preferred orientation of the magnet
with 12 amps (later, 24 amps) flowing in the circuit.  There was no
question of the torque - IT WAS THERE - I could feel it push on my hand
if I moved the magnet away from the above position.  If I forced the
upward N magnet stack to face right (-), a CW torque would want to
turn it back to sketch position.  I guess this means the circuit would
want to turn CCW.  If I forced the N magnet to face left, the magnet
torque was CCW and the circuit torque would have to be CW.  I think
this agrees with the Marinov description - right, Horace?
Now, if you use the old CCE (compass thing!) I think you can see that
if the upper half of the ring in the sketch dominates the force on the
S magnet, then that agrees with CCE in that the flux lines thru the
magnet agree with the flux direction from the top ring current.  The
same thing holds for the N magnet and the lower ring current.  True,
in the center of the ring, the flux from the ring halves tend to cancel,
but, the magnets are much closer to their preferred ring halves and
the current field is still fairly strong.

	Test 2. For this test, the ring current was the same, but I
rotated the magnets so the stacks were one above and one below the
plane of the ring.

			-------------->--------------
			|			    |
			|             S		    |
			|      |-------------|      |
                        |      |-------------|
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|	    |---->-- current (-)
			|      |-------------|      |
			|      |-------------|      |
			|      	      N		    |
			|  			    |
			-------------->--------------
Now, remember, the stack shown above shows the edges of the little
magnets and the N and S refer to the overall polarity of the 4-stack
group.  The stack on the bottom, out of sight, has N at the top and
S at the bottom.  Also, remember that the stack you see above is ABOVE
the plane of the ring.  Again, the sketch shows the perferred
orientation of the magnets.  Now, with your right thumb pointing with
the current, in your minds eye, wrap your fingers around BOTH RING
HALVES TOGETHER since their currents are in the same direction, and I
think you can see that, again the magnets are aligned so that their
flux agrees with the down-going flux out of the page, and the up-going
flux into the page (near my table top).  The CCE analogy holds up again!
Again, the torques worked to restore the magnets to this position from
both 90 deg directions away.

	Test 3.  Here, I just ran the test 2. again except, I removed
the top set of magnets.  The results were the same as in test 2. - the
remaining group of magnets aligned with the flux direction under the
ring as per the right-hand rule.

	Test 4. I repeated test 1. with a wide wood spacer between the
two magnet stacks so the vertical stacks would be about 1/8 inch from
the ring halves (at the magnet corners).  As the vertical magnets
(the Marinov configuration) moved nearer the ring halves, I think the
torque was a bit greater, but I can't be sure at this stage without a
torque meter.

	Test 5. For this test I removed the copper ring and just strung
a #12 wire down the center of the table at the same height as the ring
had been mounted.  I positioned it to one edge of my turntable to
simulate ONE OF THE BRUSH LOCATIONS - THE (+) SIDE.  I ran another
#12 wire, normal to and from the center of the other wire - its line
passing thru the center of my turntable shaft.  Like this:

	up current
	(for about 3 ft
	 to the table end)
	|
	|      |-------------|
	|      |      S      |
	|      |	     |
	|      |-------------|
	|      | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
(+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
	|      |-------------|           wooden spacer
	|      |	     |
	|      |      N      |
	|      |-------------|
	|
    down current
    (for about 3'
     to the end of
     table)

The above is the preferred orientation again.  The torque was fairly
evident but not as strong as for inside the ring.  If I'm thinking
straight, you can apply the right-hand rule to the up-going current and
the S magnet, and to the down-going current and the N magnet, AND, to
a kind of Biot-element projection of the feeder line current on both
the N and the S magnets.

	Test 6. This was an interesting test.  I set up as below:

	up current
	(for about 3 ft
	 to the table end)
	|
	|
	|
	|             S
	|      |-------------|
	|      |-------------|
(+)-->--|      |-------------|	<-------- the shaft center is about
	|      |-------------|		  in the center of this
	|      |-------------|		  magnet interface
	|             N
	|
	|
    down current
    (for about 3'
     to the end of
     table)

Here, the restoring torques seemed to be very wimpy - but they were
there.  Again, the magnet stack in view above had the same 3/4"
wood spacer between it and the lower stack - as in test 5.
So the bottom of the stack you see has its lower side about 3/8 inch
above the plane of our "tee" joint.
Remember, the torques were weak and I might argue that here we see
mainly the right-hand rule effect of the Biot-element projection
of the feed wire at the left - note that it would agree with the CCE
analogy.  What do you guys think? 

In summary, it seems to me that the right-hand rule used with the
compass-near-a-current analogy can be useful to START to get an
understanding of the torques in the Marinov circuit.  I'll let you guys
chew this over and, if there are any more things you would like to see
me try with this setup - including the ring - let me know.  I'll leave
it up for a while yet (no picnics planed for soon! :-)).
I might say that the torques I was getting with the Radio Shack magnets
and as much as 24 amps of total current seems too low to overcome my
motor brush friction.  So, I don't think I can say anything constructive
about Jeff's motor tests from these torque studies, except maybe  the
direction of  the torques.

Frank Stenger ---- who needs a cup of coffee.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 13:15:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17999;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:11:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b14073789805 [12.64.66.161]>
In-Reply-To: <35194B53.501A interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:09:18 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Notes on Marinov
Resent-Message-ID: <"ghIu13.0.7P4.oHi6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17009
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

 > I again connected my DMM (10 megohms input),
 > set on the mv scale [...]

Wrong scale. Try microamps.

I've made little hand drill homopolars. Even with strong magnets driving
their fields right through the disc, I only see a few microamps. I've seen
e-mail from other people who have tried this, and they got the same
results. With a thin ring and - what for magnets? - I'd be somewhat
surprised if you even saw anything on the microamp scale.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 13:50:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28106;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:47:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:47:26 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980326164912.00c168d0 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:49:12 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <1b59d634.3513441f aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"BUWic1.0.4t6.ipi6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17011
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:37 PM 3/20/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:
> I am very aware
>of the dangers and will be extreamly carefull. I will and always have take
>full responsibility for all my actions. I'm not a chemist but my chemist 
>father taught me very well. Never handled K metal but I have worked with
>Sodium and being always cautious, that was easy, and all my body parts
>are still the originals.  I'm not being cocky here, paranoid is goodness
>when dealing with the unknown and the dangerious knowns.

    When asked why I am so paranoid on such things, I hold my hands in the
air, all ten fingers spread, and say all original equipment, and I want to
keep them that way.  Which brings up another good tip.  See if you can find
some leather work gloves YOU WILL WEAR.  There are cheap ones, and then
ones where you can forget you are wearing them.  When working with
potassium, they keep any KOH formed from dissolving your fingers.  But the
big advantage is that you can have a glove that looks like a smallpox
survivor (after a sodium explosion) and still have no burn scars.  Rubber
gloves work well for the hydroxide, but don't deal well with the metal.

   In over fifty years, I've had three explosions of something I was
holding.  The second time, I was still using the same pair of gloves as the
first.  (And of course, a face shield and canvas jacket.)

                                        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 Mar 26 13:55:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23381;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F087E xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:36:48 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Resent-Message-ID: <"FVDmq.0.Fj5.6ii6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17010
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank
	My e-mail of your stuff has different line lengths. What font
did you use to write it?
Hank
> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 12:57 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
> 
> Horace, George, Scott, Robert, Rick and all:
> 
> I can't seem to shake this Marinov thing so I decided to run some more
> qualitative tests to help clarify my own understanding of the effect.
> 
> To run these tests, I drilled a hole in the center of an old wooden
> picnic table and mounted one of my shaft-bearing sets + an aluminum
> turntable in the hole with the shaft vertical.  This provided a nice
> platform on which to set magnet groups to check any torques acting on
> them around a vertical axis.
> 
> In all of these tests I used the same magnet groups shown in Scott's
>   	http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
> drawing, if it's still up.
> I used the magnets pretty much as shown BUT WITH NO STEEL CAPS.
> I used various wooden separators between the groups of 4 magnets which
> I will specify as required.
> 
> I retain the use of the old "compass needle near a current effect"
> analogy for my own bennifit and I'll just refer to it as CCE for
> compass-current-effect.
> 
> Test 1.	I'll draw squares instead of rings to make ascii easier.
> 	This ring test used my copper ring made of 3/8 inch OD copper
> 	tubing.  ID was 3 3/4 inches, OD = 4 1/2 inches.
> 	The ring was placed in the center of a #12 copper wire that ran
> 	the lengeh of the 6 ft. long table, down its long centerline,
> 	about 3 inches above the table top.  This gave room to clear
> 	the turntable and reach to the center of the magnet groups - 
> 	fine height adjustment made with wood spacers.  The test area
> 	was kept free of feromagnetic stuff except for the two small
> 	ball bearings in the turntable shaft assenbly, nearest one about
> 	1 inch below the turntable.
> 	In this first test, I just stuck the magnet stacks (always 4
> 	magnets per stack) together with no spacer.  From the top
> 	it looked something like this:
> 
> 			-------------->--------------
> 			|			    |
> 			|      ---------------	    |
> 			|      |      S      |      |
> 			|      |             |      |
>      (+)------->--------|      |------+------|	    |---->--
> current (-)
> 			|      |             |      |
> 			|      |      N      |      |
> 			|      ---------------      |
> 			|  			    |
> 			-------------->--------------
> 
> Now, as I understand it, this conforms to Marinov's description of the
> split, reversed halves, magnet that every school kid can set up.
> The above sketch shows the FINAL or preferred orientation of the
> magnet
> with 12 amps (later, 24 amps) flowing in the circuit.  There was no
> question of the torque - IT WAS THERE - I could feel it push on my
> hand
> if I moved the magnet away from the above position.  If I forced the
> upward N magnet stack to face right (-), a CW torque would want to
> turn it back to sketch position.  I guess this means the circuit would
> want to turn CCW.  If I forced the N magnet to face left, the magnet
> torque was CCW and the circuit torque would have to be CW.  I think
> this agrees with the Marinov description - right, Horace?
> Now, if you use the old CCE (compass thing!) I think you can see that
> if the upper half of the ring in the sketch dominates the force on the
> S magnet, then that agrees with CCE in that the flux lines thru the
> magnet agree with the flux direction from the top ring current.  The
> same thing holds for the N magnet and the lower ring current.  True,
> in the center of the ring, the flux from the ring halves tend to
> cancel,
> but, the magnets are much closer to their preferred ring halves and
> the current field is still fairly strong.
> 
> 	Test 2. For this test, the ring current was the same, but I
> rotated the magnets so the stacks were one above and one below the
> plane of the ring.
> 
> 			-------------->--------------
> 			|			    |
> 			|             S		    |
> 			|      |-------------|      |
>                         |      |-------------|
>      (+)------->--------|      |------+------|	    |---->--
> current (-)
> 			|      |-------------|      |
> 			|      |-------------|      |
> 			|      	      N		    |
> 			|  			    |
> 			-------------->--------------
> Now, remember, the stack shown above shows the edges of the little
> magnets and the N and S refer to the overall polarity of the 4-stack
> group.  The stack on the bottom, out of sight, has N at the top and
> S at the bottom.  Also, remember that the stack you see above is ABOVE
> the plane of the ring.  Again, the sketch shows the perferred
> orientation of the magnets.  Now, with your right thumb pointing with
> the current, in your minds eye, wrap your fingers around BOTH RING
> HALVES TOGETHER since their currents are in the same direction, and I
> think you can see that, again the magnets are aligned so that their
> flux agrees with the down-going flux out of the page, and the up-going
> flux into the page (near my table top).  The CCE analogy holds up
> again!
> Again, the torques worked to restore the magnets to this position from
> both 90 deg directions away.
> 
> 	Test 3.  Here, I just ran the test 2. again except, I removed
> the top set of magnets.  The results were the same as in test 2. - the
> remaining group of magnets aligned with the flux direction under the
> ring as per the right-hand rule.
> 
> 	Test 4. I repeated test 1. with a wide wood spacer between the
> two magnet stacks so the vertical stacks would be about 1/8 inch from
> the ring halves (at the magnet corners).  As the vertical magnets
> (the Marinov configuration) moved nearer the ring halves, I think the
> torque was a bit greater, but I can't be sure at this stage without a
> torque meter.
> 
> 	Test 5. For this test I removed the copper ring and just strung
> a #12 wire down the center of the table at the same height as the ring
> had been mounted.  I positioned it to one edge of my turntable to
> simulate ONE OF THE BRUSH LOCATIONS - THE (+) SIDE.  I ran another
> #12 wire, normal to and from the center of the other wire - its line
> passing thru the center of my turntable shaft.  Like this:
> 
> 	up current
> 	(for about 3 ft
> 	 to the table end)
> 	|
> 	|      |-------------|
> 	|      |      S      |
> 	|      |	     |
> 	|      |-------------|
> 	|      | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
> (+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
> 	|      |-------------|           wooden spacer
> 	|      |	     |
> 	|      |      N      |
> 	|      |-------------|
> 	|
>     down current
>     (for about 3'
>      to the end of
>      table)
> 
> The above is the preferred orientation again.  The torque was fairly
> evident but not as strong as for inside the ring.  If I'm thinking
> straight, you can apply the right-hand rule to the up-going current
> and
> the S magnet, and to the down-going current and the N magnet, AND, to
> a kind of Biot-element projection of the feeder line current on both
> the N and the S magnets.
> 
> 	Test 6. This was an interesting test.  I set up as below:
> 
> 	up current
> 	(for about 3 ft
> 	 to the table end)
> 	|
> 	|
> 	|
> 	|             S
> 	|      |-------------|
> 	|      |-------------|
> (+)-->--|      |-------------|	<-------- the shaft center is
> about
> 	|      |-------------|		  in the center of this
> 	|      |-------------|		  magnet interface
> 	|             N
> 	|
> 	|
>     down current
>     (for about 3'
>      to the end of
>      table)
> 
> Here, the restoring torques seemed to be very wimpy - but they were
> there.  Again, the magnet stack in view above had the same 3/4"
> wood spacer between it and the lower stack - as in test 5.
> So the bottom of the stack you see has its lower side about 3/8 inch
> above the plane of our "tee" joint.
> Remember, the torques were weak and I might argue that here we see
> mainly the right-hand rule effect of the Biot-element projection
> of the feed wire at the left - note that it would agree with the CCE
> analogy.  What do you guys think? 
> 
> In summary, it seems to me that the right-hand rule used with the
> compass-near-a-current analogy can be useful to START to get an
> understanding of the torques in the Marinov circuit.  I'll let you
> guys
> chew this over and, if there are any more things you would like to see
> me try with this setup - including the ring - let me know.  I'll leave
> it up for a while yet (no picnics planed for soon! :-)).
> I might say that the torques I was getting with the Radio Shack
> magnets
> and as much as 24 amps of total current seems too low to overcome my
> motor brush friction.  So, I don't think I can say anything
> constructive
> about Jeff's motor tests from these torque studies, except maybe  the
> direction of  the torques.
> 
> Frank Stenger ---- who needs a cup of coffee.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 14:27:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00664;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:20:22 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5905$5e5f3bd0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"b6dv4.0.IA.HGj6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17013
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Rick Monteverde wrote:
>
>Are you saying then that this effect is dependent on charge velocity?
Only as much as magnetic fields always are.
>Is there assumed to be an electron drift velocity difference between
>the two sides of current flow around the ring?
No
> I haven't built one of these yet,
>but am I correct to assume that the propelling force exists full-blown
>_before_ the ring (or magnet assembly) begins to rotate?
Yes
> And does the ring's rotation once it does get going have any thing
> further to do with the force tangental to the ring?
Not unless that back EMF that Phipps found causes a loss of current.
> Would it continue to rotate in the 'wrong'
>direction, for instance, if you manually started it off that way, or would
>it slow to a stop and then reverse itself?
I believe it would stop and reverse itself, I've tried it with the moving
torus and it stops and reverses itself.

-
I see that I'm not communicating well here. Think of the
magnetic field energy as a spring that you stretch
or compress as you add energy. More energy,more force
required and available when let go. I basically agree with
Horace's magnetic pressure idea, I just think it can be
generalized some.
-
I wrote:
So, where do I still think Horace's model could be improved?
The model must be able to predict both ring and torus
rotation correctly. The forces that are present at the brush
points do not affect the torus, the force is between the
ring and the brush.
Horace replied:
>Actually there should be an equivalent torque on the magnet.
Yes, the leads affect the torus, but essentially due to the
Lorentz force. The purpose of the brush experiment was to
show that this Lorentz force was not the only or even the
largest force present. From the experiments, the largest
force seems to be between the ring and the torus.
Bringing the leads in from the top and botton had
already been tried in the rotating torus case with
minimal effect. From your analysis we should try
bringing the brush leads in from top and bottom
to see if it affects this configuration.
( large snip about complex field interactions)
-
I wrote:
I think that this force is actually
quite small because the ring creates a nearly zero
magnetic field at the connection point.
The current is
flowing in opposite directions in the ring at this point
causing the fields to cancel, at least when using an
Amperian current element based model and in
actual measurements
Horace replied:
>This can not be true. The maximum magnetic intensity outside the ring but
>in the plane of the ring is at points A and B above.
>
This would be true if the ring fields were not cancelling at the
connection point. Look at the situation without leads first to see
my point. Current flows in opposite directions along a single
line, no field is created by this at the connection point because
the two fields, one CW, the other CCW cancel exactly. As you
move away from the connection point the fields appear. These
are the fields that create an unbalanced longitudinal force on
both the ring and the torus. All other forces here can
be adequately described by the Lorentz force law. This
is the crux of Marinov's conception, to create a geometry
in which the field intensity of the wire varies along the
wire fron CW to 0 to CCW. The field lines actually form
a corkscrew like pattern as they travel from the connection
point when viewed without the complicating pattern of
the connection fields.

-
I think that it is quite clear that if there is no
current in the ring, there is no asymmetry
in the ring fields, and it would be quite an
accomplishment to get an EMF out.
>
>Amen.  If there were a feedback mechanism to amplify a current once a small
>one one was started in the ring, then the small current induced by the
>Lorentz force acting on the lateral current entering the ring at the brush
>point should get things initiated.  Frank Stenger's experiment showed this
>not to happen, however.
-
Another way of looking at it is that Frank prevented the
already unlikely initiation of current by using a 10 meg input
impedance meter in the experiment! Measuring a current
and keeping the impedance low would seem a better plan.

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 14:35:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00591;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980326171733.009db760 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:17:33 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3514870F.3118 interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.32.19980321210034.005dfb00 cnct.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"NBU13.0.49.jFj6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17012
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:35 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Actually, Keith, the present rig is exactly as you mention.  I use(d)
>a copper fuse link made from a #4 solid copper wire.  I neck the center
>(fuses are about 2 - 3 inches total length) to a smooth 3 mm dia neck
>which I calculated should blow at about 200 kamps.  It blows OK but
>does not interrupt the current if open in the air - I suppose from a
>plasma short across the fuse as the copper vaporizes.  For my next shot
>I want to place a fiberglass baffle around the fuse neck, rather thin
>to hopefully let the explosion vent on both sides of the baffle.
 
   Try the following...  First put your fuse in an open! container of oil
to quench the arc, then put a spark gap (two needle ended electrode
pointing at each other) in parallel.  Make your fuse smaller (you want it
to blow during the rise to peak current) and you should be all set.

   Note that you should treat that oil bath fuse as if it were a cannon--it
will be.  Use an insulating crushable liner in a open steel tube.  Do not
use cast or welded pipe.  Apply fiberglass tape to the exterior as a
precaution. Aim the discharge into an appropriate baffle or out a window
and at the sky, and plan for recoil.  

                                        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 Mar 26 15:15:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10774;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:10:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:10:47 -0800
Message-ID: <351AE084.1FA7 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:11:00 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Notes on Marinov
References: <l03102800b14073789805 [12.64.66.161]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"awbRx1.0.Be2.q1k6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17014
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Frank -
> 
>  > I again connected my DMM (10 megohms input),
>  > set on the mv scale [...]
> 
> Wrong scale. Try microamps.
> 
> I've made little hand drill homopolars. Even with strong magnets driving
> their fields right through the disc, I only see a few microamps. 

I'm with you, Rick - but that's the lowest scale I have - it reads
+- 0.1 mv so 100 microvolts is all I can detect.  It was really dead,
though - not even a flutter back and fourth from + to -.
I broke off at this point and decided to look at some magnet torques
on a table-top rig I set up - check the related post and see if there
are any simple test you would like me to try.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 16:11:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22233;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:01:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:01:37 -0800
Message-ID: <351AE820.3640 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:43:28 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: HANK - TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
References: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F087E xch-cpc-02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HaYgd2.0.ER5.Tnk6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17015
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scudder, Henry J wrote:
> 
> Frank
>         My e-mail of your stuff has different line lengths. What font
> did you use to write it?
> Hank

Hank, I just screwed up!  It's wrong on my send-back too.  Gee I wish I
had a WYSIWYG feature on these ascii drawings.
I tried to correct it below - let's see if it comes through OK.
It may be that my mail added >>'s just shoved things over and caused
line feeds that I didn't want.  I am BAAAAAAD at ascii drawings!
> > ----------

> > Horace, George, Scott, Robert, Rick and all:
> >
> > I can't seem to shake this Marinov thing so I decided to run some more
> > qualitative tests to help clarify my own understanding of the effect.
> >
> > To run these tests, I drilled a hole in the center of an old wooden
> > picnic table and mounted one of my shaft-bearing sets + an aluminum
> > turntable in the hole with the shaft vertical.  This provided a nice
> > platform on which to set magnet groups to check any torques acting on
> > them around a vertical axis.
> >
> > In all of these tests I used the same magnet groups shown in Scott's
> >       http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.gif
> > drawing, if it's still up.
> > I used the magnets pretty much as shown BUT WITH NO STEEL CAPS.
> > I used various wooden separators between the groups of 4 magnets which
> > I will specify as required.
> >
> > I retain the use of the old "compass needle near a current effect"
> > analogy for my own bennifit and I'll just refer to it as CCE for
> > compass-current-effect.
> >
> > Test 1.       I'll draw squares instead of rings to make ascii easier.
> >       This ring test used my copper ring made of 3/8 inch OD copper
> >       tubing.  ID was 3 3/4 inches, OD = 4 1/2 inches.
> >       The ring was placed in the center of a #12 copper wire that ran
> >       the lengeh of the 6 ft. long table, down its long centerline,
> >       about 3 inches above the table top.  This gave room to clear
> >       the turntable and reach to the center of the magnet groups -
> >       fine height adjustment made with wood spacers.  The test area
> >       was kept free of feromagnetic stuff except for the two small
> >       ball bearings in the turntable shaft assenbly, nearest one about
> >       1 inch below the turntable.
> >       In this first test, I just stuck the magnet stacks (always 4
> >       magnets per stack) together with no spacer.  From the top
> >       it looked something like this:
> >
> >                       -------------->--------------
> >                       |                           |
> >                       |      ---------------      |
> >                       |      |      S      |      |
> >                       |      |             |      |
> >    (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |-->current (-)
> >                       |      |             |      |
> >                       |      |      N      |      |
> >                       |      ---------------      |
> >                       |                           |
> >                       -------------->--------------
> >
> > Now, as I understand it, this conforms to Marinov's description of the
> > split, reversed halves, magnet that every school kid can set up.
> > The above sketch shows the FINAL or preferred orientation of the
> > magnet
> > with 12 amps (later, 24 amps) flowing in the circuit.  There was no
> > question of the torque - IT WAS THERE - I could feel it push on my
> > hand
> > if I moved the magnet away from the above position.  If I forced the
> > upward N magnet stack to face right (-), a CW torque would want to
> > turn it back to sketch position.  I guess this means the circuit would
> > want to turn CCW.  If I forced the N magnet to face left, the magnet
> > torque was CCW and the circuit torque would have to be CW.  I think
> > this agrees with the Marinov description - right, Horace?
> > Now, if you use the old CCE (compass thing!) I think you can see that
> > if the upper half of the ring in the sketch dominates the force on the
> > S magnet, then that agrees with CCE in that the flux lines thru the
> > magnet agree with the flux direction from the top ring current.  The
> > same thing holds for the N magnet and the lower ring current.  True,
> > in the center of the ring, the flux from the ring halves tend to
> > cancel,
> > but, the magnets are much closer to their preferred ring halves and
> > the current field is still fairly strong.
> >
> >       Test 2. For this test, the ring current was the same, but I
> > rotated the magnets so the stacks were one above and one below the
> > plane of the ring.
> >
> >                       -------------->--------------
> >                       |                           |
> >                       |             S             |
> >                       |      |-------------|      |
> >                       |      |-------------|      |
> >    (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |-->current (-)
> >                       |      |-------------|      |
> >                       |      |-------------|      |
> >                       |             N             |
> >                       |                           |
> >                       -------------->--------------
> > Now, remember, the stack shown above shows the edges of the little
> > magnets and the N and S refer to the overall polarity of the 4-stack
> > group.  The stack on the bottom, out of sight, has N at the top and
> > S at the bottom.  Also, remember that the stack you see above is ABOVE
> > the plane of the ring.  Again, the sketch shows the perferred
> > orientation of the magnets.  Now, with your right thumb pointing with
> > the current, in your minds eye, wrap your fingers around BOTH RING
> > HALVES TOGETHER since their currents are in the same direction, and I
> > think you can see that, again the magnets are aligned so that their
> > flux agrees with the down-going flux out of the page, and the up-going
> > flux into the page (near my table top).  The CCE analogy holds up
> > again!
> > Again, the torques worked to restore the magnets to this position from
> > both 90 deg directions away.
> >
> >       Test 3.  Here, I just ran the test 2. again except, I removed
> > the top set of magnets.  The results were the same as in test 2. - the
> > remaining group of magnets aligned with the flux direction under the
> > ring as per the right-hand rule.
> >
> >       Test 4. I repeated test 1. with a wide wood spacer between the
> > two magnet stacks so the vertical stacks would be about 1/8 inch from
> > the ring halves (at the magnet corners).  As the vertical magnets
> > (the Marinov configuration) moved nearer the ring halves, I think the
> > torque was a bit greater, but I can't be sure at this stage without a
> > torque meter.
> >
> >       Test 5. For this test I removed the copper ring and just strung
> > a #12 wire down the center of the table at the same height as the ring
> > had been mounted.  I positioned it to one edge of my turntable to
> > simulate ONE OF THE BRUSH LOCATIONS - THE (+) SIDE.  I ran another
> > #12 wire, normal to and from the center of the other wire - its line
> > passing thru the center of my turntable shaft.  Like this:
> >
> >       up current
> >       (for about 3 ft
> >        to the table end)
> >       |
> >       |      |-------------|
> >       |      |      S      |
> >       |      |             |
> >       |      |-------------|
> >       |      | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
> (+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
> >       |      |-------------|           wooden spacer
> >       |      |             |
> >       |      |      N      |
> >       |      |-------------|
> >       |
> >     down current
> >     (for about 3'
> >      to the end of
> >      table)
> >
> > The above is the preferred orientation again.  The torque was fairly
> > evident but not as strong as for inside the ring.  If I'm thinking
> > straight, you can apply the right-hand rule to the up-going current
> > and
> > the S magnet, and to the down-going current and the N magnet, AND, to
> > a kind of Biot-element projection of the feeder line current on both
> > the N and the S magnets.
> >
> >       Test 6. This was an interesting test.  I set up as below:
> >
> >       up current
> >       (for about 3 ft
> >        to the table end)
> >       |
> >       |
> >       |
> >       |             S
> >       |      |-------------|
> >       |      |-------------|
> (+)-->--|      |-------------| <-------- the shaft center is about
> >       |      |-------------|            in the center of this
> >       |      |-------------|            magnet interface
> >       |             N
> >       |
> >       |
> >     down current
> >     (for about 3'
> >      to the end of
> >      table)
> >
> > Here, the restoring torques seemed to be very wimpy - but they were
> > there.  Again, the magnet stack in view above had the same 3/4"
> > wood spacer between it and the lower stack - as in test 5.
> > So the bottom of the stack you see has its lower side about 3/8 inch
> > above the plane of our "tee" joint.
> > Remember, the torques were weak and I might argue that here we see
> > mainly the right-hand rule effect of the Biot-element projection
> > of the feed wire at the left - note that it would agree with the CCE
> > analogy.  What do you guys think?
> >
> > In summary, it seems to me that the right-hand rule used with the
> > compass-near-a-current analogy can be useful to START to get an
> > understanding of the torques in the Marinov circuit.  I'll let you
> > guys
> > chew this over and, if there are any more things you would like to see
> > me try with this setup - including the ring - let me know.  I'll leave
> > it up for a while yet (no picnics planed for soon! :-)).
> > I might say that the torques I was getting with the Radio Shack
> > magnets
> > and as much as 24 amps of total current seems too low to overcome my
> > motor brush friction.  So, I don't think I can say anything
> > constructive
> > about Jeff's motor tests from these torque studies, except maybe  the
> > direction of  the torques.
> >
> > Frank Stenger ---- who needs a cup of coffee.
> >

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 16:23:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20811;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351AEC73.4862 skylink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:01:55 -0800
From: Robert Stirniman <robert skylink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: El Nino slows Earth down
References: <351A655C.94973F19 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"jp1Pz2.0.055.rvk6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17016
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

John Steck wrote:

> El Nino slows Earth down

Who knows, perhaps the title of this thread should be:
Earth Slow Down Causes El Nino.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 17:19:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA01304;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351AFBFA.4DA9 interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:08:10 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Correction - Tests - Marinov Related
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-zzRj2.0.EK.8nl6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17018
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Oh, Oh, I think I goofed in my view of test 5. of my subject post!

(Note to Hank: I checked and I'm set for "fixed font", 10 point size
in Netscape Mail, Hank.  I rechecked and the ascii DID come thru OK
on my return from Vortex.  I'm sooooo dumb about the details of this
mail system!)

In test 5. I said:

"If I'm thinking
straight, you can apply the right-hand rule to the up-going current and
the S magnet, and to the down-going current and the N magnet, AND, to
a kind of Biot-element projection of the feeder line current on both
the N and the S magnets."

Obviously, I wasn't thinking straight - scratch that part about the
Biot-element projection of the feeder line current.  It looks like
what there is of it would buck the flux of the magnets - does this
sound right?  Sketch repeated below:

        up current
        (for about 3 ft
         to the table end)
        |
        |      |-------------|
        |      |      S      |
        |      |             |
        |      |-------------|
        |      | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
(+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
        |      |-------------|           wooden spacer
        |      |             |
        |      |      N      |
        |      |-------------|
        |
    down current
    (for about 3'
     to the end of
     table)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 17:46:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04585;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:42:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: usat usa.net
Subject: Re: Vortex-l wants ROSS TESSIEN on ARTBELL Show (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980326173829.21976I-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"KTMlP3.0.M71.m_l6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17019
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ross, 
  I just got this return mail fom Art Bell (radio fame) - I was surprized
he picked out mine in the group to reply to, although I did try to
intrigue him with push gravity and your answers to the entire universe <g>
Maybe you can use the same header and just personally send him your voice
telephone number... It appears he wants to contact you!

Good Luck!
-=se=-
ekwall2 diac.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:00:36 EST
From: Art Bell <ArtBell aol.com>
To: ekwall2 diac.com
Subject: Re: Vortex-l wants ROSS TESSIEN on ARTBELL Show

Please send me a contact phone #

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 18:00:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17641;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:51:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:51:57 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b140ae046ead [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:58:00 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"SZ8Sy2.0.OJ4.uOm6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17020
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:57 PM 3/26/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace, George, Scott, Robert, Rick and all:
>
>I can't seem to shake this Marinov thing so I decided to run some more
>qualitative tests to help clarify my own understanding of the effect.

And mine as well.  Excellent set of tests.  Great tutoring!  Way to hang in
there!

I think the key to successful visualization is to ignore any B fields not
in the plane of the ring and to ignore any component of the B fields not
purpendicular to the plane of the ring (your wire loop.)  In the following
analyses I will show only fields related to the ring and the magnets in
order to make the torque directly between the ring and the magnets more
clear.

For the sake of clarity, though not a true representaion of the fields, the
fields of the wire are placed adjacent to the ring (wire) only, the fields
of the magnets are placed next to the magnets only, but the fileds of the
magnets and rings and can be assumed to extend cross each other where
adjacent.

In Test 1 you got the following stable configuration:

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O O O O O O    X |
                        |X     ---------------    X |
                        |X     |  X   S   X  |    X |
                        |X     |  X       X  |    X |
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
                        |O     |  S       S  |    O |
                        |O     |  S   N   S  |    O |
                        |O     ---------------    O |
                        |O     X X X X X X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                   Fig. 1

Here X is B into page, O is B out of page.  It is easy to see from the B
field energy that the above is a lowest energy configuration because the
maximum degree of cancellation (opposite directed fields in same area) is
occurring.


In the normal Marinov configuration we have:




                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     XXBXX    X |
                        |X    O------------|--X   X |
                        |X    O| X X X|O OO| |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |    V |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O| ^    |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| | X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O--|------------X   O |
                        |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                    Fig. 2

The high O field pressure at A and the high X field pressure at B opposes
cancelled fields and thus inpart a clockwise torque on the magnets, and
therefore a counter clockwise torque on the ring.  If we reverse the magnet
poles above, the direction of the torques reverses also.  If we reverse the
direction of current the direction of the torques reverses also.

Now we might ask if there is a Lorentz explanation here.  The answer is
yes, just as much as there is a Lorentz explanation for parallel currents,
for that is what causes the torque!




                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     XX XX    X |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                    Fig. 3

The field internal to the magnets are generated by small electon loops,
i.e. aligned orbitals.  These can be viewed as lots of small loops or one
big one, as shown above for each magnet of the Marinov motor.  Note the
arrows.  The magnets could in equivalently be replaced with two coils in
the above configuration. the Lorentz force predicts that parallel currents
in the same direction attract, oposite currents repel, and that is just
what we have. All the above forces, due to B being purpendicular to the
page, are classical I x B forces.

I can provide a similar explanation for all the other experiments if anyone
cares.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 19:04:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA02727;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:55:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:55:17 -0800
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:54:54 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803270254.SAA25756 slave3.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mq_Zw1.0.Dg.IKn6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17021
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Somebody named Soo wrote:
>
>"If water or air is rotated into a twisting form of oscillation known as
>"colloidal", a build up of energy results which, with immense power, can
>cause levitation.  This form of movement is able to carry with it its own
>means of power generation.

        I suspect this may be another case of linquistic overlap between two
different scientific fields, but I am having difficulty understanding your
use of the word "colloidal".  I've been studying the chemistry and physics
of water dynamics for a considerable time now, and I haven't seen anyone use
this term in this context.   If you are saying that the rotation of a fluid
can form a superstructure within the body of the fluid that has properties
that are unique from the rest of the body of fluid, then you might have a
case for using the word, especially if you are talking about events that are
happening at the molecular level.

        You would also be correct in expecting classical thermodynamic and
fluid dynamic events that could be used to create movements such as
levitation.  In all my reading to date, however, the term "colloidal" is
only used to describe a state of separation between different substances at
the molecular level.  By definition, it refers to a scale that is beyond the
viewability of a normal, light microscope, and it usually refers to
substances that are different molecularly, even when they are at rest with
respect to one another.  You probably can get away with stretching the
definition to include substances that are the same when at rest, but have
different properties when undergoing certain movements like vortex
movements.  If the events that you are describing include macroscopic
manifestations, such as tornadoes or the Coriolis Effect however, then I
definitely don't think that "colloidal" is the correct term.  Is this your
idea or did you read this somewhere?  I'd be interested to see some
references if the latter case is true.

        As for this form of vortex movement having the ability to carry with
it its own means of power generation, well...  If you could enlighten us as
to how exactly that is supposed to work, I think that one of use could dream
up a machine that would be able to take advantage of it.  Quite honestly,
even after witnessing "anomolous" events with my own eyes, I still have
times when I wonder if this area of research even has a logical basis.
Right now, the idea of using cavitation to ratchet mechanical and thermal
energy via the Casimir effect seems like the most plausible (and easiest)
way to generate power, but the actual fact that we don't see runaway,
self-sustaining events happening all around us, all of the time, is a pretty
good indication that Nature has put a very effective combination of locks on
that to prevent exactly that from occurring.  I think that, at best, the
keyring still has a few keys missing, and, at worst, there is really no
mystery present even to solve.  I really am a firm believer in the obvious,
but there are a few recent developments that give me hope.

        I have read about cavitation experiments that demonstrate the
ability of cavitation to drive a number of chemical reactions  These
chemical reactions can include the breaking up of large, complex molecules
into smaller, simpler ones, as well as the joining of simpler molecules into
more complex ones, the most common reaction being chemical combustion.  I
have performed and verified some of these experiments myself, and can say
that they are both real, and fairly easy to replicate.  Using a vortex is
only one of many ways to initiate cavitation, but I don't think it is the
best.  Dr. Ken Suslick of the U. of Ill. has published some of the most
compelling work in what is mistakenly called the sonochemistry field.  He
works mainly with sonic cavitation devices, but I have read recently that he
was working with the jet type of cavitator as well.  Neither methods rely on
vortex creation, just cavitation to achieve these chemical reactions.  Most
of these reactions create heat, however, some actually refrigerate, as I and
others have demonstrated, but this is no big surprise.

        I have also read that cavitation can trigger nuclear reactions, and
the math from existing theories seems to bear this out (Schwinger,
Putterman, Cory), but the proofs of this possibility are still not adequate,
in my opinion.  Stringham and George of E-quest, the Putterman group, and
the Vortex Group at the University of Houston are the three groups that come
to mind immediately, that are using cavitation and or vortices to cause
reactions at the nuclear level.    I also spoke recently with Mark Hugo, and
he indicated that he would be doing some experimentation with the jet type
of cavitator to cause a nuclear reaction.  He recommended cavitating Lithium
in a liquid (possibly water, or maybe oil?), and I have read that Lithium6
which, when subjected to certain bombardments, can cause a fission reaction
yielding Tritium, He4 and alot of heat (don't have the exact amount off the
top of my head).  Perhaps under the right conditions, cavitation can trigger
that reaction as well, but only a series of well designed experiments will tell.
  
        Oddly enough, the method that E-quest uses, initially creates a
bubble sonically, and then allows it to impinge upon a metal foil.  It is
the actual impingement that creates a vortex shaped bubble collapse which in
turn causes, according to some pretty convincing data (including
photomicrographs of both the vortex shaped bubble collapse and the resulting
crater left in the foil, as well as, SIMS analysis data of the foil after
cavitation), a small, thermonuclear event on the foil surface.  The reason
that the bubble collapses in a vortex manner is still unclear, however, the
cause may be something as simple as the Coriolis effect initiating a spiral
movement in a predominantly thermal driven event.  This group, in my
opinion, has presented the some of the best data that nuclear reactions are
possible.  In this case, however, a small piece of the hardware itself (the
foil) is sacrificed to create heat energy, and a quick look at the
photomicrographs tells me that the foil would be rendered unusable in a
short period of time, and would need replacement. 

        I say oddly enough about the E-Quest efforts, because most of the
other vortex groups (e.g. Houston, and Potopov)do the reverse, and use a
vortex first to create the bubble, and then use the fluid dynamics of the
vortex to move the bubble to a higher pressure region of the body of liquid
itself to cause the bubble to collapse in a pancake shaped geometry or a
spherical geometry without any impingement on a solid surface at all.  This
method of bubble collapse relies on a more straight forward, simpler
implementation of the Casimir effect to set up the conditions for a nuclear
event. While this may have some definite advantages in that you shouldn't
have to replace the hardware as frequently, the nuclear events, if any, are
fueled by the fluid itself and logically it would seem that eventually, the
fluid would have to be replaced.  I really don't think that you can escape
or deny the consumption of some kind of fuel with these devices, whether it
is nuclear or chemical, but some folks will try to tell you that you can.

        Other groups using sonic cavitators (Putterman, Prevenslik, and the
rest of the SL bunch, which seem to number in the hundreds these days), jet
cavitators (Suslick, Hugo), laser cavitators (Darmstat University Group) or
even some rotary cavitators (Schaeffer, Griggs, myself) don't really rely on
vortex movements at all, at least as far as I have been able to determine,
to accomplish simple bubble formation and collapse.  Putterman has presented
the best data to show that bubble collapse can occur spherically, without
vortex movement, rebound, and recollapse like a damped oscillator using the
sonic approach.  He has also claimed in his most recent patent application
to have achieved nuclear fusion reactions while cavitating (I believe) heavy
water doped with Tritium instead of the usual noble gases.  It could be that
he is doping light water with Deuterium and Tritium gases, as well, I am not
certain, and I don't think that the patent is all that explicit.  I will
have to re-read that patent again to get the details.  To my knowledge,
however, he has yet to publish a protocol, or made a public demonstration of
the effect, so that whole business will have to go through the painful and
expensive replication procedure, and the inevitable debate by both the
serious scientists and the likes of Dick Blue and company before I can
believe it to be true.  I hope that Putterman can provide adequate proof of
his claims and avoid all the bad stuff.  In some ways, I envy his position,
in others, I do not.

        But getting back to your use of the term "colloidal", I have been
wanting to do some experiments with cavitation on various colloidal
solutions for some time, and it wouldn't surprise me if others haven't
already done so.  By colloidal solutions, I mean it in the way that a
chemist would mean it.  It seems to me that stimulating a colloidal metal
solution, for example, with pulsed electrolysis, pulsed EM, or even UV
light, while simultaneously cavitating the solution, might provide a way of
unlocking the door to some interesting chemical, and possibly some nuclear
reactions.  I was just wondering if maybe you had read something about
colloids and were confused, or if there is actually a  branch of science
that is using the term in a way that I am unused to seeing it used.

-Knuke

BTW, I have updated my webpage (http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm) recently
to correct a pile of blunders, and to add more material.  Go to the sitemap
to find links to the references for all that I've written above.  There are
quite a few there now, and I still have alot to add.  I had a complete
computer shutdown that lasted nearly a week, thanks to an abortive attempt
by a respected member of the computer repair profession to upgrade my
machine.  The guy spent three whole days putting a few common pieces of
hardware into my machine.  He couldn't have done better job of trashing it
if he had used a rototiller, and I tore the lions' share of the new hardware
out of the bloody thing as soon as he left with my money, and spent three
days rebuilding my damaged FAT with Debug, just so that I could do some work
without my machine crashing every five minutes.  Actually, there _was_ a
twenty four hour period between the time he left, and the time I started to
work on fixing it.  I spent that time getting roaring drunk, and thinking
really hard about what life was going to be like without a computer, until I
finally decided to jerk out all the conflicting hardware.  I could have spit
nails.  In my opinion, the entire computer industry has completely flipped
out on its own hype, and very few people really understand what is going on
in these increasingly complex software/hardware combinations anymore.  Add
to that the fact that the inventors of The Worst Operating System on Earth
are endeavoring to dictate to the rest of the industry how to make all of
the future hardware, and write all of the future code for every application
under the sun, and you can get a small glimpse of how absurd our future may
become.  Even the lunatic fringe science crowd looks respectable by
comparison.  I should probably just stop thinking about it, just so that I
don't start barking again. The neighbors have threatened to throw things
heavier than shoes next time, and I think they just might. Cheerios.  

        

               



                 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 19:14:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20001;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980326203301.00b4ea20 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:33:01 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980326164912.00c168d0 spectre.mitre.org>
References: <1b59d634.3513441f aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"J6xhE1.0.Lu4.DMn6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17022
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vince, if you decide to blow off the gloves and are handling the K metal
with your bare fingers and your fingers begin to feel soapy, stop promptly
and rinse your hands thoroughly...the soapy feel is KOH which will attack
your skin in much the same way that Portland cement does...only FASTER.
Don't forget, dry your hands thoroughly before resuming work or you will
get a nasty surprise when you touch the K metal!






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 Mar 26 19:55:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA27242;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980326224035.00b62260 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:40:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980326203301.00b4ea20 mail.eden.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980326164912.00c168d0 spectre.mitre.org>
 <1b59d634.3513441f aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"nEw6R3.0.Qf6.--n6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17024
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 08:33 PM 3/26/98 -0600, Scott Little wrote:
>Vince, if you decide to blow off the gloves and are handling the K metal
>with your bare fingers and your fingers begin to feel soapy, stop promptly
>and rinse your hands thoroughly...the soapy feel is KOH which will attack
>your skin in much the same way that Portland cement does...only FASTER.
 
   Actually the soapy feel is from potassium stearate, the result of the
KOH dissolving your skin.  That's why I prefer gloves. ;-)

                                        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 Mar 26 20:03:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA28674;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351B2172.62FA interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:48:02 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
References: <v01530500b140ae046ead [199.237.131.222]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xSgmU3.0.p_6.B7o6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17025
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

(snip a really great insight to the torques)

> The field internal to the magnets are generated by small electon loops,
> i.e. aligned orbitals.  These can be viewed as lots of small loops or one
> big one, as shown above for each magnet of the Marinov motor.  Note the
> arrows.  The magnets could in equivalently be replaced with two coils in
> the above configuration. 

Great, Horace, I had forgotten all about this old equivalence - I've
seen it in several old physics books - must use it in future
visualizations!

Now, do any of those equivalent (magnet) currents cause any non-radial
forces on the ring?  I'll think about that.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 21:31:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA12959;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351B268B.7F4E interlaced.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:09:47 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
References: <3.0.32.19980321210034.005dfb00 cnct.com> <3.0.1.32.19980326171733.009db760@spectre.mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"3IsgU.0.FA3.rIp6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17029
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> At 10:35 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> >Actually, Keith, the present rig is exactly as you mention.  I use(d)
> >a copper fuse link made from a #4 solid copper wire.  I neck the center
> >(fuses are about 2 - 3 inches total length) to a smooth 3 mm dia neck
> >which I calculated should blow at about 200 kamps.  It blows OK but
> >does not interrupt the current if open in the air - I suppose from a
> >plasma short across the fuse as the copper vaporizes.  For my next shot
> >I want to place a fiberglass baffle around the fuse neck, rather thin
> >to hopefully let the explosion vent on both sides of the baffle.
> 
>    Try the following...  First put your fuse in an open! container of oil
> to quench the arc, then put a spark gap (two needle ended electrode
> pointing at each other) in parallel.  Make your fuse smaller (you want it
> to blow during the rise to peak current) and you should be all set.
> 
>    Note that you should treat that oil bath fuse as if it were a cannon--it
> will be.  Use an insulating crushable liner in a open steel tube.  Do not
> use cast or welded pipe.  Apply fiberglass tape to the exterior as a
> precaution. Aim the discharge into an appropriate baffle or out a window
> and at the sky, and plan for recoil.
> 
I see your point, Robert.  The problem I have is that I want all the
action (whatever that is!) to happen in air (OK, and metal plasma)
and to I want to try to force the current to continue thru the
constriction.  Lightning itself is strictly an open-air plasma (away
from solids and water) thing but I cannot hope to get the initial
current without the solid copper as a precursor conductor.  I would
like the fuse explosion to relax to atmospheric pressure (or close)
while the series inductance still has enough energy to drive the
current at high level.  Remember, I have 300 microseconds to peak
current from the capacitors so a fast pinch is out of the question.
My hope is that the constriction would force a post-fuse-blow pinch
if the di/dt were fast, i were still large, and I have inductance
enough to do the job.  I know this is probably a day-dream but I may as
well do the shoot since I'm almost ready to go.  I do wish I had a
memory scope module for my computer - I would really like to get a good
capacitor vs. time trace so I could use its derivative to estimate
instant current ( I don't have a non-inductive shunt to get i
directly.).  I use my camcorder, of course, to capture any spectacular
plasma stuff that lasts for a few seconds - nice shots of burning
aluminum fluff so far.
I always treat the rig as high explosives (about 8 rounds of 12 gage
ammo, I think) so I leave the building for the shoot.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 21:37:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11725;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:03:49 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <9a17f96c.351b3231 aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:59:27 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"-z-xN3.0.is2.SCp6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17028
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-26 16:50:06 EST, you write:
> When asked why I am so paranoid on such things, I hold my hands in the
>  air, all ten fingers spread, and say all original equipment, and I want to
>  keep them that way. 
 
Yes, I do that too.

> Which brings up another good tip.  See if you can find some leather work
> gloves YOU WILL WEAR.  There are cheap ones, and  then  ones where  > you
can forget you are wearing them.  
>                                          Robert I. Eachus

Wearing of protective gear was never a non-option for me...ever.
I used protective gear when I was 12 years old and mixing up gunpowder
and lots of other really nasty stuff. Like I said I am all original body
parts.

Thanks,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 21:44:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA15108;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:21:54 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <2fb1e25e.351b3657 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:17:09 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"gjq_G3.0.oh3.eTp6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17030
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-26 22:10:18 EST, you write:
> Vince, if you decide to blow off the gloves and are handling the K metal
>  with your bare fingers and your fingers begin to feel soapy, stop....
<<snip>>
Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.    http://www.eden.com/~little

  Good Lord Scott......!!!  I  NEVER EVER considered bare handling of
highly reactive metals... I play guitar and I need my fingers/skin ect.
I like the glove box idea in a on-it's-side fish aquarium that was suggested
here. Easier to seal to heavy plastic and gloves and much easier viewing than
a plastic bag. Small aquariums are cheap.  Building it is a pizza cake.
 Added benifit: I can use it as an aquarium when not needed
for the experiment. (after removing any K  <g>)

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:00:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA20360;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:53:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b140e6e1b5c1 [12.64.66.175]>
In-Reply-To: <351B2172.62FA interlaced.net>
References: <v01530500b140ae046ead [199.237.131.222]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:35:18 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"IDpTI1.0.nz4.7xp6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17031
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  Great, Horace, I had forgotten all about this
   >  old equivalence - I've seen it in several old
   >  physics books - must use it in future
   >  visualizations!

Yep - nice visulization aid, Horace.

But is it complete? Still looks like a compass needle in a wire's field to
me. It will stabilize and stop in one position though, and resist further
motion there. I don't see what keeps it going (magnet assembly as spinning
armature here, ring as stator). Must be something else going on, there has
to be some continuous assymetry here. Otherwise, you could not only replace
the magnets with coils, you could replace the coils with magnets - all
magnets. And unless your name is Greg Watson, that never works.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:14:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA23290;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351B33F6.5C69 macsrule.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:07:07 -0600
From: "Mark A. Collins" <themacman macsrule.com>
Reply-To: themacman macsrule.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Questions on Electrolysis Salt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"stK_a3.0.jh5.T4q6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17032
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Let's suppose you wanted to create an electrolysis reaction that would
be long ongoing... Which choice of salting agent would provide the least
harmful side-effects?

Table salt is sodium chloride. If they break up, not very good...
Potassium Chloride. Same thing...
Potassium Carbonate. Potassium good to have floating around.
What would be a safe, yet effective salting agent?


Calcium Carbonate?

I realize that we're talking trace amounts, but if you're undergoing an
electrolysis reaction and it gets out of hand, it's nice to be sure that
the contents of the reactor won't be poisonous or otherwise dangerous,
they'll just be hot... Even if you increase the scale...

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:35:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA28430;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:25:05 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:54:53 GMT
Message-ID: <353c2ea9.66794292 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <46875f66.351b2e4f aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <46875f66.351b2e4f 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: <"9yiYN1.0.0y6.nOq6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17034
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:42:54 EST, VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com> wrote:

>It seems logical (to me anyway) that the indicated pressure (25 in Hg of H2
>gas) should go lower (towards 26.82 in Hg). After all, I am (hopefully)
>removing  _all_  the H2 gas added by shrinking them and turning them (again
>according to Mills) into  extreme ultra violet photons and soft X-Rays.

>If I react _all_ the H2 gas I added, whats left?  Nothing, right? And nothing
>means back to the vacuum I started with before adding the H2. 

If Mills is right then you still have H2 but just much smaller atoms.
These smaller atoms have almost the same mass (they have lost the energy
given up which is only a tiny fraction of a percent).  Pressure is
dependent on mass of molecules not on size of atoms.  [Note: not 100%
true - see Van Der Waals equations if you want the tiny correction].

The mass difference between an ionised H atom and a ground state H atom
is 13.6ev / 938Mev or about 1 part in 69 million.  If you drop down to
Mills 1/10 or 1/100 orbital then the energy given off is 10^2*13.6ev or
100^2*13.6ev.  So in these two cases the mass change is 1 part in
690,000 or 1 part in 6,900.  I don't think that you will be able to
measure this.  For a starter a 0.1 degree temperature change will have a
larger effect on the pressure.

If you can get to the 1/1000 orbital you might get a result if you
survive :-)

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:36:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA27236;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803270301.VAA03483 endeavor.flash.net>
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <KeelyNet-L lists.kz>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:56:32 -0600
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: <"dDVqC1.0.Ff6.rJq6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17033
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gnorts Peter Nielsen et al!

Could you please define what you mean by;
> I'll buy that. But maybe cancelling vortices would be more accurate. As a
> result of his experiments with "hydronic" radiation, Wally Minto found
> swimming fish emit scalar waves. 

I always considered 'scalar waves' to be inaccurate, since my idea of them
is a bubble in space, a soliton, standing alone and not moving.  Though
they CAN be projected along a specific vector (after all scalar does mean -
without vector), so wouldn't a scalar wave mean one or more of these
bubbles being sent along a path ( vector )?

The reason I'm asking is because I've been following this thread and Bill
Beaty's comments about using vortices to produce the minute corrections
that minimize resistance, which allows fish to remain essentially
motionless in a moving stream, just blew me away.

It is PURE VORTEX and as I understood it, the very purpose of this
discussion list (hydrosonics included).

So, we have moving water, moving in waves past an object.  The material
flow of the water pushes the object along with the flow.

By using a kind of inertial drive motion where a PUSH is projected against
the water flow in a timely fashion, it would create an interference that
would either deflect or cancel the forward motion of the water past AND
AGAINST the object, thus CREATING A WELL OF STILLNESS in the water at the
location of the object.

This well of stillness makes the object immune to outside inertial
influences and the principle is pure phase conjugation herein applied in a
mechanical form.

NOW WE'RE TALKING MEAT!!!

I do hope everyone gets involved in this discussion as it has incredible
permutations 
in mechanics and electronics because it uses phase conjugation in a
mechanical form (redirecting inertia of the moving water to produce
stillness)...

SUPERB and it surely has my attention.....thanks Bill and Peter for sharing
your observations!!!






















From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:41:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA03954;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:38:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:38:02 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b140cb2d488e [199.237.131.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:35:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Correction - Tests - Marinov Related
Resent-Message-ID: <"NL6co2.0.iz.8bq6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17037
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Test 5:

        up current
        (for about 3 ft
         to the table end)
        ^       O O O O O O O
        |X    O|------------>|
        |X    O^ X    S   X  |
        |X    O| X        X  v
        |X     |<------------|
        |X     | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
(+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
        |O     |<------------|           wooden spacer
        |O    X| S        S  ^
        |O    X| S    N   S  |
        |O    Xv------------>|
        v        X X X X X X
    down current
    (for about 3'
     to the end of
     table)


You can see the above diagram is in the equilibium you found Frank.  In
this case, however, turning in either direction to 45 degrees should
produce an energy minimum, due to the 1/r^2 relation (provided the config
is actually like the above drawing.)  Turning all the way to 90 degrees
from the above produces maximum torque in a direction away from the wire
split position, either clockwise or counter clockwise.

You may want to try this again to check out the 45 degree situation.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:43:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA01146;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530505b140d14ab84d [199.237.131.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:52:57 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZSQ5L3.0.qH.gaq6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17036
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank and others:

In Test 1 you got the following stable configuration:

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O O O O O O    X |
                        |X     ---------------    X |
                        |X     |  X   S   X  |    X |
                        |X     |  X       X  |    X |
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
                        |O     |  O       O  |    O |
                        |O     |  O   N   O  |    O |
                        |O     ---------------    O |
                        |O     X X X X X X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                   Fig. 1

It just dawned on me that the *most unstable* configuration is:

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     X X X X X X X X    X |
                        |X     ---------------    X |
                        |X     |  O   N   O  |    X |
                        |X     |  O       O  |    X |
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
                        |O     |  X       X  |    O |
                        |O     |  X   S   X  |    O |
                        |O     ---------------    O |
                        |O     O O O O O O O O    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                   Fig. 4

This config also has the poles facing 90 degrees from the brushes as
Marinov specifies.

A slight angle from the above would produce the *most* directional torque,
*but only if the current were in the above direction*.  This implies that
the current direction and magnet direction must be coordinated for maximum
effect.  Could this be the difference between Frank and Jeff's results?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:52:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA01112;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b140e1ff4cdd [199.237.131.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:26:10 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"27cY82.0.GH.Uaq6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17035
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>Horace Heffner wrote:

>
>Now, do any of those equivalent (magnet) currents cause any non-radial
>forces on the ring?  I'll think about that.
>
>Frank Stenger

If not, Newton just lost his law No. 3!  8^)

The force at A and B on the ring (see Fig. 2) has a radial and longitudinal
component with respect to the ring.

Fig. 2 still makes sense even when the ring is redrawn by hand as circular:


                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     XXBXX    X |
                        |X    O------------|--X   X |
                        |X    O| X X X|O OO| |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |    V |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O| ^    |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| | X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O--|------------X   O |
                        |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                    Fig. 2

The high O field pressure at A and the high X field pressure at B opposes
cancelled fields and thus inpart a clockwise torque on the magnets, and
therefore a counter clockwise torque on the ring.  If we reverse the magnet
poles above, the direction of the torques reverses also.  If we reverse the
direction of current the direction of the torques reverses also.

Something I think is not so clear is when the magnet halves are
semi-circular like Maranov specifies.  In Fig. 2 if we look at just to the
right side of the magnets,  we can see repulsion of the ring X's and
attraction to the ring O's by the magnet, whether it is circular or not.
However, if the magnets are rotated to the point(s) of equilibrium as in
Fig. 1 (stable equilibium) and Fig. 4 (unstable equilibium) below, there
does not seem to be any  basis for torque on the ring (or magnet) in those
cases and that, I think, is what is very deceiving about the motor as a
whole theoretically.  Experimentally, if you are unaware of the points of
stability then (1) it might take a push and/or a slight movement of the
magnets out of alignment to start the Fig. 4 situation and (2) reversing
the current (or magnets) to get out of the Fig. 1 situation.

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O O O O O O    X |
                        |X     ---------------    X |
                        |X     |  X   S   X  |    X |
                        |X     |  X       X  |    X |
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
                        |O     |  O       O  |    O |
                        |O     |  O   N   O  |    O |
                        |O     ---------------    O |
                        |O     X X X X X X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                   Fig. 1


                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     X X X X X X X X    X |
                        |X     ---------------    X |
                        |X     |  O   N   O  |    X |
                        |X     |  O       O  |    X |
     (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
                        |O     |  X       X  |    O |
                        |O     |  X   S   X  |    O |
                        |O     ---------------    O |
                        |O     O O O O O O O O    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                   Fig. 4


I hope I got all that right.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 22:55:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA07828;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:48:59 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:48:59 -0800
Message-Id: <199803270429.WAA13518 endeavor.flash.net>
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
To: <KeelyNet-L lists.kz>
Cc: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:24:10 -0600
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: <"mIJ611.0.uv1.Olq6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17038
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Billy et al!

You wrote;
>  Hmmm...If I'm not mistaken...Could we be on the verge of a theory of
> Inertial dampening and or creating Interial Dampeners? This is
> awesome...imagine fighter planes where the pilot is not subjected to G
forces.

Precisely, there are 'wheels within wheels' on this one and this is just
the tip of the iceberg when you start thinking about what all it could
render towards practical applications.

That's why I reposted it here from Vortex, it will be further transferred
and might cascade into something incredible.

One of the properties inherent in inerial drive devices would be the
ability to hover in space.  We realize that when you convert rotational
angular velocity in a specific direction, you are literally pushing against
the mass itself as your fixed constant exactly as described in the
Puthoff/Rueda/Haisch paper on aether as the cause of inertia.

Even though to date, there have only been small jerky steps produced in
such devices, the principle is definitely proven in a horizontal position. 
These jerky steps result from the MECHANICAL method of producing the
inertial thrust.

As I've said MANY TIMES both on the BBS and in documents at the KeelyNet
website, using Keely as my touchstone in the matter, I'll repeat the
principle.

Imagine a wheel with the axle in a vertical axis.  This wheel thus rotates
in a horizontal plane.  Attach a radial mounted tube containing a weight
that is attached to a spring that all projects from the axle.

Initially the spring with the attached weight is pulled snug to the shaft. 
As the wheel rotates in its 360 degree revolution, (we will use 180 as the
release point), when the tube containing the weight reaches 180 degrees, 
the weight is suddenly released and is thrown by centrifugal force AND the
force of the spring to cause the weight to strike the outside rim of the
wheel.  This weight redistribution (by the way is the key to the Orffyreus
device), causes the entire mass to jerk in that direction by a distance
determined by the weight and the force applied to it.

In an ideal system where the weight is completely recovered to the shaft by
the 360 degree point, the faster the wheel rotates, the greater the number
of these jerky steps the mass will produce to cause it to creep in the 180
degree direction.

Of course, in an ideal system, you can aim the mass in any direction, EVEN
UP, and with sufficient weight and revolutions, the mass would literally
push against ITSELF to rise into the air and even remained suspended if so
balanced against the gravity/aether flows moving into the planet.

Now, let's take this further.  Our understanding is that all matter is
composed of electrons rotating around a nucleus.  If we can produce this
same inertial drive effect in electrons and do it THROUGHOUT THE MASS, then
we have a 'mass inertial drive' that is energetic rather than mechanical.
(this is what Dan Davidson and I wrote about back in July 1996 in the Tesla
magazine)

You have to make all components of the mass 'harmonize' so that all the
electrons trigger IN UNISON to create a directed unidirectional force. 
This is the essence of the Bose Einstein Condensate, where supercooling in
pure metallic/crystalline substances produces just such a SINGLE WAVE
function.

That is precisely why Keely had to GRADUATE his machines, so that tiny
inputs would produce macro outputs by virtue of a harmonized mass.

Here we have the principles that will power equipment and do work in the
22nd century, brought about by correlation and inspiration from people born
long before science was ready for their advanced discoveries.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Thu Mar 26 23:48:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA26253;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:46:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:46:31 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:44:54 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
cc: usat usa.net
Subject: Re: Vortex-l wants ROSS TESSIEN on ARTBELL Show (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980326173829.21976I-100000 november>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980327002034.2332A-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"hWod22.0.7Q6.Lbr6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17039
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Steve Ekwall wrote:

> Ross, 
> I just got this return mail from Art Bell (radio fame), I was surprized
> he picked out mine in the group to reply to, although I did try to
> intrigue him with push gravity and your answers to the entire universe <g>
> Maybe you can use the same header and just personally send him your voice
> telephone number... It appears he wants to contact you!
> 
> Good Luck!
> -=se=-
> ekwall2 diac.com
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:00:36 EST
> From: Art Bell <ArtBell aol.com>
> To: ekwall2 diac.com
> Subject: Re: Vortex-l wants ROSS TESSIEN on ARTBELL Show
> 
> Please send me a contact phone #
> 
> 
Update: (current time) Art Bell Show in background.
 Tonight, this morning early (Friday) - questions were directed to the
650+ affiliated radio stations concerning El Nino SLOWING down the Earths
Rotation(s). 
 ---
Note: I had also just SENT your todays (yesterday(s)) prediction of same
to the vortex-l group here... (Tonights Topic on opening)  He said he just
got it in his mail today, so assume he read YOUR reply...  :):):)
 ---
He's looking for an EXPERT, and in my line of thinking, you would not only
fit the bill, but might change the old addage that a scientist has to die
before his views become reality!!  IF A LOT of people can hear about this
in a MASS market (radio).. Things should move along a lot more quickly! 
-----
BTW, His book, recently released, called "The Quickening", is about just
such speedy advancements & how 'we' on the net will take advantage of
them in a timely manner.
-----
Finally, so you don't have any punches thrown below the belt, or from left
field..(which I'm sure you could handle there), you may want to visit his
web site at http://www.artbell.com and see the contra-format and venue.
Tricky menu, but reaches MANY persons who are 'open minded' and he should
have no objections in promoted YOUR Book on-air!  Many a guest is invited
back (per volume callers request) again & again.

Best to you & yours,
-=se=-
ekwall2 diac.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 01:48:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02820;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:45:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:45:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199803270445.WAA20156 endeavor.flash.net>
From: "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker keelynet.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Fw: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:39:59 -0600
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: <"2I_of3.0.Nh.exo6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17027
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts!  Thought you folks might be interested in this...
----------
> From: Jerry W. Decker <jdecker keelynet.com>
> To: KeelyNet-L lists.kz

> Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
> Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 10:35 PM
> 
> Hi Folks!
> 
> This came in about reimaging MARS and describes something called
> 'aerobraking';
> 
> >  The spacecraft will turn on its payload of science 
> >  instruments on March 27, about 12 hours after it suspends 
> >  "aerobraking," a technique that lowers the spacecraft's orbit 
> >  by using atmospheric drag each time it passes close to the 
> >  planet on each looping orbit.  Aerobraking will resume in 
> >  September and continue until March 1999, when the spacecraft 
> >  will be in a final, circular orbit for its prime mapping mission.
> 
> Isn't this interesting?  Though this talks about dipping into a more
> viscuous section of space to lower velocity, I think it applies to our
> interference by vortexes.  By dipping a portion of the moving object into
> denser matter, the objects motion is resisted causing it to slow down.
> 
> Einsteins' 1929 Unified Field Theory that was later retracted said that
> electricity, magnetism, gravity and INERTIA were all interchangeable. 
So,
> we could use any of these forces to to produce similar effects.
> 
> The earlier discussions about 'how to interfere with aether' are
partially
> answered by this method of using the inherent aether/gravity produced
> inertia of each mass to produce phenomena such as weight loss or
> elimination, propulsion against a moving flow of fluids (such as aether
> flowing into mass and the earth would be) by producing a 'well of
> stillness' IN THE PREFERRED DIRECTION OF MOTION of the object so that the
> object FALLS INTO THE WELL, or is more precisely pushed forward by the
> inertial thrust of the mass AGAINST ITSELF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 01:54:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA10037;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:11:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:11:46 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b140c66a2a19 [199.237.131.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:17:37 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinof magnet config
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Hj9-3.0.2S2.gZn6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17023
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wonder if Jeff Koositra has is magnets facing the brushes, or the plane
between the magnets facing the brushes.  If the the magnets face the
brushes, that's not Marinov, but it should work much better!

Here's a good config I think (magnet contained within ring):

      --------------------------------------------
      |   S                                 N    |
      --------------------------------------------

-->O                        B                       O<--

      --------------------------------------------
      |   N                                 S    |
      --------------------------------------------

 O    - the ring
 B    - bearings supporting insulating plastic turntable
          (not shown) to support ring.
 -->  - Brush


So this must not be too bad:

      --------------------------------------------
      |            iron                          |
      --------------------------------------------
      ----N----                          ----S----
      |       |                          |       |
      ----S----                          ----N----

-->O                        B                       O<--

      ----N----                          ----S----
      |       |                          |       |
      ----S----                          ----N----
      --------------------------------------------
      |            iron                          |
      --------------------------------------------


Here's another variation of the motor with armature and ring roles reversed:



  OOOO   ----N----                           ----S----   OOOO
  OOOO   |       |======A======B======A======|       |   OOOO
  OOOO   ----S----                           ----N----   OOOO


 A - Long non-conducting armature bar
 B - Ball bearing
 O - Current up (out of page)
 X - Current down (into page)


Magnets would be best as semicurcular arcs viewed from above. Current
changes direction when magnets pass neutral points 90 degrees from wire
split point.  This is a brushless variation of Marinov's motor.  The "coil"
is made by wrapping two wire bundles about the armature cage OO like so:

  ---    ----
  |  \  /   |
  |   ||    |
  |  (OO)   |
  |   ||    |
  |  /  \   ====== power
  |  |  |   |
  |  \  /   |
  |   \/    |
  |   /\    |
  ----  -----

Not so efficient, but novel maybe?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 01:59:45 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02257;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:44:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:44:29 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <46875f66.351b2e4f aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:42:54 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"RQbpQ3.0.uY.fwo6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17026
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-26 13:07:20 EST, you write:
> I don't know what kind of vacuum gauge you are using. If it directly reads
>  pressure, say by a diaphragm or a piezoelectric element, then it reats
>  actual pressure. However, be aware that many pressure gauges, >especially
for lower pressures, work on other principles. Most of these >respond to the
number of particles per unit volume, not to pressure; their >scales are
marked in pressure units assuming a typical system >temperature, usually
about 300 K.
>  Michael J. Schaffer

I am using three Ashcroft standard bourden tube guages attached to the three
sections of the vacuum manafold that are seperated by valves.  Section 3, is
the section that is part of the reactor tube.

My question is a hypothetical;  I pump vacuum to 26.82 in Hg (the best I
can do at 3000 feet altitude), seal off the reactor part of the system, shut
off the pump, and now admit H2 to a reading of say 25 in Hg.

If _all_ the H2 atoms in this closed section are reacted to shrink to their
ultimate radius (electron contacts the proton according to Mills/Farrell)
giving up their all as soft X-Rays), what  happens to the pressure indicated?
(which was 25 in Hg at the start).

It seems logical (to me anyway) that the indicated pressure (25 in Hg of H2
gas) should go lower (towards 26.82 in Hg). After all, I am (hopefully)
removing  _all_  the H2 gas added by shrinking them and turning them (again
according to Mills) into  extreme ultra violet photons and soft X-Rays.
 
If I react _all_ the H2 gas I added, whats left?  Nothing, right? And nothing
means back to the vacuum I started with before adding the H2. 

I am trying to figure a way to see if such a reaction takes place without
spending lots of money, something simple that can be observed in
my non-lab garage.

I am still waiting for a call from Desert Industrial Gas for delivery of my
tanks of H2 and Ar and regulators. They tell me that the H2 regulator was
a special order item. It's been a week now and they did tell me it could
go two weeks to get the hardware.

Construction of the Mark II reactor tube completed. Wanted it on hand in
case the first one melts. <g>  The new tube has a shorter arc path (1/2 in.)
than the Mark I ( 1.5 in.) and twice the length of W filiment stub electrodes
(about 1 inch each vs about 1/4 inch each) The stub filiments glow bright
red hot with the arc on and thats what is supposed to bust up the H2 into
H atoms.
As soon as the gasses arrive, I will begin purging and calibration runs to
see how the temperatures sit in both Ar and H2 without any K in the system.
All observations will be posted here, 
All comments and suggestions are much appreciated.

Best Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 03:54:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA03907;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 03:53:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 03:53:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980327064618.00747608 agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:52:13 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"PXUVF.0.ty.tCv6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17040
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 02:22 PM 3/26/98 -0600, John Steck wrote:
>
>I modeled up a five shell representation to evaluate the manufacturability
and
>now I see why you are leaning towards SLS.  
>
>My screen dumps :
><http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/atkinson/sphere.html>
>

A beautiful rendering sir John! , like triple stereo compared to my mono,
(speaking of the file size too, heh-heh ;). Since the circuitry of this
simple structure may not have been so obviously compelling, i emphasized
the chiralarity, (POS/ NEG,etc).   You can see that i am miserly with web
space, not cheap really, just not "well connected", but really into
vortices big time.


>J..........  I am interested in hearing more of your planned
>experiments with this geometry.  I think it may have some potential with some
>of my own electromagnetic resonance ideas.


Very glad to hear this.  It is an humbly submitted gift to the public
domain, (via enersearch, my registered non profit org). If whom so ever can
advance *the* cause with it, all the better. If my contributory potentials
seem worthy, i'm game, looking for teams to join with.  No MBA plans
lurking in the wings here, ( no glamorous ratings held by enersearch),
just a lean experimental experience and design visions which long propel me
despite odds. 

>
>...... fuse the lattice in an autoclave.  From there it is up to you whether
>infusing copper is necessary or not.  The structure will be porous, but
>certainly conductive.


I would call your well pictured configuration 'ergonomic': It is easy to
handle, one could fill it, eg: with differing ferrites or other exciting
specimens. To really boost the Q, though, copper plated non conductor is
perhaps most desirable. I think part of the breakthrough potential here is
stretching critical effects at the start. I would further employ as yet
unmentioned  geometric details,  which i think are critically boosting.
More actually than a few emails or URLs.

As a mere inductor, several things come to mind.  I have wound, or should i
say wrapped a cylindrical version using various foils and PE. I was not
happy with the control of the paths, (electrical or magnetic).   I believe
just one short looses the whole value.  And don't laugh, i even tried a
potters wheel for structures, years ago;).  But all the handmade efforts
suffer from conductive path variances. If the current deviates from a
certain balanced threshold, then flux will pierce and the flux geometry is
lost.  Computer controlled fabricating, one way or another promises to
yield us some vastly better controlled flux and current. I won't rest until
i can finally observe this, to a higher satisfaction.

So are you interested in brainstorming with me about your "own
electromagnetic resonance ideas"? If i sound too candid, remember i sat on
this thing too long. But, for the greater good, i would agree to certain
non disclosure areas.

>
>If you like what I have modeled you are welcome to take it to get quotes.
The
>sphere is roughly 60mm tall and 75mm dia with 1mm walls.  The database is
ProE.

Classy software, this ProE, no doubt!  I'll stay thankful with my swiss
army knife (formZ or "Z"). You out gun me with power tools, but  "strict
planarity" and solids is well established in "Z".   Lifting all Z's
handtools all day has at least sharpened my inner discipline. It was
frustrating, wrestling with limitations, but folding out every little
appendage only fanned a flare for chiral-arities! 

8<))

BoA   >~~~~~~~~~~~


Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 07:05:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13298;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351BBEC1.5E05 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:59:13 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
References: <v01530505b140d14ab84d [199.237.131.234]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9nrgk2.0.iF3.Ayx6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17041
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> It just dawned on me that the *most unstable* configuration is:
> 
>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>                         -------------->--------------
>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>                         |X     X X X X X X X X    X |
>                         |X     ---------------    X |
>                         |X     |  O   N   O  |    X |
>                         |X     |  O       O  |    X |
>      (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
>                         |O     |  X       X  |    O |
>                         |O     |  X   S   X  |    O |
>                         |O     ---------------    O |
>                         |O     O O O O O O O O    O |
>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>                         -------------->--------------
>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
> 
>                                    Fig. 4
> 
> This config also has the poles facing 90 degrees from the brushes as
> Marinov specifies.
> 
Horace, I thought the poles were supposed to FACE the brushes for max
torque?  Isn't the above figure like a pencil standing on your finger?
Max torque would be 90 deg away at horizontal, max stability with
pencil hanging down?  I think the max torque was definitely with the
poles facing the brushes.  This as I look at a sketch I printed from
some web page.

Frank S.   (after just one cup of coffee)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 07:11:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA14844;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351BC030.2354 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:05:20 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Correction - Tests - Marinov Related
References: <v01530504b140cb2d488e [199.237.131.234]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eAa_w2.0.id3.O2y6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17042
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> Test 5:
> 
>         up current
>         (for about 3 ft
>          to the table end)
>         ^       O O O O O O O
>         |X    O|------------>|
>         |X    O^ X    S   X  |
>         |X    O| X        X  v
>         |X     |<------------|
>         |X     | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
> (+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
>         |O     |<------------|           wooden spacer
>         |O    X| S        S  ^
>         |O    X| S    N   S  |
>         |O    Xv------------>|
>         v        X X X X X X
>     down current
>     (for about 3'
>      to the end of
>      table)
> 
> You can see the above diagram is in the equilibium you found Frank.  In
> this case, however, turning in either direction to 45 degrees should
> produce an energy minimum, due to the 1/r^2 relation (provided the config
> is actually like the above drawing.)  Turning all the way to 90 degrees
> from the above produces maximum torque in a direction away from the wire
> split position, either clockwise or counter clockwise.
> 
> You may want to try this again to check out the 45 degree situation.
> 

Yes, Horace, the problem with this test was that the torque with 24 amps
flowing was rather weak.  Maybe I can come up with a better current
limiter than my 1 ohm resistors - it would be nice to get up to 100 amp
or so - then, things should start to get pretty stiff!

Frank S.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 07:26:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18318;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351BC36F.DA5A240C ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:19:11 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: El Nino slows Earth down
References: <351A655C.94973F19 ecg.csg.mot.com> <351AEC73.4862@skylink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"J3m9l2.0.3U4.QGy6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17043
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:
> Who knows, perhaps the title of this thread should be:
> Earth Slow Down Causes El Nino.

Good point.  It is all a matter of perspective.

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 07:46:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA23517;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327092104.00b51054 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:21:04 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
In-Reply-To: <46875f66.351b2e4f aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"T3PZf1.0.Jl5.EZy6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17044
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 23:42 3/26/98 EST, VCockeram wrote:

>If _all_ the H2 atoms in this closed section are reacted to shrink to their
>ultimate radius (electron contacts the proton according to Mills/Farrell)
>giving up their all as soft X-Rays), what  happens to the pressure indicated?

Pressure is not related to atomic size in a gas (under ordinary
conditions).  It's just a function of the number of molecules per unit
volume and the temperature.  

If the hydrinos (symbol "h") for h2 molecules like the H2 was, the pressure
will not change.

If the hydrinos don't form diatomic molecules, the number of "molecules" in
the chamber will double and thus so will the pressure.



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 Mar 26 17:04:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA00374;
	Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:57:36 -0800
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:57:36 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:57:11 +1000
Message-Id: <199803270057.KAA12112 nornet.nor.com.au>
X-Sender: mindtech pophost.nor.com.au
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: Peter Nielsen <mindtech nor.com.au>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"bYrmF2.0.m5.-bl6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17017
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Schauberger: trout use no energy, they swim by creating self-acting
>             vortices which extract etheric energy.
>

I'll buy that. But maybe cancelling vortices would be more accurate. As a
result of his experiments with "hydronic" radiation, Wally Minto found
swimming fish emit scalar waves. 

> Science: (later, in 1996(?))  Hey, trout swim in turbulent streams by
>                               interacting with vortices!  They do almost
>                               no work themselves!
>
>(will the other shoe drop?  Will fluid vortices turn out to be energy-
>producing mechanizms?) 
>
>William J. Beaty                                  
>

Well, there was the Schauberger turbine. Crank up a vortex in water, remove
the mechanical drive and reconnect to a load. The reaction chamber was
egg-shaped. Running water past an egg produces a _Phi ratio_ vortex. In
terms of energy translation, what's the real message here?

Peter Nielsen


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 09:47:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02137;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:34:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:34:39 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351BD0A7.B3CA20BD ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:15:35 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
References: <199803270254.SAA25756 slave3.aa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SnRaI3.0.3X.iC-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17046
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael T Huffman wrote:
>         As for this form of vortex movement having the ability to carry with
> it its own means of power generation, well...  If you could enlighten us as
> to how exactly that is supposed to work, I think that one of use could dream
> up a machine that would be able to take advantage of it. 

I think that is the question everyone is trying to figure out.  I am making a
specific effort to do just that.  Many questions, a couple of promising
theories, some interpretationally relevant experimental results, but not much
more than that right now.  I call it energy density gradients, others have
referred to it as negative viscosity.  Both are hypothetical, hopefully not for
long.
 
> In my opinion, the entire computer industry has completely flipped
> out on its own hype, and very few people really understand what is going on
> in these increasingly complex software/hardware combinations anymore.  

Couldn't agree more.  Sorry to hear of your difficulties.  Been there done
that, more than I care to remember.  There was a time not too long ago when I
was up to my elbows in various computer carcasses on a daily basis.  I shifted
back to mechanical engineering to escape the insanity of it all.  To quote Jack
in the movie 'As Good as it Gets',  "Go peddle crazy somewhere else, we're all
full up here."  8^)

Like the website.  Keep up the good work.


-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 09:54:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09811;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:49:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:49:21 -0800
From: FZNIDARSIC <FZNIDARSIC aol.com>
Message-ID: <8f1614ac.351be669 aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:48:22 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, editor@infinite-energy.com,
        tkepple twd.net, RVargo1062@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: baat/i bought the stock now going up
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Resent-Message-ID: <"oTjZB2.0.sO2.SQ-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17048
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Kiplinger to Highlight BAT International's Super Car 

BURBANK, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 27, 1998--BAT 
International's (OTC:BAAT) Super Car was recently certified at an 
average of 93.7 miles per gallon.  

The tests were conducted at the California Speedway under the 
control of outside inhdependent parties.  The television program 
Kiplingers' Personal Finance Report will show scenes from the track.
The program will air at various times, starting March 27.  The Super 
Car has been tested in public twice, once with a result of 92.5 mpg 
and then a month later at 93.7 mpg.  

BAT has developed a technology called Dolphin Pulse Charging, 
which increases the efficiency of an internal combustion engine.  
Below is a list of television stations that broadcast the Kiplinger 
Personal Finance Report.  Look for the times in your area.  Also 
see http://www.kiplinger.com/tvlist.html for additional information.

*T
WTAJ-TV-10    Altoona, Pa.
KAMR-TV-4     Amarillo, Texas
WAGA-TV 5     Atlanta
KBAK-TV-29    Bakersfield, Calif.     
KBMT-TV-12    Beaumont/Port Arthur, Texas 
KTVQ-TV-2     Billings, Mont.       
WBNG-TV-12    Binghamton, N.Y.         
WBZ-TV-4      Boston            
WCIA-TV-3     Champaign, Ill.          
WOWK-13       Charleston, W.Va.     
WMAQ-TV-5     Chicago            
WKRC-TV-12    Cincinnati, Ohio        
WLTX-TV-19    Columbia, S.C.           
KDFW-TV-4     Dallas            
WDHN-TV-18    Dothan, Ala.             
KBJR-TV-6     Duluth/Superior, Minn.  
WEAU-TV-13    Eau Claire, Wis.         
WICU-TV-12    Erie, Pa.                
KMTR-TV       Eugene, Ore.            
WEHT-TV-25    Evansville, Ind.        
KTHI-TV-11    Fargo, N.D.              
KNAZ-TV-2     Flagstaff, Ariz.
WBBH-TV-20    Fort Myers/Naples, Fla.
KHBS-TV-40    Fort Smith, Ark.
KSEE-TV-24    Fresno, Calif.
KLAS-TV-8     Las Vegas
WDAM-TV-7     Laurel, Miss.
WKYT-TV-27    Lexington, Ky.
WKOW-TV-27    Madison, Wis.        
KWES-TV-9/4   Midland, Texas        
WISN-TV-12    Milwaukee               
WTVF-TV-5     Nashville, Tenn.      
WNBC          New York              
WOWT-TV-6     Omaha, Neb.           
WMBD-TV-31    Peoria/Bloomington, Ill.
WPXI-TV-11    Pittsburgh           
KOAM-TV-7     Pittsburgh, Kan.    
KPVI-TV-6     Pocatello, Idaho      
WMTW-TV-8     Portland/Poland, Maine
WRAL-TV-5     Raleigh, N.C.         
KOTA-TV-3/11  Rapid City, S.D.      
WIFR-TV-23    Rockford, Ill.       
WNEM-TV-5     Saginaw, Mich.        
KLST-TV       San Angelo, Texas    
KFMB-TV-8     San Diego            
KNTV-TV-11    San Jose, Calif.  
KFTY-TV-50    Santa Rosa, Calif.
WRGB-TV-6     Schenectady, N.Y.
KTBS-TV-5     Shreveport/Texarkana, La.
KELO-TV       Sioux Falls, S.D.
WOOD-TV-8     Grand Rapids, Mich.
WFRV-TV-5     Green Bay/Appleton, Wis.
WXVT-TV       Greenville, Miss.
WHAG-TV-25    Hagerstown, Md.                 
WHP-TV-21     Harrisburg, Pa.                 
KGMB-TV-9     Honolulu, Hawaii             
WTLV-TV-12    Jacksonville, Fla.             
KMBC-TV-9     Kansas City, Mo.               
WATE-TV-6     Knoxville, Tenn.
WLFI-TV-18    Lafayette, Ind.                
WNDU-TV-16    South Bend, Ind.             
WWLP-TV       Springfield, Mass.              
KTVI-TV-2     St.Louis                      
WIXT-TV-9     Syracuse, N.Y.                  
WCTV-TV-6     Tallahassee, Fla.               
WTVT-TV-13    Tampa/St. Pete, Fla.          
WTHI-TV-10    Terre Haute, Ind.              
KETK-TV       Tyler, Texas                 
WUTR-TV-20    Utica, N.Y.                    
WAOW-TV-9     Wausau, Wis.                      
KFDX-TV       Witchita Falls, Texas              
KIMA-TV-29    Yakima, Wash.
WYTV-TV-33    Youngstown, Ohio
WHIZ-TV-18    Zanesville, Ohio

CONTACT: 

BAT International, Burbank

Joe LaStella, 818/565-5555

818/565-5559 (fax)

http://www.baat.com

KEYWORD:  OHIO TEXAS WASHINGTON CALIFORNIA NEW YORK MISSOURI 

INDIANA WISCONSIN ALABAMA SOUTH CAROLINA HAWAII 

PENNSYLVANIA NEVADA MASSACHUSETTS FLORIDA KANSAS 

NEBRASKA NORTH CAROLINA ILLINOIS LOUISIANA MICHIGAN 

KENTUCKY TENNESSEE GEORGIA MARYLAND SOUTH DAKOTA 

MONTANA MISSISSIPPI MASSACHUSETTS WEST VIRGINIA 

ARKANSAS NORTH DAKOTA ARIZONA LOUISIANA

BW0056  MAR 27,1998

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 09:54:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA07531;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:44:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:44:53 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F087F xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:43:56 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Resent-Message-ID: <"-qo3U2.0.Fr1.GM-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17047
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

knuke
	As an old sailor, I have seen many propellors damaged by
cavitation. Is there an adequate quantitative theory that explains why
so much damage is caused? Something that will predict the amount of
damage in a given situation? Is it possible that some nuclear events
occur?

Hank Scudder

> ----------
> From: 	knuke aa.net[SMTP:knuke@aa.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 6:54 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
> 
> Somebody named Soo wrote:
> >
> >"If water or air is rotated into a twisting form of oscillation known
> as
> >"colloidal", a build up of energy results which, with immense power,
> can
> >cause levitation.  This form of movement is able to carry with it its
> own
> >means of power generation.
> 
>         I suspect this may be another case of linquistic overlap
> between two
> different scientific fields, but I am having difficulty understanding
> your
> use of the word "colloidal".  I've been studying the chemistry and
> physics
> of water dynamics for a considerable time now, and I haven't seen
> anyone use
> this term in this context.   If you are saying that the rotation of a
> fluid
> can form a superstructure within the body of the fluid that has
> properties
> that are unique from the rest of the body of fluid, then you might
> have a
> case for using the word, especially if you are talking about events
> that are
> happening at the molecular level.
> 
>         You would also be correct in expecting classical thermodynamic
> and
> fluid dynamic events that could be used to create movements such as
> levitation.  In all my reading to date, however, the term "colloidal"
> is
> only used to describe a state of separation between different
> substances at
> the molecular level.  By definition, it refers to a scale that is
> beyond the
> viewability of a normal, light microscope, and it usually refers to
> substances that are different molecularly, even when they are at rest
> with
> respect to one another.  You probably can get away with stretching the
> definition to include substances that are the same when at rest, but
> have
> different properties when undergoing certain movements like vortex
> movements.  If the events that you are describing include macroscopic
> manifestations, such as tornadoes or the Coriolis Effect however, then
> I
> definitely don't think that "colloidal" is the correct term.  Is this
> your
> idea or did you read this somewhere?  I'd be interested to see some
> references if the latter case is true.
> 
>         As for this form of vortex movement having the ability to
> carry with
> it its own means of power generation, well...  If you could enlighten
> us as
> to how exactly that is supposed to work, I think that one of use could
> dream
> up a machine that would be able to take advantage of it.  Quite
> honestly,
> even after witnessing "anomolous" events with my own eyes, I still
> have
> times when I wonder if this area of research even has a logical basis.
> Right now, the idea of using cavitation to ratchet mechanical and
> thermal
> energy via the Casimir effect seems like the most plausible (and
> easiest)
> way to generate power, but the actual fact that we don't see runaway,
> self-sustaining events happening all around us, all of the time, is a
> pretty
> good indication that Nature has put a very effective combination of
> locks on
> that to prevent exactly that from occurring.  I think that, at best,
> the
> keyring still has a few keys missing, and, at worst, there is really
> no
> mystery present even to solve.  I really am a firm believer in the
> obvious,
> but there are a few recent developments that give me hope.
> 
>         I have read about cavitation experiments that demonstrate the
> ability of cavitation to drive a number of chemical reactions  These
> chemical reactions can include the breaking up of large, complex
> molecules
> into smaller, simpler ones, as well as the joining of simpler
> molecules into
> more complex ones, the most common reaction being chemical combustion.
> I
> have performed and verified some of these experiments myself, and can
> say
> that they are both real, and fairly easy to replicate.  Using a vortex
> is
> only one of many ways to initiate cavitation, but I don't think it is
> the
> best.  Dr. Ken Suslick of the U. of Ill. has published some of the
> most
> compelling work in what is mistakenly called the sonochemistry field.
> He
> works mainly with sonic cavitation devices, but I have read recently
> that he
> was working with the jet type of cavitator as well.  Neither methods
> rely on
> vortex creation, just cavitation to achieve these chemical reactions.
> Most
> of these reactions create heat, however, some actually refrigerate, as
> I and
> others have demonstrated, but this is no big surprise.
> 
>         I have also read that cavitation can trigger nuclear
> reactions, and
> the math from existing theories seems to bear this out (Schwinger,
> Putterman, Cory), but the proofs of this possibility are still not
> adequate,
> in my opinion.  Stringham and George of E-quest, the Putterman group,
> and
> the Vortex Group at the University of Houston are the three groups
> that come
> to mind immediately, that are using cavitation and or vortices to
> cause
> reactions at the nuclear level.    I also spoke recently with Mark
> Hugo, and
> he indicated that he would be doing some experimentation with the jet
> type
> of cavitator to cause a nuclear reaction.  He recommended cavitating
> Lithium
> in a liquid (possibly water, or maybe oil?), and I have read that
> Lithium6
> which, when subjected to certain bombardments, can cause a fission
> reaction
> yielding Tritium, He4 and alot of heat (don't have the exact amount
> off the
> top of my head).  Perhaps under the right conditions, cavitation can
> trigger
> that reaction as well, but only a series of well designed experiments
> will tell.
>   
>         Oddly enough, the method that E-quest uses, initially creates
> a
> bubble sonically, and then allows it to impinge upon a metal foil.  It
> is
> the actual impingement that creates a vortex shaped bubble collapse
> which in
> turn causes, according to some pretty convincing data (including
> photomicrographs of both the vortex shaped bubble collapse and the
> resulting
> crater left in the foil, as well as, SIMS analysis data of the foil
> after
> cavitation), a small, thermonuclear event on the foil surface.  The
> reason
> that the bubble collapses in a vortex manner is still unclear,
> however, the
> cause may be something as simple as the Coriolis effect initiating a
> spiral
> movement in a predominantly thermal driven event.  This group, in my
> opinion, has presented the some of the best data that nuclear
> reactions are
> possible.  In this case, however, a small piece of the hardware itself
> (the
> foil) is sacrificed to create heat energy, and a quick look at the
> photomicrographs tells me that the foil would be rendered unusable in
> a
> short period of time, and would need replacement. 
> 
>         I say oddly enough about the E-Quest efforts, because most of
> the
> other vortex groups (e.g. Houston, and Potopov)do the reverse, and use
> a
> vortex first to create the bubble, and then use the fluid dynamics of
> the
> vortex to move the bubble to a higher pressure region of the body of
> liquid
> itself to cause the bubble to collapse in a pancake shaped geometry or
> a
> spherical geometry without any impingement on a solid surface at all.
> This
> method of bubble collapse relies on a more straight forward, simpler
> implementation of the Casimir effect to set up the conditions for a
> nuclear
> event. While this may have some definite advantages in that you
> shouldn't
> have to replace the hardware as frequently, the nuclear events, if
> any, are
> fueled by the fluid itself and logically it would seem that
> eventually, the
> fluid would have to be replaced.  I really don't think that you can
> escape
> or deny the consumption of some kind of fuel with these devices,
> whether it
> is nuclear or chemical, but some folks will try to tell you that you
> can.
> 
>         Other groups using sonic cavitators (Putterman, Prevenslik,
> and the
> rest of the SL bunch, which seem to number in the hundreds these
> days), jet
> cavitators (Suslick, Hugo), laser cavitators (Darmstat University
> Group) or
> even some rotary cavitators (Schaeffer, Griggs, myself) don't really
> rely on
> vortex movements at all, at least as far as I have been able to
> determine,
> to accomplish simple bubble formation and collapse.  Putterman has
> presented
> the best data to show that bubble collapse can occur spherically,
> without
> vortex movement, rebound, and recollapse like a damped oscillator
> using the
> sonic approach.  He has also claimed in his most recent patent
> application
> to have achieved nuclear fusion reactions while cavitating (I believe)
> heavy
> water doped with Tritium instead of the usual noble gases.  It could
> be that
> he is doping light water with Deuterium and Tritium gases, as well, I
> am not
> certain, and I don't think that the patent is all that explicit.  I
> will
> have to re-read that patent again to get the details.  To my
> knowledge,
> however, he has yet to publish a protocol, or made a public
> demonstration of
> the effect, so that whole business will have to go through the painful
> and
> expensive replication procedure, and the inevitable debate by both the
> serious scientists and the likes of Dick Blue and company before I can
> believe it to be true.  I hope that Putterman can provide adequate
> proof of
> his claims and avoid all the bad stuff.  In some ways, I envy his
> position,
> in others, I do not.
> 
>         But getting back to your use of the term "colloidal", I have
> been
> wanting to do some experiments with cavitation on various colloidal
> solutions for some time, and it wouldn't surprise me if others haven't
> already done so.  By colloidal solutions, I mean it in the way that a
> chemist would mean it.  It seems to me that stimulating a colloidal
> metal
> solution, for example, with pulsed electrolysis, pulsed EM, or even UV
> light, while simultaneously cavitating the solution, might provide a
> way of
> unlocking the door to some interesting chemical, and possibly some
> nuclear
> reactions.  I was just wondering if maybe you had read something about
> colloids and were confused, or if there is actually a  branch of
> science
> that is using the term in a way that I am unused to seeing it used.
> 
> -Knuke
> 
> BTW, I have updated my webpage (http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm)
> recently
> to correct a pile of blunders, and to add more material.  Go to the
> sitemap
> to find links to the references for all that I've written above.
> There are
> quite a few there now, and I still have alot to add.  I had a complete
> computer shutdown that lasted nearly a week, thanks to an abortive
> attempt
> by a respected member of the computer repair profession to upgrade my
> machine.  The guy spent three whole days putting a few common pieces
> of
> hardware into my machine.  He couldn't have done better job of
> trashing it
> if he had used a rototiller, and I tore the lions' share of the new
> hardware
> out of the bloody thing as soon as he left with my money, and spent
> three
> days rebuilding my damaged FAT with Debug, just so that I could do
> some work
> without my machine crashing every five minutes.  Actually, there _was_
> a
> twenty four hour period between the time he left, and the time I
> started to
> work on fixing it.  I spent that time getting roaring drunk, and
> thinking
> really hard about what life was going to be like without a computer,
> until I
> finally decided to jerk out all the conflicting hardware.  I could
> have spit
> nails.  In my opinion, the entire computer industry has completely
> flipped
> out on its own hype, and very few people really understand what is
> going on
> in these increasingly complex software/hardware combinations anymore.
> Add
> to that the fact that the inventors of The Worst Operating System on
> Earth
> are endeavoring to dictate to the rest of the industry how to make all
> of
> the future hardware, and write all of the future code for every
> application
> under the sun, and you can get a small glimpse of how absurd our
> future may
> become.  Even the lunatic fringe science crowd looks respectable by
> comparison.  I should probably just stop thinking about it, just so
> that I
> don't start barking again. The neighbors have threatened to throw
> things
> heavier than shoes next time, and I think they just might. Cheerios.  
> 
>         
> 
>                
> 
> 
> 
>                  
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 09:57:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11928;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:53:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:53:27 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0880 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:52:41 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hi6eW2.0.1w2.IU-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17049
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Francis
	In the back of Electronics Now magazine are adds for relatively
cheap digital oscilloscope setups, including both hardware and software
for PC's.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 8:09 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
> 
> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> > 
> > At 10:35 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> > >Actually, Keith, the present rig is exactly as you mention.  I
> use(d)
> > >a copper fuse link made from a #4 solid copper wire.  I neck the
> center
> > >(fuses are about 2 - 3 inches total length) to a smooth 3 mm dia
> neck
> > >which I calculated should blow at about 200 kamps.  It blows OK but
> > >does not interrupt the current if open in the air - I suppose from
> a
> > >plasma short across the fuse as the copper vaporizes.  For my next
> shot
> > >I want to place a fiberglass baffle around the fuse neck, rather
> thin
> > >to hopefully let the explosion vent on both sides of the baffle.
> > 
> >    Try the following...  First put your fuse in an open! container
> of oil
> > to quench the arc, then put a spark gap (two needle ended electrode
> > pointing at each other) in parallel.  Make your fuse smaller (you
> want it
> > to blow during the rise to peak current) and you should be all set.
> > 
> >    Note that you should treat that oil bath fuse as if it were a
> cannon--it
> > will be.  Use an insulating crushable liner in a open steel tube.
> Do not
> > use cast or welded pipe.  Apply fiberglass tape to the exterior as a
> > precaution. Aim the discharge into an appropriate baffle or out a
> window
> > and at the sky, and plan for recoil.
> > 
> I see your point, Robert.  The problem I have is that I want all the
> action (whatever that is!) to happen in air (OK, and metal plasma)
> and to I want to try to force the current to continue thru the
> constriction.  Lightning itself is strictly an open-air plasma (away
> from solids and water) thing but I cannot hope to get the initial
> current without the solid copper as a precursor conductor.  I would
> like the fuse explosion to relax to atmospheric pressure (or close)
> while the series inductance still has enough energy to drive the
> current at high level.  Remember, I have 300 microseconds to peak
> current from the capacitors so a fast pinch is out of the question.
> My hope is that the constriction would force a post-fuse-blow pinch
> if the di/dt were fast, i were still large, and I have inductance
> enough to do the job.  I know this is probably a day-dream but I may
> as
> well do the shoot since I'm almost ready to go.  I do wish I had a
> memory scope module for my computer - I would really like to get a
> good
> capacitor vs. time trace so I could use its derivative to estimate
> instant current ( I don't have a non-inductive shunt to get i
> directly.).  I use my camcorder, of course, to capture any spectacular
> plasma stuff that lasts for a few seconds - nice shots of burning
> aluminum fluff so far.
> I always treat the rig as high explosives (about 8 rounds of 12 gage
> ammo, I think) so I leave the building for the shoot.
> 
> Frank Stenger
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:08:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16884;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:04:57 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:04:57 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530505b141938403d4 [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:54:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV MADNESS
Resent-Message-ID: <"1pxwm.0.O74.2f-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17050
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

         X X X X
           ------
       O  /      \ X X X
         / O    X \  X    X
   XX O |        X |  A X X X X
(-)---->| O  SN    |<------------(+)
   OO O |        X |    O O O O O
       B \      X /  X
       O  \ O    / X
           ------ O
         O O O

          Fig. 1

At 5:20 PM 3/26/98, George Holz wrote:
>I wrote:
>I think that this force is actually
>quite small because the ring creates a nearly zero
>magnetic field at the connection point.
>The current is
>flowing in opposite directions in the ring at this point
>causing the fields to cancel, at least when using an
>Amperian current element based model and in
>actual measurements
>Horace replied:
>>This can not be true. The maximum magnetic intensity outside the ring but
>>in the plane of the ring is at points A and B above.
>>
>This would be true if the ring fields were not cancelling at the
>connection point. Look at the situation without leads first to see
>my point.

I did this in a prior post (see Fig. 2 below). The fields cancel beyond the
brush point, in the direction toward the center of ring. The fields are
maximum at the bend points to the outside direction of the ring:


             O | X
             O | X
             O | X       Q1
             O | X
             O | X
             O | X A
             O | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
               |<------------------(+)
             X | OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
             X | O B
             X | O
             X | O
             X | O      Q2
             X | O
             X | O
             X | O


  O - magnetic field out of page (N pole below page, S pole above)
  X - magnetic field into page (S pole above page, N pole below)
  Qi - Quadrant number

            Fig. 2

The large force at and near the bend point is what gives rail guns their
kick, i.e. the force on the rails, and also, therefore, the propelling
force on the rail gun armature.


>Current flows in opposite directions along a single
>line, no field is created by this at the connection point because
>the two fields, one CW, the other CCW cancel exactly.

Only if there were no superimposed field from the magnet torus leakage
fields.  This superimposed creates an imbalance in pressures, i.e. magnetic
intensities.

>As you
>move away from the connection point the fields appear. These
>are the fields that create an unbalanced longitudinal force on
>both the ring and the torus.
[snip]

I think the maximum is up close at the bend point.  As you move away the
force diminishes with the diminishing magnetic intensity.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:08:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17100;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:05:26 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:05:26 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b1418be63988 [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:02:59 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Correction - Tests - Marinov Related
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jy77N.0.h94.Mf-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17052
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:05 AM 3/27/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
... the problem with this test was that the torque with 24 amps
>flowing was rather weak.  Maybe I can come up with a better current
>limiter than my 1 ohm resistors - it would be nice to get up to 100 amp
>or so - then, things should start to get pretty stiff!
>
>Frank S.

Hmmm ... is that smoke I smell?  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:13:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17026;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:05:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:05:15 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b1418cfc7aef [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:25:22 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"8UAD13.0.T94.Mf-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17051
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just wrote:

[snip]
"I think you are right that max torque is not at 90 degrees from brushes.
The top is only the point of max energy.  However, if magnet is rotating,
then the above is like a crankshaft and piston.  If the force of
compressing the field at top is F, and theta is angle from brushes, r the
magnet radius, then F = F*sin(theta), but Ftangent=cos(theta)*F so
Ftangent=sin(theta)*cos(theta)*F and torque=sin(theta)*cos(theta)*F*r,
which has a maximum at 45 degrees of torque=F*r/2.  I think the torque on
the ring should be the reverse, but reduced due to the larger radius."

This is a bungle!  (Maybe I shouldn't have quit the coffee!  8^)  The
torque continues through the downstroke to -90 degrees.  So correcting the
above:

If the force of compressing the field at top is F, and theta is angle from
brushes, r the magnet radius, then Fdown = F*(1+sin(theta))/2, but
Ftangent=cos(theta)*Fdown so Ftangent=(1+sin(theta))*cos(theta)*F/2 and
torque=(1+sin(theta))*cos(theta)*F/2, which has a maximum at 31.5 degrees
of torque=F*r*0.649.

I hope I at least some of that right!  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:14:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18551;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:08:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:08:29 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b14183bd4edd [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:59:55 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"V8wd13.0.ZX4.Oi-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17053
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:59 AM 3/27/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>
>> It just dawned on me that the *most unstable* configuration is:
>>
>>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>>                         -------------->--------------
>>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>>                         |X     X X X X X X X X    X |
>>                         |X     ---------------    X |
>>                         |X     |  O   N   O  |    X |
>>                         |X     |  O       O  |    X |
>>      (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current (-)
>>                         |O     |  X       X  |    O |
>>                         |O     |  X   S   X  |    O |
>>                         |O     ---------------    O |
>>                         |O     O O O O O O O O    O |
>>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>>                         -------------->--------------
>>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
>>
>>                                    Fig. 4
>>
>> This config also has the poles facing 90 degrees from the brushes as
>> Marinov specifies.
>>
>Horace, I thought the poles were supposed to FACE the brushes for max
>torque?

I had a typo above. The above "the *most unstable* configuration"  should
have said "the *most unstable* stable configuration", as I was referring to
a discussion of the stable configuration.

Marinov specified that the faces be 90 degrees away from the brushes to
demonstrate longitudinal force.

>Isn't the above figure like a pencil standing on your finger?

Yes, a point of maximum energy, which, if it can remain delicately
balanced, is stable.

>Max torque would be 90 deg away at horizontal, max stability with
>pencil hanging down?

I think you are right that max torque is not at 90 degrees from brushes.
The top is only the point of max energy.  However, if magnet is rotating,
then the above is like a crankshaft and piston.  If the force of
compressing the field at top is F, and theta is angle from brushes, r the
magnet radius, then F = F*sin(theta), but Ftangent=cos(theta)*F so
Ftangent=sin(theta)*cos(theta)*F and torque=sin(theta)*cos(theta)*F*r,
which has a maximum at 45 degrees of torque=F*r/2.  I think the torque on
the ring should be the reverse, but reduced due to the larger radius.

>I think the max torque was definitely with the
>poles facing the brushes.  This as I look at a sketch I printed from
>some web page.
>
>Frank S.   (after just one cup of coffee)

I stopped drinking coffee over a year ago I think. Tea occasionally.  8^)
Now, if I could just stop that caffinated soda!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:19:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20739;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:11:52 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:11:52 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0881 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:11:09 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Resent-Message-ID: <"YgMwq.0.p35.cl-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17054
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace
	In magnetic, motor analyses, often you consider torques caused
by one magnetic device on another. The third law holds here only for
each individual device. Most devices react against their mechanical
constraints, and not against the other magnetic source. On the exam for
my MEE degree, one of the problems given was considering the
forces(torques) two nearby magnetic dipoles had on each other as the
relative angle between them changed. You obviously have enough maths to
work this out. Try it, its very instructive. The dipoles are both
constrained to not move, (by sitting on a rough board) for example.

Hank 

> ----------
> From: 	hheffner corecom.net[SMTP:hheffner@corecom.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 26, 1998 9:26 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
> 
> >Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> >
> >Now, do any of those equivalent (magnet) currents cause any
> non-radial
> >forces on the ring?  I'll think about that.
> >
> >Frank Stenger
> 
> If not, Newton just lost his law No. 3!  8^)
> 
> The force at A and B on the ring (see Fig. 2) has a radial and
> longitudinal
> component with respect to the ring.
> 
> Fig. 2 still makes sense even when the ring is redrawn by hand as
> circular:
> 
> 
>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>                         -------------->--------------
>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>                         |X     O O O     XXBXX    X |
>                         |X    O------------|--X   X |
>                         |X    O| X X X|O OO| |X   X |
>                         |X    O|      |    V |X   X |
>      (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current
> (-)
>                         |O    O| ^    |      |X   O |
>                         |O    O| | X X|O O O |X   O |
>                         |O    O--|------------X   O |
>                         |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |
>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>                         -------------->--------------
>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
> 
>                                     Fig. 2
> 
> The high O field pressure at A and the high X field pressure at B
> opposes
> cancelled fields and thus inpart a clockwise torque on the magnets,
> and
> therefore a counter clockwise torque on the ring.  If we reverse the
> magnet
> poles above, the direction of the torques reverses also.  If we
> reverse the
> direction of current the direction of the torques reverses also.
> 
> Something I think is not so clear is when the magnet halves are
> semi-circular like Maranov specifies.  In Fig. 2 if we look at just to
> the
> right side of the magnets,  we can see repulsion of the ring X's and
> attraction to the ring O's by the magnet, whether it is circular or
> not.
> However, if the magnets are rotated to the point(s) of equilibrium as
> in
> Fig. 1 (stable equilibium) and Fig. 4 (unstable equilibium) below,
> there
> does not seem to be any  basis for torque on the ring (or magnet) in
> those
> cases and that, I think, is what is very deceiving about the motor as
> a
> whole theoretically.  Experimentally, if you are unaware of the points
> of
> stability then (1) it might take a push and/or a slight movement of
> the
> magnets out of alignment to start the Fig. 4 situation and (2)
> reversing
> the current (or magnets) to get out of the Fig. 1 situation.
> 
>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>                         -------------->--------------
>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>                         |X     O O O O O O O O    X |
>                         |X     ---------------    X |
>                         |X     |  X   S   X  |    X |
>                         |X     |  X       X  |    X |
>      (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current
> (-)
>                         |O     |  O       O  |    O |
>                         |O     |  O   N   O  |    O |
>                         |O     ---------------    O |
>                         |O     X X X X X X X X    O |
>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>                         -------------->--------------
>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
> 
>                                    Fig. 1
> 
> 
>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>                         -------------->--------------
>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>                         |X     X X X X X X X X    X |
>                         |X     ---------------    X |
>                         |X     |  O   N   O  |    X |
>                         |X     |  O       O  |    X |
>      (+)------->--------|      |------+------|      |---->-- current
> (-)
>                         |O     |  X       X  |    O |
>                         |O     |  X   S   X  |    O |
>                         |O     ---------------    O |
>                         |O     O O O O O O O O    O |
>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>                         -------------->--------------
>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
> 
>                                    Fig. 4
> 
> 
> I hope I got all that right.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner          
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:44:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03395;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:31:03 -0500
From: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Sender: Soo <Soojay compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <199803271331_MC2-3829-DB0A 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 KAA03345
Resent-Message-ID: <"r9Y5b3.0.wq.V4_6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17055
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

< Is this your idea or did you read this somewhere?>

It's a direct quote from Schauberger's notes.  He was working on Project
Saucer in Mauthausen Concentration Camp at the time.

There are many articles documenting the Schriever-Habermohl flying disc
which flew in Prague in 1944.  It flew vertically reaching a height of 12
km in 3.12 mins and at a horizontal flying speed of 2000 km/h.  This was
around the same time Schauberger was "requested" to join in the Project.

You could check out  "Living Water" by Olof Alexandersson ISBN 0 946551 57X
(which is where I picked up this quote)  and a nice man by the name of Jim
Day emailed me with some other refs, which I can't seem to find on my
cluttered HD....perhaps you could repost them generally please Jim?

<As for this form of vortex movement having the ability to carry with
it its own means of power generation, well...  If you could enlighten us as
to how exactly that is supposed to work>

If I could do that I'd build one myself.  There are enough engineers around
this group to brainstorm it.....aren't there???  

-Soo

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:53:19 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06457;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b141a04b045c [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:51:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"kmZtf1.0.pa1.CG_6r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17057
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:59 AM 3/27/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>Horace, I thought the poles were supposed to FACE the brushes for max
>torque?
[snip]

Frank,

You are right.  I keep getting this confused!  What a morning. It's 9:24 AM
and I haven't had breakfast yet!  8^}

The original 1996 definition from Larry Wharton:

"You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes.  You then
flip one of the sections and let the two stick together.  The magnetic
force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own.
this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up.
A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet.   This
ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury.  Then
two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of
the magnet cut.  Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed
through the electrodes and the ring rotates."

Looking at the drawing of one Marinov motor configuration, with flux out at
right brush added:


                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     XXBXX    X |
                        |X    O------------|--X   X |O
                        |X    O| X X X|O OO| |X   X |O cancelled
                        |X    O|      |    V |X   X |O O O O
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O| ^    |      |X   O |X X X X
                        |O    O| | X X|O O O |X   O |X reinforced
                        |O    O--|------------X   O |X   | force from
                        |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |X   | brush lead
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |    v onto ring
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

We can see that the force I proposed at the brush location opposes the
force proposed to exist directly between the ring and the magnet array.  It
would seem the force between the ring and the magnet array would be much
larger because it is closer and exerted over a much bigger area.  So, in
the above configuration the ring should turn counter clockwise.

What do you all think?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 10:56:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA32612;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:43:53 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:43:53 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351BDA5B.3861B097 ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:56:59 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
References: <3.0.32.19980327064618.00747608 agate.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WxmQr1.0.Sz7.dD_6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17056
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bo Atkinson wrote:

> A beautiful rendering sir John!

Actually, it's just a shaded view of a solid model.  Rendering time is not a
luxury I have.  8^)

> Since the circuitry of this
> simple structure may not have been so obviously compelling, i emphasized
> the chiralarity, (POS/ NEG,etc).   

Yes, thank you.  That made the concept a little clearer.

> So are you interested in brainstorming with me about your "own
> electromagnetic resonance ideas"? If i sound too candid, remember i sat on
> this thing too long. But, for the greater good, i would agree to certain
> non disclosure areas.

I have no aspirations of greatness.  No NDA needed.  I am more interested in
facilitating change than taking credit for it.    8^)

As for my ideas.....  to be honest, they are mostly unsubstantiated day dreams
right now.  I am currently researching energy structures in an effort to better
understand various aether theories floating around the lists and fringe science
web pages.  To many it is madness and a waste of time, but to me it has been
very interesting and insightful.  At present I am inclined to design
experiments to try an induce energy vortexes.   

For the sake of a starting point I am using as premises: 
1) A fully conserved energy resonance structure for the universe. 
2) A fluid dynamic model to describe fluctuations in this structure.
3) Resonance structures manipulated and/or created by exploiting frequency
locking.
4) Localized densities as the vehicle for practical matter/spacetime
manipulation. 

Granted, it is a fragile house of cards, but I feel there is some underlying
connection between localized energy densities and observed anomalous energy
signatures, material transmutations, and gravity augmentation.  It is my
impression that kinetic, acoustic, thermal, and electromagnetic attempts are
all valid approaches to the problem.  Your idea caught my attention because it
loosely fit a sketch and notes I had made in a lab book not too long ago.  What
do you see it doing?  How do you see it working?
 
> Classy software, this ProE, no doubt!  I'll stay thankful with my swiss
> army knife (formZ or "Z"). 

Not stumping for PTC.  ProE is somewhat common now in product development
circles.  Most vendors prefer it over surface translations.  Cleaner data set. 
Just offered to save you time & money.
 

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 11:40:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00316;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:23:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:23:03 -0800
Message-ID: <351BD674.2B5 macsrule.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:40:24 -0600
From: "Mark A. Collins" <themacman macsrule.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4C9Ol2.0.r4.r1-6r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17045
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hmmm...If I'm not mistaken...Could we be on the verge of a theory of
Inertial dampening and or creating Interial Dampeners? This is
awesome...imagine fighter planes where the pilot is not subjected to G
forces.


-----------


The same technology that will be used for anti-gravity will be used to
create inertial dampening.

If we stop looking at gravity as an inherent attraction between to
masses, and started seeing gravity as the sum of the ZPE radiation of
the universe on a pair of objects (described better below), then we can
see how this is possible.

ZPE radiates in all directions uniformly, except where blocked by mass.
Since matter is just a large collection of mostly space, with a few
electrons, protons, & neutrons, the ZPE would only be stopped by these
particles, not the enourmous spaces in them.

But the Earth a an extremely large and extremely dense collection of
these particles. It would block much, much more ZPE than any object on
Earth. Thus the ZPE energy pushing down on the object is greater than
the ZPE energy radiating through the Earth and up underneath the object,
creating the effect we know as gravity.

Now, this standing field of ZPE doesn't change unless the configuration
of mass collections change (ie, the earth, sun, other planets, stars,
etc.). When you increase your speed, you are going faster in a ZPE sea.
You are creating a situatuation very similar to a sub-Mach flight with
respect to air. The pressure of the ZPE is greater in the front,
proportional with the speed. Now, what if you had a way to siphon that
ZPE from the front, and transmit it to the back with great ease? Then
there would cease to be inertia or gravity for that object, as long as
it was oriented properly...

What are magnets, if not bi-directional ZPE conductors?

How close to anti-gravity and Inertial Dampening are we now?

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 13:37:37 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16420;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:30:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:30:46 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327163215.00b72890 spectre.mitre.org>
X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:32:15 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Keith - Capacitors/Ball lightning
Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <351B268B.7F4E interlaced.net>
References: <3.0.32.19980321210034.005dfb00 cnct.com>
 <3.0.1.32.19980326171733.009db760 spectre.mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"VW_-r1.0.D04.-f17r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17059
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I said:
>    Try the following...  First put your fuse in an open! container of oil
> to quench the arc, then put a spark gap (two needle ended electrode
> pointing at each other) in parallel.  Make your fuse smaller (you want it
> to blow during the rise to peak current) and you should be all set.

At 11:09 PM 3/26/98 -0500, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>I see your point, Robert.  The problem I have is that I want all the
>action (whatever that is!) to happen in air (OK, and metal plasma)
>and to I want to try to force the current to continue thru the
>constriction.  Lightning itself is strictly an open-air plasma (away
>from solids and water) thing but I cannot hope to get the initial
>current without the solid copper as a precursor conductor.

   You aren't getting the picture.  If you have an air gap in parallel with
the fuse, and the fuse blows (and is quenched) near the current peak, the
inductance of your circut will force that current to go somewhere.  The
voltage across the gap will go from kilovolts to Megavolts, then drop back
down.  Done right, the current will switch smoothly from the fuse to the
air gap.  If you are having problems put a candle under the air gap.  If
you want to go high tech, have the tips of the air gap just touching a
laser beam that you pulse at the exact right time.  (UV is best, argon
lines are cheap, and I've used a blue nitrogen line from a tuneable dye
laser to good effect.)  Another "cheap trick" is a third electrode and a
separate circut, so that you get a short (say 1 mm) arc when the first
circut fires, then those ions create a path across the longer gap.

    Incidently, if you want to "go commercial", you can buy 15 kVolt fuses
in various amperages.  Most have internal quenching and "This End Up"
stickers that should not be ignored.  (They have a diaphragm to keep the
weather out, often covered by an aluminum baffle.  The baffle often lands
several hundred feet from the fuse when the fuse blows.  You may have heard
one blow--usually on a pole transformer.)

                                        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 Mar 27 13:49:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15024;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:26:40 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:26:40 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:30:59 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd59c7$a25cda00$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"M7mP-2.0.Vg3.Ec17r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17058
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Rick Monteverde  wrote:
>But is it complete? Still looks like a compass needle in a wire's field to
>me. It will stabilize and stop in one position though, and resist further
>motion there. I don't see what keeps it going (magnet assembly as spinning
>armature here, ring as stator). Must be something else going on, there has
>to be some continuous assymetry here. Otherwise, you could not only replace
>the magnets with coils, you could replace the coils with magnets - all
>magnets. And unless your name is Greg Watson, that never works.
>
Hi Rick,
The Marinov motor with brushes and rotating ring provides
continuous rotation. Marinov used mercury for the brushes.
The design with rotating torus requires switching the
current on/off or reversing current direction at the
appropriate times to provide continuous rotation.
It's not quite in the class of Greg's magic.
George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems




From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 13:52:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12104;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351C1D73.1BCA interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:43:15 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Rerun Test #5 - Marinov
References: <v01530504b140cb2d488e [199.237.131.234]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"M9Q7Y.0.2z2.7t17r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17060
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> Test 5:
> 
>         up current
>         (for about 3 ft
>          to the table end)
>         ^       O O O O O O O
>         |X    O|------------>|
>         |X    O^ X    S   X  |
>         |X    O| X        X  v
>         |X     |<------------|
>         |X     | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
> (+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
>         |O     |<------------|           wooden spacer
>         |O    X| S        S  ^
>         |O    X| S    N   S  |
>         |O    Xv------------>|
>         v        X X X X X X
>     down current
>     (for about 3'
>      to the end of
>      table)
> 

OK, Horace, I reran test 5.
First, I used a surface level and much improved the level of my magnet
turntable.
Then I put 0.5 ohm in each leg of the up and down line to give a total
feed current of about 45 to 46 amp.  The battery dropped to about
11.7 volts after a short time at this load.  So, about 23 amp in each
of the vertical (sketch) lines.
You can improve the scale sketch with the following dimensions:
	from vertical line current to left side of magnets = 3/4 inch
	horizontal magnet width in sketch above = 1 7/8 inch
	vertical mag. height with 3/4 spacer = 2 1/2 inch

Horace, the position in the sketch seems to be THE preferred
orientation.
Much better torque with 46 amps.
I positioned the magnets with each corner pointing at the feed wire.
In all cases, the magnets would swing a bit (oscillate) and come to
rest in the sketched position.  The only other position that would
hold still was the 180 degree one with N up and S down.  But, this was
obviously an unstable equilibrium and would re-orient if nudged slightly
off position.

Check with a better sketch and see if you can figure it out.  The 
corners come about 1/8 or 3/16 inch from the tee joint at closest
approach.

Frank S.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 14:00:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12347;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:45:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Notes from Jeff Kooistra
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:48:17 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd59ca$0d2c8810$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"Ge7pW1.0.q03.vt17r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17061
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I thought this might be helpful even without the diagrams which I
don't have to pass on.
-
Received from Jeff Kooistra on 3/26/98 at 7:43 PM:
Dr. Phipps and da' boys,
        Following is a portion of Dr. Phipps' note to me.  I called him
this morning and we hammered out our differences and it looks like we agree
that Ampere repulsion and attraction between proximate current elements
will explain both torus turning and ring rotation, and do so even in
instances where the Lorentzian expectation fails, at least, in MY basement.
        Following the note are some notes of my own to go along with the
hand sketched diagrams I've made and that I'll be mailing to some of you.
>>Dear Jeff
>>Don't get too happy.  Here comes the killjoy.  It's still the problem of 
>>signs.  What I said about Ampere rule of action between proximate current
>>elements leads to agreement with Wesley's theory (the one with dA/dt I 
>>have been relying on), but to disagreement with what you stated in your 
>>last email and with what I observed.  The trouble is, both are 
>>inflexible, as near as I can tell.  It would seem the easiest thing in 
>>the world to change the sign on the theoretical expression -- but not 
>>so.  Also, it would seem easy to find some sign error in the 
>>calculations.  Again, not so, but a wonderful time sink.  To a theorist 
>>it would seem the easiest thing in the world for an experimentalist to 
>>get his wires crossed.  Again, not so.  Impasse.
>>Best, Tom.
___________________________________________________________
Notes to go with mailed diagrams.
Fig. 1 and 2 show the two types of toroids I've used and the "Lorentzian
expectation" of the shape of the leakage fields.  Pretty much self
explanatory.
Fig. 3 shows the two kinds of toroids from the top, the way the leakage
field looks from up there AT THE PLANE OF THE RING, and my observed ring
rotations, which are the opposite of what Wesley says they should be.
Fig. 4 shows the ring rotation to be expected from leakage acting on the
Lorentzian "hook".  (I still have to include a diagram showing forces due
to the field on the regular current components, none of which, of course,
sum to any kind of force that would yield rotation, which is why the "hook"
(a small radial component of the field) is asserted to exist.
Fig. 5 shows attractive and repulsive conventions of fields around wires
and magnets, and also the same with current elements, including virtual
surface currents on magnets.  One thing theorists should work out is
whether or not virtual currents interacting with real currents do so in the
same way (same sign on the force), and how well a permanent magnet is
duplicated by a solenoid.
Fig. 6 shows the expectation for torus turning due to a leakage field
interacting with a ring field for a type 1 torus (vertical bar magnets
capped by 'keepers').
Fig. 7 shows torus rotation due to leakage fields interacting with ring
fields for a type 2 torus (bar magnets top and bottom connected by vertical
steel members).  An important thing to note in this section is that the
final resting position for the two types of toroids has internal flux sense
REVERSED!
Fig. 8 shows torus motion via current element analysis.  Phipps was hung up
on that portion of the ring where the Ampere collinear elements switch sign
with respect to attraction and repulsion, but I was able to convince him
that this effect likely does not dominate in many geometries of torus. 
Toruses which maximize this longitudinal reversal on current elements would
provide for a good check on theory.  Note also, as should be expected, so
far the field analysis and the current analysis yield the same expected
rotations for the torus.
Fig. 9 shows the current element analysis for a type 2 torus.  This is
tougher.  I assumed that the induced surface currents, if there are any, in
my vertical steel members, would be trivial compared to the currents on the
surface of the magnets themselves.  That's how my torus works, and it works
gangbusters when you use pieces of wood in place of the steel for vertical
members.  One must consider the most proximate surface current, which is on
the underside of the top magnet, and on top of the bottom magnet.  The
Ampere interactions depend very strongly on geometry for this torus.
        I'd love to make a torus that is all magnets--if they're all of
uniform strength, my guess is that such a magnet should behave just like
the type 1 version in most cases, though a very short torus might behave
exactly the opposite way.  It looks to me like some toroids might be
possible that will yield no motion at all.  Also, given the geometry of
George Holz's toroid that wouldn't go, the small size of the current
elements available to interact and the high mass of the torus may account
for this.
Fig. 10 documents the three Lorentzian failures I've found.  The first is
the failure of rotational force to depend on the size of the Lorentzian
hook.  The second is that the ring rotates in the same direction even if
you touch the brushes to the INSIDE of the ring (and it is important to
note here that the seat of the reaction force on the torus resides in the
ring since the ring does, in fact, rotate continuously.)  The third is
that, for a current flowing into and out of a shell, there are substantial
vertical components of the current (now we're playing the Lorentzian hook
game again, only up and down--but what's sauce for the goose...), and the
expectation for the radial field components acting on these vertical
elements predicts rotation the reverse of what is observed.
        That's the deal.  I'm going to cover all this for Infinite Energy
#19, as well as talking about problems with construction and brushes, etc. 
Even garage geniuses with no formal education in science should be able to
follow this paper. 
Best,
Jeff

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 14:13:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA17657;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0882 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:04:42 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"dJWHm.0.fJ4.bC27r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17062
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark
	The force of gravity is a misnomer. All objects are either in
free fall, or want to be. At a given point in space, objects in free
fall accelerate towards the center of mass of the object that is
attracting them, such as the earth, or sun. They accelerate (change
velocity in free fall) because the presence of large masses distort
(curve) the space local to the falling object. Suppose you are standing
on a gantry next to the Space Shuttle as it is taking off and it is
stationary standing on its rocket engines flames, and its gangplank is
extended to you. You jump onto it, and the engine must add thrust to
keep the Shuttle from going backwards. The amount of additional thrust,
divided by your mass is the same as the acceleration you had while you
were airborn during the jump. This is what is commonly called the "Force
of gravity". The only way to "shield" this would be to distort the space
around you differently, and the only known way of doing this is to add
more large masses relatively nearby.

Hank Scudder

> ----------
> From: 	Mark A. Collins[SMTP:themacman macsrule.com]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Friday, March 27, 1998 8:40 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
> 
> Hmmm...If I'm not mistaken...Could we be on the verge of a theory of
> Inertial dampening and or creating Interial Dampeners? This is
> awesome...imagine fighter planes where the pilot is not subjected to G
> forces.
> 
> 
> -----------
> 
> 
> The same technology that will be used for anti-gravity will be used to
> create inertial dampening.
> 
> If we stop looking at gravity as an inherent attraction between to
> masses, and started seeing gravity as the sum of the ZPE radiation of
> the universe on a pair of objects (described better below), then we
> can
> see how this is possible.
> 
> ZPE radiates in all directions uniformly, except where blocked by
> mass.
> Since matter is just a large collection of mostly space, with a few
> electrons, protons, & neutrons, the ZPE would only be stopped by these
> particles, not the enourmous spaces in them.
> 
> But the Earth a an extremely large and extremely dense collection of
> these particles. It would block much, much more ZPE than any object on
> Earth. Thus the ZPE energy pushing down on the object is greater than
> the ZPE energy radiating through the Earth and up underneath the
> object,
> creating the effect we know as gravity.
> 
> Now, this standing field of ZPE doesn't change unless the
> configuration
> of mass collections change (ie, the earth, sun, other planets, stars,
> etc.). When you increase your speed, you are going faster in a ZPE
> sea.
> You are creating a situatuation very similar to a sub-Mach flight with
> respect to air. The pressure of the ZPE is greater in the front,
> proportional with the speed. Now, what if you had a way to siphon that
> ZPE from the front, and transmit it to the back with great ease? Then
> there would cease to be inertia or gravity for that object, as long as
> it was oriented properly...
> 
> What are magnets, if not bi-directional ZPE conductors?
> 
> How close to anti-gravity and Inertial Dampening are we now?
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 14:47:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22911;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b141d2c12100 [12.64.66.218]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd59c7$a25cda00$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:31:19 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"-AzUh2.0.sb5.Rb27r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17063
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

George Holtz wrote:

   >  The Marinov motor with brushes and
   >  rotating ring provides continuous rotation.

Oh, I understand that. My comments were directed at the validity of some of
the models we're trying to use to help us visualize what exactly is
happening there to cause this continuous motion. So far, it seems some of
those models come up short. One reason seems to be that the complete
description of the relative motions of the components might be getting
altered when transposing from the case where the ring rotates to the one
where only the magnets rotate, and then of course - the apparently missing
I X B.

I think also there is the problem that Graneau talks about in his book
Newton v. Einstein - the difference between laws that apply to free charged
particles, and those invoked to describe the manifestations which occur in
the vicinity of charged particles flowing inside masses. I do think Horace
basically has it nailed with his analysis of the moving ring and those
magnetic forces near the brushes **longitudinal to the current in the
ring** which drives the ring around.

I'm having a harder time understanding how the magnets can turn
continuously inside an immobilized ring though, 3rd law/back torque from
the presumably symmetrical case of the rotating situation not withstanding.
In the case of the ring moving, it's sort of moving while not moving - the
ring turns but the brush points do not (or alternatively, they *do* move -
relative to the physical matter <and current?> in the ring). That situation
doesn't apply when the ring is immobile and the magnets turn. You'd need to
rotate the brushes around the ring in synch with the magnet's rotation to
keep all reference frames relatively the same in both cases, and I think
this is a major point. You lose that brush rotation, and I think you end up
with a zero sum of forces considering just the magnets alone rotating
inside the ring. Thus the Greg Watson comment in my other post.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 15:19:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00470;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:09:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:05:46 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd59d4$e0219d00$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"yM-l02.0.E7.s637r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17065
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> I do think Horace
>basically has it nailed with his analysis of the moving ring and those
>magnetic forces near the brushes **longitudinal to the current in the
>ring** which drives the ring around.
Hi Rick, my but these little beasties do get complex.
I think Horace has this brush related torque quite wrong. I'll try to
take some better field measurements to show this, but I did
measure fields earlier and got more of the pattern I described
rather than the concentrations in the corners that look obvious at first. 
>
>I'm having a harder time understanding how the magnets can turn
>continuously inside an immobilized ring though, 3rd law/back torque from
>the presumably symmetrical case of the rotating situation not withstanding.
>In the case of the ring moving, it's sort of moving while not moving - the
>ring turns but the brush points do not (or alternatively, they *do* move -
>relative to the physical matter <and current?> in the ring). That situation
>doesn't apply when the ring is immobile and the magnets turn. You'd need to
>rotate the brushes around the ring in synch with the magnet's rotation to
>keep all reference frames relatively the same in both cases, and I think
>this is a major point. You lose that brush rotation, and I think you end up
>with a zero sum of forces considering just the magnets alone rotating
>inside the ring. Thus the Greg Watson comment in my other post.
>
The torque in the actual model seems to be significant right out to
the + and - 90 degree points of torus rotation relative to the ring
connection points. The torque is in the same direction for almost the
whole 180 degrees. It is naturally reversed for the next 180 degrees
of rotation. I believe the spreading of the torque is caused by the
spreading of the torus leakage fields plus the field pattern along
the ring varying from CW to 0 to CCW along the 180 degree path.
The torque definitely does vary with position, but not as much as
I expected before doing the experiments.
-
George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 15:21:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05521;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:01:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:01:29 -0800
Message-ID: <351C21AC.3BA3 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:01:16 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
References: <v01530502b141a04b045c [199.237.131.233]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7yE26.0.1M1.6_27r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17064
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> Looking at the drawing of one Marinov motor configuration, with flux out at
> right brush added:
> 
>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>                         -------------->--------------
>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>                         |X     O O O     XXBXX    X |
>                         |X    O------------|--X   X |O
>                         |X    O| X X X|O OO| |X   X |O cancelled
>                         |X    O|      |    V |X   X |O O O O
>      (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
>                         |O    O| ^    |      |X   O |X X X X
>                         |O    O| | X X|O O O |X   O |X reinforced
>                         |O    O--|------------X   O |X   | force from
>                         |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |X   | brush lead
>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |    v onto ring
>                         -------------->--------------
>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
> 
> We can see that the force I proposed at the brush location opposes the
> force proposed to exist directly between the ring and the magnet array.  It
> would seem the force between the ring and the magnet array would be much
> larger because it is closer and exerted over a much bigger area.  So, in
> the above configuration the ring should turn counter clockwise.
> 
> What do you all think?

By the HOLY GRAIL OF ACTUAL TEST, Horace, the magnets want to rotate
CW so, the ring would want to rotate CCW.  Hey, we agree!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 15:45:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07263;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:40:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:40:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b141e11b803b [12.64.66.24]>
In-Reply-To: <01bd59ca$0d2c8810$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:38:16 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Marinov: Lorentzian Hook?
Resent-Message-ID: <"doNAA1.0.Ln1.WZ37r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17066
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vorts -

Phipps wrote in his message to Kooistra that the "Lorentzian hook" (LH)
might be responsible for providing the motive force on the ring.

Pardon me for using bandwidth here if I'm the last person to see this, but
I thought I'd expand on it relative to Horace's idea of the pinched fields
at the brushes. For me it unveils the hidden I X B I've been looking for,
and that seems worth some comment.

If I read this correctly, the LH is a description of Horace's pinched field
in the 90 degree turn where the brushes make contact. When magnetic fields
from two perpendicular current elements are superimposed against each
other, a field results with a component at a 45 degree line between them.
Draw a line 45 degrees between the two straight segments through the corner
point to mark the boundaries. Now fields on either side of the line
'belong' to or are reactive with that element, and so the fields belonging
to the ring (as well as the brush wire) are now bent - they have a radial
component as Phipps says. It means that the fields surrounding the current
carrying ring and 'belonging' to that current are no longer oriented the
way an undisturbed field would be, and now have a component *crossing* the
current direction. It's all bent and not how I'm used to visualizing things
(bend the 'field finger' in the right hand rule), but it sure sounds valid.

(While I did that, I noticed that bending the 'current finger' may also do
a relatively similar thing. Maybe that current tangent's not always so
straight. If the magnetic field can do it...)

In the simple Ampere experiments, two current elements crossed
perpendicular to each other have 'no effect' on each other. Not quite so
apparently, it's just that the effects cancel themselves out so no effect
is seen. But distort that symmetry with as third field source (or motion?
acceleration?), and unbalanced forces appear.

But does Jeff's comment about the brushes contacting the inside of the ring
unhook the LH explanation? Horace, can you show how the distorting effect
of the fringing fields would work in moving the ring in the same direction
in this case? Maybe you already did that, sorry if I forgot.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 16:24:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25443;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:23:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:23:02 -0800
From: Schaffer gav.gat.com
Message-Id: <v0300781cb141f06907ad [198.133.146.230]>
In-Reply-To: <351C21AC.3BA3 interlaced.net>
References: <v01530502b141a04b045c [199.237.131.233]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:23:41 -0800
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Jox-.0.PD6.ZB47r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17067
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

My slant on this one:

                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                         -------------->--------------
                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                         |X     O O O     X X X    X |
                         |X    O---------------X   X |   ^ force on
                         |X    O| X X X|O OO  |X   X |   | current
                         |X    O|      |      |X   X |   | lead (CCW)
      (+)---------O--->--|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---X---> current (-)
                / |      |O    O|      |      |X   O |    \
     direction of |      |O    O|   X X|O O O |X   O |X    direction of
        leakage B v force|O    O---------------X   O |X    leakage B
      from toroid        |O     O O O     X X X    O |X    from toroid
                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                         -------------->--------------
                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X


Stenger said:
>By the HOLY GRAIL OF ACTUAL TEST, Horace, the magnets want to rotate
>CW so, the ring would want to rotate CCW.

Lead I cross leakage B pushes leads CCW, so reaction on magnest is CW.


Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 17:15:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA05424;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:12:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:12:50 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b141fbe1caaf [12.64.66.10]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:12:18 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Marinov: Lorentzian Hook?
Resent-Message-ID: <"olU792.0.TK1.Fw47r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17068
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Just did a quick and dirty test with a fixed copper #6 wire ring about 3"
dia. and a torus composed of two 1 foot long by 1/2" x 1/2" steel bars with
1" dia neodymiums between the ends. When I momentarily touch wires from a
large 12v starter battery, that torus rotor sure does take off, giving the
impression that it would just spin. But when I grit my teeth and hold the
wires to the ring for maybe a full second or more, it will find that
sticking point and shimmy to a stop there, held rigid by the fields. IMO,
the torus won't continuously turn as long as the brush contacts don't
follow it. I didn't try moving the wires around the ring after the torus
froze, not enough time and I don't want to kill the battery off all at once
here, but I'm pretty sure that's the deal. Apparently the ring can turn
continuously because the brushes *do* move *relative* to its rotation. But
then what about the torus fields?

By the way, the fringing field around the torus in the vicinity of the ring
would barely move a pin on a thread. Anybody ever try a steel torus
*without* the magnets? Maybe this is just a ferromagnetic thing.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:05:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20307;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:00:25 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:00:25 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:00:04 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803280200.SAA00019 slave3.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: RE: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"MX9YZ1.0.7z4.tc57r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17071
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hank wrote:
>knuke
>	As an old sailor, I have seen many propellors damaged by
>cavitation. Is there an adequate quantitative theory that explains why
>so much damage is caused? Something that will predict the amount of
>damage in a given situation? Is it possible that some nuclear events
>occur?
>
>Hank Scudder

Hi Hank,

        There are a number of computational fluid dynamics calculations that
have been presented by some highly respected prople that include equations
that attempt to factor in the quantum forces that theoretically come to bear
during cavitation.  I have some of the papers listed on my website, but
there are alot more that I have seen and have yet to post.  As I was doing
my research, I ran across the name of a fellow that used to be a professor
of our own Barry Merriman that had done some of the mathmaticka for one of
the major groups that was attempting to answer your first question.  I'll
have to have another look in the Bio's section of my website to get this
guy's name, and exactly what his contribution was.  I've read all the
papers, studied them, did my best to understand what they were saying, and I
really admire the people that have made attempts to describe mathmatically
the various phenomena related to cavitation, but I don't put much stock in
the calcs just yet.  I am not a mathmatician, a scientist or even a very
sophisticated engineer, as you know, and in almost every paper that I have
read, I have been able to identify some obvious problems with the equations
that I have seen so far.

        When I do my own work, I don't even bother to do the math unless
it's a really simple problem or I'm forced by necessity.  I know that it's
an unusual thing for an engineer to say, and I actually know people that go
on about the beauty, elegance, blablabla, etc. of a well written math
expression, but to me, math just make my head hurt.  I rely mostly on my
experience, and my 5 or 20 (however many we are allowed to have these days)
senses to tell me for example, if I should use a sched. 80 pipe over a
sched. 40 pipe in a given situation, and while I have had a few surprises,
that usually has sufficed for me.  I think that if you are capable and have
the time to work through all of the calculations before you design and build
something, then you should.  My reluctance to do all of that work is not
always motivated by laziness either.  There are usually alot of other
factors that come into play when making design decisions, the two most
common being time and money.  Safety is also something that I rank pretty
high when choosing materials or designing a system.  Intuition plays a
certain role when I engineer something as well.  I generally just way
overbuild the heck out of everything, just so I can sleep at night.  I've
also done some things that would look downright counterintuitive, illogical,
or even stupid, to engineers who have had no experience with high seas or
large explosions.

        If a system that I am working on is critical to the safety of
individuals who will depend upon it, and something about the design bothers
me for whatever reason, I have gone so far as to get down my knees and
holler at any and all of the Dieties that might be paying attention,
demanding that they point out the weak parts of the design until I am
satisfied that the system will be sound.  Then I beg those Diety guys to
keep the people that are going to use the system safe, even if they have to
perform a miracle or two to make that happen.  I know that isn't very
scientific or mathematical, if fact, I'm sure that it's a pretty humorous
sight to watch, but it is a very common nautical thing, and I'm also sure
you've seen marine engineers do some pretty superstitious stuff if you have
spent any time at sea at all.

        I probably would get thrown out of NASA for some of my sloppier
ideas, but then I've seen some of their work that has failed because they
trusted their math, and ignored what their common sense or even their
intuition may have told them about a situation.  Don't get me wrong, I have
the highest respect for the engineers at NASA.  Their eggheads have
performed many miracles with the methods that they employ, and their fatal
error rate is pretty low for what they try to accomplish.  I also rely very
heavily on my computers to perform whatever calculations that I need to do,
and I read all of the published data that I can find, but in the end, I
always stand back, well away from it all, I open my mind as wide as it will
go, and I ask myself if everything is going to be alright before I ever
throw a switch, open a valve, or strike an arc.  I don't think it's all that
uncommon.

        I guess what I am saying is that I am certain that there currently
is no set of calculations that will adequately predict what will occur
during cavitation.  There will not be any set of calcs in the near future
either for some simple reasons, most of which have to do with the
difficulties involved when doing even simple fluid dynamic calcs.  The
number of variables is just too high, and invariably some of the variables
get left out, which causes the result of the calcs to be way off.  I have
seen and used some very large, expensive math programs to calculate, for
example, how much water will come out of a faucet on a third level deck, and
how much pressure will the flow have when I turn it on full blast, and while
12 other people are also using water at various other points in the same
system out of a possible 40 or 50 points.  The empirically observed  result
is _always_ different by a large amount from the calculated, predicted
amount, and this is just for a common plumbing job.  The calcs just are not
up to the task of accurately predicting what will happen in these very
complex, seemingly chaotic, sometimes probablistic circumstances.
Scientists should continue to endeavor to solve these problems with the hope
of properly identifying, weighting, calculating all of the factors that can
influence the result, but engineers should never put their entire trust in
the results of any set of calculations.  To some extent, that applies to all
branches of science and engineering, but with fluids, it is the rule that rulz.

        When you add to the difficulties of doing normal, classical fluid
calculation the task of making a prediction based upon a theory you don't
even know for certain to be true, you are sailing in very weird water
indeed.  Add to that the fact that there several very different theories and
approaches to the cavitation calcs that have been proffered, and you can see
that we are dealing with a science that will have a long and interesting
*infancy*.  The more we study it, the more variables we uncover, the more
variables we uncover, the higher the level of complexity, the higher the
level of complexity, the easier it is to make a mistake when we try to make
a prediction based on any set of equations.  Ain't that just the way it goes.

        I think that guys like Bernoulli, Rayleigh, and Schauberger were
geniuses.  They were not only at the top of their respective fields with
regards to their abilities to do complex computations, but I also like to
think that they were intellectually humble enough to realize that a human
being's ability to do math is only slightly better than an ape's or even a
fish's.  I find it amusing to think that humans are sometimes so arrogant as
to think that they are such an intelligent species when compared to the
fishes.  Heck, even with brains smaller than the tip of my little finger and
probably very little training in superstring theory, there is still a huge
number of questions that I would love to ask those stupid fishes if I only
could, and I think that for the most part the fishes would probably have
better answers than what the academic community has to offer.  Again, I say
that with all due respect for what the academic community has accomplished.

        The bulk of the discoveries that will be made in the cavitation
field will come as a result of old fashion hard work and careful analysis of
the data.  There will be no shortcuts.  The currently available calculations
will only serve to guide the general direction of the research, and the rest
will be a long process of experimental trial, error, and careful
measurement.  The math will eventually become sophisticated enough, but I
don't expect it be really useful for at least another decade.  I also
strongly believe that the efforts to improve the math will be rewarded by a
large number of new processes and useful discoveries.  Maybe even free
energy, who knows.

        To give you an idea of the number of variables that affect the
cavitation phenomena, read the sonoluminescence papers.  Temperature and
pressure gradients, EM fields, light of varying frequencies and intensities,
sounds of varying frequency and intensity, different cell geometries,
materials of construction, various working liquids and chemical
combinations, impurity levels, entrained gases, the shape of the bubble as
it collapses, ionic distributions, gravitational influences, charge,
viscosity, nuclear cross sections, and a host of other factors that I am
sure we haven't even considered yet will all affect the outcome of a given
cavitation experiment.  It is quite alot to expect of a calculation even to
include all of the possible variables that a cavitation engineer will
encounter in real life.  Each of these variables will have to be isolated
and painstakingly measured before any meaningful calculations can be generated.

        As for your question on nuclear reactions, I think that they have
been already been observed and proven to exist by a fair number of qualified
groups.  I've cited Putterman, Stringham, and George, as having reported
nuclear events, but there are certainly others that I have yet to mention.
They base their claims on SIMS analysis for the most part, and we are all
familiar with that can of worms.  I've never done a SIMS analysis or had one
done, but I have collected enough information on it to start a section on my
website devoted to that subject.  I know of about a dozen different SIMS
techniques, some of their weaknesses and strengths, and so forth.  It
certainly warrants study if you are looking for that kind of reaction.  Of
course, the same can be said for calorimetry, but if any type of test is not
properly done, using the appropriate techniques, the data is worthless.  I
did start a section in the website devoted to calorimetry BTW, but I haven't
had the time to fill it up.  I have alot to do on that webpage.

        The brass ring for some cavitation researchers is Tritium production
because of its use in nuclear weapons.  The short half-life of Tritium
requires that it be replaced relatively often, and it is currently expensive
to make.  I'm more interested in the some of the other uses of cavitation,
so I really don't follow the developments in that area very closely.  I have
read enough, however, to be concerned about the possible nuclear effects of
some of the cavitation devices currently in use by the medical community.  I
have read studies that have conclusively shown cavitation damage to tissue
as a result of cavitation generated by some of the ultrasonic scanning
devices currently in use.  Well meaning doctors have fried a number
patients' of organs, brains mostly.  The damaged organ looks like a sponge
with a bunch of very obvious holes in it.  This damage occurs, I believe,
without the presence of radioactive materials, and I don't think that the
studies have even begun to take into consideration what might happen to a
common substance like barium, for example, that is very routinely present in
a patient's bloodstream.  An entire branch of liability law has emerged
recently just to handle the number of cavitation damage claims.  It is just
another good reason to accelerate the research in this field, and make every
effort to educate and inform the people that are using cavitation in their
workplace.

        Well, I do go on don't I.  Hope I've stimulated some interest at any
rate.  I've got work to do. Peace, Love, and Hippy Farts, -Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1825 Nagle Place #210
Seattle, WA 98122
(206)325-2461
knuke aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm
        

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:08:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03515;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351C5917.7D9F interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:57:43 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov: Lorentzian Hook?
References: <l03102800b141fbe1caaf [12.64.66.10]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"hCi5O.0.rs.Lc57r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17069
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Just did a quick and dirty test with a fixed copper #6 wire ring about 3"
> dia. and a torus composed of two 1 foot long by 1/2" x 1/2" steel bars with
> 1" dia neodymiums between the ends. When I momentarily touch wires from a
> large 12v starter battery, that torus rotor sure does take off, giving the
> impression that it would just spin. But when I grit my teeth and hold the
> wires to the ring for maybe a full second or more, it will find that
> sticking point and shimmy to a stop there, held rigid by the fields. IMO,
> the torus won't continuously turn as long as the brush contacts don't
> follow it. 

Rick, George said in a post:
"The design with rotating torus requires switching the
current on/off or reversing current direction at the
appropriate times to provide continuous rotation."

and that agrees with my observations.

Interesting test, Rick!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:10:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03629;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351C596D.6105 interlaced.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:59:09 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: QUESTION - MARINOV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DFO6R.0.au.Hd57r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17070
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

QUESTION:

If the Marinov motor torque is caused by some form of longitudinal
force acting on the electrons in the metal ring - thus producing
a counter-force or torque on the permanent magnets, then could we
not expect the magnet pair in the following sketch to be acted upon
by a force parallel to the current?

          current ------>--------------->-------------------->---
				|-------|-------|
				|      	|	| main magnet
				|   N   |   S   | flux perpendicular
				|	|	| to page
				|-------|-------|
	________________________O_______________O_________________

The magnets would be on a free-rolling track with one degree of
freedom parallel to the current.  I have tried to set up the
system to simulate one side of the ring (say, the top) in a Marinov
motor.  Now, I would guess that the magnets will not move - do any
LF advocates think otherwise?  Hey, I'm not trying to pick a fight
here - this is just an experiment I could set up in the garage!
One good way might be to mount the magnets on a long two-wire
pendulum to provide a single-large-arc movement with almost zero
resistance.  Hundreds of amps from a battery could be sent thru the
wire.  (Or, an electrolytic capacitor could be discharged thru the
wire to provide a pulse of 100,000 amps and we could use ballistic
pendulum techniques to detect the impulse - JOKE!)

Now, the magnets would be acted upon by a CCW torque, right?
So, the suspension would need to be "stiff" against such torques.
This is interesting - I guess there would be a "~" shaped kink put in
the wire (slight!) by the counter-torque, in the region of the magnets.
I could check the turning torque on my table-top turntable with a
run of straight wire near the magnets - as in my other tests.
Comments?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:11:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22840;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:07:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:07:55 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b1420ac5089b [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:14:10 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Rerun Test #5 - Marinov
Resent-Message-ID: <"LQH302.0.ja5.vj57r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17072
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:43 PM 3/27/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>> Test 5:
>>
>>         up current
>>         (for about 3 ft
>>          to the table end)
>>         ^       O O O O O O O
>>        O|X    O|------------>|
>>        O|X    O^ X    S   X  |
>>        O|X    O| X        X  v
>>        O|X     |<------------|
>>   OOOOOO|X     | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
>> (+)-->--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
>>   XXXXXX|O     |<------------|           wooden spacer
>>        X|O    X| S        S  ^
>>        X|O    X| S    N   S  |
>>        X|O    Xv------------>|
>>         v        X X X X X X
>>     down current
>>     (for about 3'
>>      to the end of
>>      table)
>>
>
>OK, Horace, I reran test 5.
>First, I used a surface level and much improved the level of my magnet
>turntable.
>Then I put 0.5 ohm in each leg of the up and down line to give a total
>feed current of about 45 to 46 amp.  The battery dropped to about
>11.7 volts after a short time at this load.  So, about 23 amp in each
>of the vertical (sketch) lines.
>You can improve the scale sketch with the following dimensions:
>        from vertical line current to left side of magnets = 3/4 inch
>        horizontal magnet width in sketch above = 1 7/8 inch
>        vertical mag. height with 3/4 spacer = 2 1/2 inch
>
>Horace, the position in the sketch seems to be THE preferred
>orientation.
>Much better torque with 46 amps.
>I positioned the magnets with each corner pointing at the feed wire.
>In all cases, the magnets would swing a bit (oscillate) and come to
>rest in the sketched position.  The only other position that would
>hold still was the 180 degree one with N up and S down.  But, this was
>obviously an unstable equilibrium and would re-orient if nudged slightly
>off position.
>
>Check with a better sketch and see if you can figure it out.  The
>corners come about 1/8 or 3/16 inch from the tee joint at closest
>approach.
>
>Frank S.

I added the O's and X's on the other side of the ring, and along the brush
lead wire, in the diagram above.  It appears that more of the manget
leakage flux is involved with the highly compressed fields near the brush
(wire split) point on the other side of the ring from the magnet.  Also,
the fields on the inside of the brush point tend to cancel each other, at
least right next to the brush point, so their tendancy to attract is
overridden by the much stronger field on the other side of the ring.
That's the best explanation I have come up with so far, but what the heck,
I spent this afternoon shopping.  8^{

It looks like we are getting to the point of understanding where a
quantitative model is needed to be sure of things.  Probably best done as a
FEA model, which might be a big job, unless something simple can be fiqured
out by hand.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:11:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23196;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:09:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:09:15 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b142078c8867 [12.64.66.15]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:08:44 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Marinov: lose the magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"8nhda.0.Ig5.8l57r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17073
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:

    > Anybody ever try a steel torus
    > *without* the magnets?

I just did this. The results are qualitatively the same, just weaker.
Toroid still wants to turn, and sticks at the mid point half way between
the contact points on the ring. Maybe residual magnetism in the steel bars
is responsible, but I still think it could be simple ferromagnetism. A
piece of steel is not strongly attracted to a boundary line between two
magnets showing opposite poles (the "neutral line" of the magnets, and
similar to the ring on either side of the brush contacts), but it is
strongly attracted to the same two magnets if they have their like pole
faces aligned.

Ought to try this with ferrite rods, or maybe even a shorted toroid air
core coil. Presumably the ring would still turn, with the fixed magnets or
iron in its midst providing something magnetic for the ring to push against.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:45:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA31016;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:41:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:41:18 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b1420ffd4257 [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:44:01 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TESTS - MARINOV RELATED
Resent-Message-ID: <"VXFNk.0.Na7.9D67r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17074
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:23 PM 3/27/98, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote:
>My slant on this one:
>
>                           O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>                         -------------->--------------
>                         | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
>                         |X     O O O     X X X    X |
>                         |X    O---------------X   X |   ^ force on
>                         |X    O| X X X|O OO  |X   X |   | current
>                         |X    O|      |      |X   X |   | lead (CCW)
>      (+)---------O--->--|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---X---> current (-)
>                / |      |O    O|      |      |X   O |    \
>     direction of |      |O    O|   X X|O O O |X   O |X    direction of
>        leakage B v force|O    O---------------X   O |X    leakage B
>      from toroid        |O     O O O     X X X    O |X    from toroid
>                         | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>                         -------------->--------------
>                           X X X X X X X X X X X X X
>
>
>Stenger said:
>>By the HOLY GRAIL OF ACTUAL TEST, Horace, the magnets want to rotate
>>CW so, the ring would want to rotate CCW.
>
>Lead I cross leakage B pushes leads CCW, so reaction on magnest is CW.
>
>
>Michael J. Schaffer
>General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
>Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


Yes, this was known at the outset, but such a force will not act on the
ring, will it?  Or, OK, maybe (I assume) you are saying that Frank has not
had the ring actuallly running, so the torque on the magnets in his magnet
rotating experiment are irrelevant without quantization, because (lead I) X
(B leakage) would cause the magnets to rotate.  We have no grail at all,
holy or otherwise, which seems logical.

In support, experiment 5 seems to agree with this explanation:

>> Test 5:
>>
>>         up current
>>         (for about 3 ft
>>          to the table end)
>>         ^       O O O O O O O
>>        O|X    O|------------>|
>>        O|X    O^ X    S   X  |
>>        O|X    O| X        X  v
>>        O|X     |<------------|
>>   OOOOOO|X     | ~3/4" wood  |    <----- the shaft center is
>> (+)-O>--|      |  spacer     |           in the center of this
>>   XX|XXX|O     |<------------|           wooden spacer
>>     |  X|O    X| S        S  ^
>>     |  X|O    X| S    N   S  |
>>     v  X|O    Xv------------>|
>>         v        X X X X X X
>>     down current
>>     (for about 3'
>>      to the end of
>>      table)
>>

If the explanation held water, when the south pole moves CCW from the above
postion, the IXB force on the brush lead will push the magnet back CW,
which it does. Likewise in reverse for the N pole thus explaining the
equilibrium nicely, so this explanation holds water - even without the
grail 8^(.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:48:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA11234;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351C8DDA.3938 bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:42:50 -0800
From: "Terry J. Blanton" <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Lense-Thirring Verified
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"0T7tZ.0.Il2.cG67r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17075
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Einstein Proved Correct Again:
Time & Space Can Bend

3-27-98

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Einstein has been proved right yet
again, an international team of researchers said Thursday. They said
observations of U.S. satellites orbiting Earth showed that a spinning
body can curve space -- something Albert Einstein predicted in his
general theory of relativity. Einstein said the spin of a body must
change the geometry of the universe by generating space-time
curvature. 
  
He called it ``frame dragging'' but it is also known as the
Lense-Thirring effect, after Austrian physicists Josef Lense and Hans
Thirring, who said celestial bodies that rotate, such as the Sun, create
a force that pulls space towards them. The effect is so strong it
should affect a clock rotating slowly around a spinning body. Ignazio
Ciufolini of the Universita di Roma ``La Sapienza'' and colleagues
tested and measured the effect by analyzing the orbits of two NASA
satellites, LAGEOS and LAGEOSII. 
  
They used lasers to measure tiny changes in the orbits of the
satellites and concluded the Earth was affecting them in a way that
could not be accounted for by gravity or tidal forces. ``Based on the
analysis of the orbits of the ... satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II,
we conclude that the Lense-Thirring effect exists,'' they wrote in a
report in the journal Science. 
  
``This direct measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect confirms one
of the remaining fundamental predictions of general relativity, that a
current of mass-energy, such as a spinning mass, as a result of its
mass motion changes the geometry of the universe by generating
space-time curvature.''

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:49:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA32167;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:46:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:46:11 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530506b142159c947c [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:52:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov: Lorentzian Hook?
Resent-Message-ID: <"jvNwW1.0.Ss7.nH67r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17076
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:12 PM 3/27/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Just did a quick and dirty test with a fixed copper #6 wire ring about 3"
>dia. and a torus composed of two 1 foot long by 1/2" x 1/2" steel bars with
>1" dia neodymiums between the ends. When I momentarily touch wires from a
>large 12v starter battery, that torus rotor sure does take off, giving the
>impression that it would just spin. But when I grit my teeth and hold the
>wires to the ring for maybe a full second or more, it will find that
>sticking point and shimmy to a stop there, held rigid by the fields. IMO,
>the torus won't continuously turn as long as the brush contacts don't
>follow it. I didn't try moving the wires around the ring after the torus
>froze, not enough time and I don't want to kill the battery off all at once
>here, but I'm pretty sure that's the deal. Apparently the ring can turn
>continuously because the brushes *do* move *relative* to its rotation. But
>then what about the torus fields?
>
>By the way, the fringing field around the torus in the vicinity of the ring
>would barely move a pin on a thread. Anybody ever try a steel torus
>*without* the magnets? Maybe this is just a ferromagnetic thing.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

Rick,

Where did you place the brushes?  Opposite the magnet "faces" or opposite
the gap between magnets?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 20:31:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17912;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:27:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:27:21 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:26:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199803280426.AA09269 lafn.org>
From: ad368 lafn.org (Jim Day)
To: vortex-L eskimo.com
Subject: Schauberger books
Reply-To: ad368 lafn.org
Resent-Message-ID: <"MJDsR1.0.oN4.cm77r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17077
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



 
In a recent posting to Vortex-L, Soo suggested that I post
some references dealing with Viktor Schauberger. Actually,
I know next to nothing about Schauberger, but I believe that
the most commonly cited works pertaining to him are the two
books listed below.
 
1. Alexandersson, Olof.
   Living water: Viktor Schauberger and the secrets of natural
   energy. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Turnstone Press.
 
2. Coats, Callum.
   Living energies: an exposition of concepts related to the
   theories of Viktor Schauberger.  Bath, UK: Gateway Books;
   Lanham, MD.
 
For more information, see Jeane Manning's review of Living
Energies at
 
  http://www.earthpulse.com/science/livingenergy.html
 
See also the Solaris website at
 
  http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/index.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 21:08:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04117;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:55:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b142317b6295 [12.64.66.87]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530506b142159c947c [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:53:39 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Marinov: Lorentzian Hook?
Resent-Message-ID: <"rcbqk1.0.E01.5B87r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17078
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

  >  Where did you place the brushes?
  >  Opposite the magnet "faces" or opposite
  >  the gap between magnets?

Sorry I didn't make this very clear. This was a fixed ring & spinning torus
test. I use the term 'brushes' too loosely when I just meant contact
points. There were no brushes, just manually touching the ends of wires to
the non-rotating ring. The torus/magnet (and no-magnet) assembly was
hanging from a string long enough not to put too much torsion on the torus
after it had spun several revolutions. But to answer your question anyway,
I tried both positions, not that it mattered. The torus always stops. I
would like to have dragged the wire contacts around the perimeter of the
ring to see if the torus followed (I'm pretty sure it would have) but I
didn't want to keep the direct battery hookup on that long. Hot goes the
wires, and ruined goes the battery.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 21:15:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25093;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:11:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:11:46 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b1423378da62 [12.64.66.59]>
In-Reply-To: <351C596D.6105 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:11:24 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"1u2lg1.0._76.GQ87r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17079
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank wrote:

  > Comments?

The single wire in your drawing might also be replaced by a straightened
out section of coil, so you'd get more motive power from the extra Ampere
turns. Everything else should be the same despite that alteration, as far
as I can see.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 22:28:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA32604;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:14:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:14:55 -0800
Message-ID: <351C9563.2CE0 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:14:59 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
References: <l03102801b1423378da62 [12.64.66.59]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bx7h32.0.Lz7.TL97r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17080
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Frank wrote:
> 
>   > Comments?
> 
> The single wire in your drawing might also be replaced by a straightened
> out section of coil, so you'd get more motive power from the extra Ampere
> turns. Everything else should be the same despite that alteration, as far
> as I can see.
> 

I see what you're getting at, Rick, but think of the implications if
such a system did produce a LF.  Then we could make a steady DC
coil gun with the magnet assembly as the projectile, right?
OK, if this doesn't work, then where does that leave us with our
Marinov torque explanations?  Haven't tests by Jeff K. ruled out the
radial current explanation for ring rotation?  Darn, I wish I could
figure an easy way to do away with brush drag so my motor would work!
Horace's arguments are pretty good but I still can't see how that ring
can rotate without tangential forces on it and I can't visualize how
that can happen.  Sigh!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Fri Mar 27 23:28:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA10634;
	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:25:20 -0800
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:25:20 -0800
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:22:07 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199803280722.IAA29667 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 <lentin imaginet.fr>
Subject: Stanley Meyer dead ?
Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com, KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Resent-Message-ID: <"FjT_C3.0.3c2.VNA7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17081
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi all

I just read this on Eric Krieg's skeptic mailing list :

> Stan Meyer, who ripped off a bunch of people selling dealerships for
> phony water powered cars, dropped dead.  His name is sure to be
> reborn among the list of "repressed inventors"

Now, Meyer frequently complained about death threats...

Anyone can confirm this news, and know the exact circumstances ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jean-Pierre Lentin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 00:52:42 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA18129;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:50:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:50:54 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b14261d8b1a3 [199.237.131.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:57:12 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"tG6Wp2.0.6R4.jdB7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17082
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

[snip]
>OK, if this doesn't work, then where does that leave us with our
>Marinov torque explanations?  Haven't tests by Jeff K. ruled out the
>radial current explanation for ring rotation?  Darn, I wish I could
>figure an easy way to do away with brush drag so my motor would work!
>Horace's arguments are pretty good but I still can't see how that ring
>can rotate without tangential forces on it and I can't visualize how
>that can happen.  Sigh!
>
>Frank Stenger

I have a new explanation based purely on a Biot style analysis, and the
externalized equivalent current loop around the magnets discussed earlier:

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     XX XX    X |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                    Fig. 3


If you make a drawing with the magnet and ring circular, but break up the
ring and curent loops into small segments (8 minimum) you can see the
effect clearly.  You mark the center point of each current segment with a
point and the end of the current segment with the current direction arrow,
just as if you were about to calculate the current segments via Biot's law.
Remember that current segments in the same direction attract, opposite
directions repel.  For this reason I drew faint lines between current
segment center points and put a push arrow or a pull arrow, from the ring's
perspective, depending on wheter the force from the magnet current segment
was attracting or repelling the ring segment. Call these faint lines the
force vectors.  I then excluded (erased) the purely purely radial force
vectors, and balanced force vectors (i.e. pairs of vectors to the same ring
sector midpoint that sum to a purely radial force vector.)  See the two
example fore vectors at the top of Fig. 7 and note that they result in a
longitudinal counterclockwise force on the ring.  What was left after
repeating the process was pairs of vectors that orginated at the same ring
center point and terminated at centerpoints on *different magnet* current
segments, as in Fig. 7 and 8.

                              <----- Long. Force
                        ---<---------------<---------
                        |          | ^              |
                        |          |  \             |
                        |          v   \            |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           |   ^           |
                        |           |  /            |
                        |           v /             |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 7



                             <----- Long. Force
                        -----<---------------<-------
                        |             / ^           |
                        |            /  |           |
                        |           v   |           |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           \   ^           |
                        |            \  |           |
                        |             v |           |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 8

The above vector parirs all clearly exert a counter counter clockwise
torque on the ring, and clockwise torque on the magnet. The other vector
pairs all cancel, so the net torque is as imparted by the vector pairs from
split sides of the magnet torus.

I should mention the version of Biot's law I was about to apply takes two
current segment vectors L and L', with currents i and i', and converts L
and L' to its component perpendicular to the other, giving l and l'.  Given
the distance betwen segment midpoints r, Biot's law is then:

    F = k(il)(il')/r^2

which is summed for each current segment over every other current segment.

Well, do we have a grail yet?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 01:18:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA28118;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000a01bd5a29$9b58f7e0$598cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: "Soo" <Soojay compuserve.com>
Subject: Vortex Funnels,Shear,and Energy and Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:12:13 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"h_Kez3.0.Gt6.C_B7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17083
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In the vortex the outer layers must "slip" past the inner ones which would
seem to require the
generation of "frictional" heat. In the funnel
shapes there is also a vertical velocity gradient also creating
shear-friction.

The presence of hydrogenous materials such as water vapor in hurricanes or
tornadoes could be sufficient to allow formation of Quasi-Neutrons
or Hydrinos with concurrent release of thermal energy that "pumps" energy
into the cyclone.

Over water the hydrogen is replenished, whereas
over land the cyclone peters out (so to speak).   :-)

The viscous shear should bring electrons into rapid collisions with the
hydrogen nucleus which should form the Quasi-Neutron by forming
Neutrino Pairs with concurrent energy release.

And all sorts of great stuff,Soo.

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 01:50:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA25848;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:48:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:48:01 -0800
X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530500b14278ac3431 [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:54:18 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov Biot Solution - some additions
Resent-Message-ID: <"rnTgi.0.jJ6.GTC7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17084
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is a new explanation based purely on a Biot style analysis, and the
externalized equivalent current loop around the magnets discussed earlier:

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     XX XX    X |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |O     OOAOO     X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                    Fig. 3


If you make a drawing with the magnet and ring circular, but break up the
ring and curent loops into small segments (8 minimum) you can see the
effect clearly.  You mark the center point of each current segment with a
point and the end of the current segment with the current direction arrow,
just as if you were about to calculate the current segments via Biot's law.
Remember that current segments in the same direction attract, opposite
directions repel.  For this reason I drew faint lines between current
segment center points and put a push arrow or a pull arrow, from the ring's
perspective, depending on wheter the force from the magnet current segment
was attracting or repelling the ring segment. Call these faint lines the
force vectors.  I then excluded (erased) the purely purely radial force
vectors, and balanced force vectors (i.e. pairs of vectors to the same ring
sector midpoint that sum to a purely radial force vector.)  See the two
example fore vectors at the top of Fig. 7 and note that they result in a
longitudinal counterclockwise force on the ring.  What was left after
repeating the process was pairs of vectors that orginated at the same ring
center point and terminated at centerpoints on *different magnet* current
segments, as in Fig. 7 and 8.

                              <----- Long. Force
                        --->--------------->---------
                        |          | ^              |
                        |          |  \             |
                        |          v   \            |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           |   ^           |
                        |           |  /            |
                        |           v /             |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 7



                             <----- Long. Force
                        ----->--------------->-------
                        |             / ^           |
                        |            /  |           |
                        |           v   |           |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           \   ^           |
                        |            \  |           |
                        |             v |           |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 8

The above vector parirs all clearly exert a counter counter clockwise
torque on the ring, and clockwise torque on the magnet. The other vector
pairs all cancel, so the net torque is as imparted by the vector pairs from
split sides of the magnet torus.

I should mention the version of Biot's law I was about to apply takes two
current segment vectors L and L', with currents i and i', and converts L
and L' to its component perpendicular to the other, giving l and l'.  Given
the distance betwen segment midpoints r, Biot's law is then:

    F = k(il)(il')/r^2

which is summed for each current segment over every other current segment.

It is also notable that the midline of the magnet has a similar
counterclockwise longitudinal effect on the ring, but due to force vectors
split between portions of the ring on opposite sides (above and below) the
brushes.  It is noteworthy that if you draw the completed external circuit
between the brush wires, the (inside) magnet circuit is the topological
equivalent to the outside ring circuit.  You could turn the plane
(universe) topologically inside out and have the same device.  A nice but
impractical symmetry.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 03:08:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA04345;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 03:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 03:07:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b14286885e35 [12.64.66.59]>
In-Reply-To: <351C9563.2CE0 interlaced.net>
References: <l03102801b1423378da62 [12.64.66.59]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:05:37 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"EbQao.0.p31.qdD7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17085
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  Horace's arguments are pretty good but I
   >  still can't see how that ring can rotate
   >  without tangential forces on it and I can't
   >  visualize how that can happen.

Yeah, depending on the time of day I sometimes think that Horace has either
nailed it, or has lost it completely. Sometimes I know exactly how it
works, and other times I haven't a clue.

I wish I had more time for experiment, I'd try setting up a solder pot and
doing some work with the ring spinning. I'm glad you and George and others
are doing some experiments, and Horace continues to refine his more
rigorous mathematical descriptions. I'd better try to just lurk and play
with my urethane for a while. Let me know when you guys get a true level
rollaway with this thing, ok? Damn, am I out of Excederin again?! I thought
I just bought a case of it at Costco!

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 05:16:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA15678;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 05:13:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 05:13:16 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980328080543.007561d4 agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:11:55 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"CuSG72.0.uq3.gTF7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17086
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

3/27/98 ---- John E. Steck wrote:
>I have no aspirations of greatness.  No NDA needed.  I am more interested in
>facilitating change than taking credit for it.    8^)

A most noble sentiment, may we all share it!   But this is greatness!!
What is "NDA" ?  			   8<)    heh-heh   (^8


>1)
>2)
>3)
>4)
>...

I deeply pursue structural approaches to all this. And looking for
"signatures", ah yes, the artist in the scientist's eye!  Perhaps you are
more of an artist than you might admit on Vort-L.   8^)

>...... Your idea caught my attention because it
>loosely fit a sketch and notes I had made in a lab book not too long ago.
What
>do you see it doing?  How do you see it working?

Your rendering interpretation at :
<http://members.tripod.com/~JohnSteck/atkinson/sphere.html>  is well worth
an experiment or two... A lot of control possibilities, some we discussed,
many : not as yet.  Hell of a lot of possibilities.... just consider plasma
poloid pinches. I think this geometry may take us further than poloids.
(WWW search  "poloid"). Rather than catalog how i "see it working", i flow
with a "design science" attitude.  Can't stop now , bro!  (Still looking
for participants to share the load,  but hesitant to spend a lot of time
fishing Usenet, etc..).  (I'm slow at read/ write).

>Not stumping for PTC.  ProE is somewhat common now in product development
>circles.  Most vendors prefer it over surface translations.  Cleaner data
set. 
>Just offered to save you time & money.
> 

And thanks for offering. Just for the record, "formZ"  STL files have been
used for 3D prints successfully, from what i have heard. (produces solid
engineering quality files).  My surfaces (  my URL), are gladly rendered in
a visualization mode,  rather than an engineers document. (Low bandwidth is
incidental).  Who knows, maybe someone with the means  will find a way to
facilitates 3D printed experimentation.

Maine humor, it's mud season here:  "No i ain't stuck, but if i move, i
will be".

;)	Bo 

Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 06:39:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29257;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:38:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:38:03 -0800
Message-ID: <351D0B5D.27FF interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:38:21 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov Biot Solution - some additions
References: <v01530500b14278ac3431 [199.237.131.223]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DXLqr1.0.397.AjG7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17087
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> Here is a new explanation based purely on a Biot style analysis, and the
> externalized equivalent current loop around the magnets discussed earlier:
(snip good stuff)

OK, Horace, this looks pretty tedious - need a second cup of coffee -
will work thru this sometime today - don't hold your breath - looks
like Rick may have already taken a hit in the gut - this thing may
be bigger than all of us!

Frank Stenger----seeing little current elements crawling all over the
		 room!

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 07:40:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27706;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530503b142be3f6bb4 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:41:51 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov Biot Solution (take some Tylenol)
Resent-Message-ID: <"yLLkD.0.pm6.saH7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17088
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is a new explanation of Marinov's motor based purely on a Biot style
analysis, and the externalized equivalent current loop around the magnets
discussed earlier:

                          O O O O O O O O O O O O O
                        -------------->--------------
                        | X X X X X X X X X X X X X |
                        |X     O O O     X X X    X |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X XAO O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X XBO O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |O     O O O     X X X    O |
                        | O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
                        -------------->--------------
                          X X X X X X X X X X X X X

                                    Fig. 3


If you make a drawing with the magnet external current loop (call it the
inner circle) and ring current loop (call it the outer circle) circular,
but break up the inner and outer circles into small segments (8 minimum)
you can see the effect clearly.  You mark the center point of each circle's
current segments with a point and the end of the current segment with the
current direction arrow, just as if you were about to calculate the current
segments via Biot's law.

The version of Biot's law to be used is applied pairwise to two current
segment vectors L and L', with currents i and i', and requires converting L
and L' to its component perpendicular to the vector to other midpoint,
giving l and l'.  Given the distance between segment midpoints is r, Biot's
law is then:

    F = k(il)(i'l')/r^2

which is summed for each current segment over every other current segment.

Note that the inner circle could be an actual metallic current loop, just
like the outer circle, the ring loop, provided there were brushes at A and
B in Fig 3.

Remember that current segments in the same direction attract, opposite
directions repel.  For this reason draw faint pencil lines between inner
circle segment center points and outer circle segments and put a push arrow
or a pull arrow, from the outer circle's perspective, depending on whether
the force from the inner circle segment was attracting or repelling the
outer loop segment. Call these faint pencil lines the force vectors.  Then
erase the purely radial force vectors, and balanced force vectors (i.e.
pairs of vectors to the same ring loop segment midpoint that sum to a
purely radial force vector.)  See the two example remaining force vectors
at the top of Fig. 7 and note that they result in a longitudinal
counterclockwise force on the ring, so they were not erased.  What is left
after repeating the process is pairs of vectors that orginated at the same
ring loop segment center point and terminate at centerpoints on inner
circle current segments lying on *different magnets*, i.e. one on S and one
on N, as in Fig. 7 and 8.

                              <----- Long. Force
                        --->--------------->---------
                        |          | ^              |
                        |          |  \             |
                        |          v   \            |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           |   ^           |
                        |           |  /            |
                        |           v /             |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 7



                             <----- Long. Force
                        ----->--------------->-------
                        |             / ^           |
                        |            /  |           |
                        |           v   |           |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           \   ^           |
                        |            \  |           |
                        |             v |           |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 8

The above sample vector pairs clearly exert a counter counter clockwise
torque on the outer ring, and clockwise torque on the inner ring. The other
vector pairs all cancel, so the net torque is as imparted by the vector
pairs from split sides of the inner ring.

It is also notable that the midline of the magnet has a similar
counterclockwise longitudinal effect on the ring, but due to force vectors
split between portions of the outer ring on opposite sides (above and
below) the brushes.  Even if the inner circle's central conductor's force
vectors with the outer circle's were opposed to the longitudinal force
between the rings, the opposing force would be less due to the further
typical distance between the central conductor and the outer ring segments.
The same can be said for the outer power circuit between brush leads.

It is noteworthy that if you draw the completed external circuit between
the brush wires, then the complete inside magnet circuit, when including
the central conductor, is the topological equivalent to the complete
outside ring circuit, when including the closed circuit of the brush lead
power supply.  You could turn the plane (universe) topologically inside out
and have the same device.  A nice but seemingly impractical symmetry.

If the outside brush loop is brought both out of the page at A and C in fig
9, as well as into the page at A and C, and the power circuit then closed
with each other at B, similar to a gyroscope cage, it appears that a self
enhancing geometry suitable for a ball lightning model, or at least mutally
accelerating current segments, is available:


                             <----- Long. Force (LF)
                        ----->--------------->-------
                        |                           |
                        |                           |
                        |         LF ----->         |
                        |      ------>-<------      |
                        |      ^      |      |      |
                        |      |   S  |  N   |      |
                        A====<========B==========<==C
                        |      |      |      |      |
                        |      |      |      |      |
                        |      <------v------>      |
                        |        <------ LF         |
                        |                           |
                        |                           |
                        -------------->--------------
                                  LF  ----->

                                    Fig. 9

It will take some careful numerical analysis to demonstrate that!  Still,
it is an interesting geometry.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 07:43:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05604;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:42:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:42:03 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530505b142cade62b3 [199.237.131.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:48:23 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov Biot Solution - some additions
Resent-Message-ID: <"CW9YE3.0.RN1.AfH7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17089
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:38 AM 3/28/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>> Here is a new explanation based purely on a Biot style analysis, and the
>> externalized equivalent current loop around the magnets discussed earlier:
>(snip good stuff)
>
>OK, Horace, this looks pretty tedious - need a second cup of coffee -
>will work thru this sometime today - don't hold your breath - looks
>like Rick may have already taken a hit in the gut - this thing may
>be bigger than all of us!
>
>Frank Stenger----seeing little current elements crawling all over the
>                 room!

OK, sorry for the poor writing, and lots of clerical mistakes. It isn't
easy, and I'm bug-eyed as well.  Mostly from sleep deprivation.  I tried to
clear up the terminology in the new Tylenol version (ignore all prior
versions from me!)  Hopefully it is more clear.  However, I won't believe
it myself until I write a program and check it out numerically, which is my
next step unless someone can shoot holes in it.

Going to bed,

Horace


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 07:48:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06567;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:47:37 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 07:47:37 -0800
Message-ID: <007601bd5a60$88a4bda0$598cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Whiskey "Mike"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:44:42 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"WyOHH1.0.Xc1.OkH7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17090
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

A nanofarad ceramic disk capacitor immersed in
a 50% (or better)alcohol-water solution (freezing point -20 F or less) can
serve as a geophone,hydrophone, a regular microphone, if connected to a
suitable amplifier. A good whiskey filtered through charcoal will do. :-)

The water molecules align at the surface and through the dielectric, and any
disturbance of
them results in a voltage signal that can be amplified. No claim is made as
to fidelity.

This should do well for locating Frank Stenger's "Woodchuck" that is
burrowing into his dam-pond. Once the right burrow is located, a few pounds
of ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixed with 10% diesel fuel and a short length
of primacord detonator will get rid of that sucker.  :-) Other than that a
few pounds of
potassium nitrate left over from Scott's BLP
experiments will do just fine, Right Frank? :-)

"Down by the olde mill stream".   :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 08:58:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11874;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <002a01bd5a69$be04e660$3e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  (http://www.abqjournal.com/)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:51:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01BD5A2F.0D10A7C0"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"1O-LG1.0.Rv2.fjI7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17091
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_0024_01BD5A2F.0D10A7C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Easier than looking in a geography book. :-)

http://www.abqjournal.com/


------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BD5A2F.0D10A7C0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=".url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=".url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.abqjournal.com/
Modified=80A0F67E695ABD0115

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BD5A2F.0D10A7C0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 09:10:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA14102;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <004001bd5a6a$cefc0ce0$3e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-l" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject:  50 Years Later (http://www.abqjournal.com/trinity/trinity.htm)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:58:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD5A30.19BEB2E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"90jnh2.0.FS3.-uI7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17092
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_0043_01BD5A30.19BEB2E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



http://www.abqjournal.com/trinity/trinity.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD5A30.19BEB2E0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name=" 50 Years Later.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=" 50 Years Later.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.abqjournal.com/trinity/trinity.htm
Modified=A0ECB2B46A5ABD0174

------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD5A30.19BEB2E0--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 10:31:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00433;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:26:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:24:13 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Lithium
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980328102304.26786B-100000 eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"N0WWF3.0.h6.q2K7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17093
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Somebody mentioned lithium grease and IE magazine.  I instantly wonder:
what will it be like to constantly breathe powdered lithium dioxide from
hundreds of thousands of cars in a city?  Surely engines aren't already
optimized for such things, and some lithium will exit the exhaust.  If it
was berillium oxide, it might kill the city (airborne berillium oxide is
more toxic than, say, asbestos.)  I wonder if any contemporary industries
use lithium oxide in production, and what types of disabilities it causes
in their workers (if any).


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 10:46:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04928;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <006d01bd5a78$9568f160$3e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Lithium
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:36:57 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"LlMSD1.0.pC1.1KK7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17094
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


-----Original Message-----
From: William Beaty <billb eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 3:27 AM
Subject: Lithium


>
>Somebody mentioned lithium grease and IE magazine.  I instantly wonder:
>what will it be like to constantly breathe powdered lithium dioxide from
>hundreds of thousands of cars in a city?  Surely engines aren't already
>optimized for such things, and some lithium will exit the exhaust.  If it
>was beryllium oxide, it might kill the city (airborne beryllium oxide is
>more toxic than, say, asbestos.)  I wonder if any contemporary industries
>use lithium oxide in production, and what types of disabilities it causes
>in their workers (if any).

Gosh Bill, Lithium is used to treat depression,now I'm depressed.   :-)

It is in beets,tobacco, and broccoli and such.

Might lower "Road Rage", too.

Regards,   Frederick
>
>
>((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
>William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
>billb eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
>EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
>Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 12:38:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29056;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b1430c1dfc16 [199.237.131.234]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:34:00 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov Biot Solution (take some Tylenol)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Lsour3.0.r57.FxL7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17095
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I neglected to show examples of the reinforcing longitudinal force at the
brush points on the outer circle.  The outer circle brush points are the
symmetric equivalent to the points the inner circle central current path
(i.e. the magnet join plane, or even the inner brushes if the inner circle
is a clockwise rotating ring) meets the inner circle:


                           <----- Long. Force (LF)
                        ----->--------------->-------
                        |\            / ^          ^|
                   LF   | \          /  |         / |   ^
                    |   ^  \        v   |        /  |   |
                    |   |   \  ------>-<------  /   |   |
                    v   |    \ ^ X X X|O O O | /    v  LF
                        |     v|      |      |/     |
     (+)------->--------|      | X S X|O N O |^     |---->-- current (-)
                        |     /|      |      | \    |
                        v    / | X X X|O O O |  \   |
                        |   /  <------v------>   \  ^
                        |  /        \   ^         \ |
                        | /          \  |          \|
                        |v            v |           |
                        -------------->--------------
                                   LF ----->

                                    Fig. 10


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 12:44:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA00652;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b1430fe8e021 [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:44:32 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov Biot Solution (take some Tylenol)
Resent-Message-ID: <"hZ_dT1.0.4A.R0M7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17096
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

It appears I incorrectly stated that the action between the inner circle
central curent path and the outer circle reinforced the counter clockwise
torque.  It does not, as can be more clearly seen in Fig 10, due to the
fact the central downward arrow is in the opposite direction to the upward
inner circle current flow  (see the inner circle arrows just parallel and
to the right and left of the central current path in Fig. 10) that
generates the useful torque.  It is not a matching torque however, as the
the distance to each outer circle element is further the from the inner
ring segments, so there is still a net counter clockwise torque on the
outer ring.  A similar argument can be made for the external current loop
supplying the brush leads.


                           <----- Long. Force (LF)
                        ----->--------------->-------
                        |\            / ^          ^|
                   LF   | \          /  |         / |   ^
                    |   ^  \        v   |        /  |   |
                    |   |   \  ------>-<------  /   |   |
                    v   |    \ ^ X X X|O O O ^ /    v  LF
                        |     v|      |      |/     |
     (+)------->--------|      | X S X|O N O |^     |---->-- current (-)
                        |     /|      |      | \    |
                        v    / | X X X|O O O |  \   |
                        |   /  <------v------>   \  ^
                        |  /        \   ^         \ |
                        | /          \  |          \|
                        |v            v |           |
                        -------------->--------------
                                   LF ----->

                                    Fig. 10


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 13:02:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA04429;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:58:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:58:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b14312cd8e57 [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:57:52 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"wC0Lg1.0.251.ZHM7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17097
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:59 PM 3/27/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>QUESTION:
>

I finally feel like I can answer this with some small amount of confidence.


>If the Marinov motor torque is caused by some form of longitudinal
>force acting on the electrons in the metal ring - thus producing
>a counter-force or torque on the permanent magnets, then could we
>not expect the magnet pair in the following sketch to be acted upon
>by a force parallel to the current?
>
>          current ------>--------------->-------------------->---
>                                |-------|-------|
>                                |       |       | main magnet
>                                |   N   |   S   | flux perpendicular
>                                |       |       | to page
>                                |-------|-------|
>        ________________________O_______________O_________________
>
>The magnets would be on a free-rolling track with one degree of
>freedom parallel to the current.  I have tried to set up the
>system to simulate one side of the ring (say, the top) in a Marinov
>motor.  Now, I would guess that the magnets will not move - do any
>LF advocates think otherwise?


My estimate is the above magnets will move to the right, as per the Tylenol
solution.  If the magnets are exchanged (flipped around) they will move to
the left.


>Hey, I'm not trying to pick a fight
>here - this is just an experiment I could set up in the garage!
>One good way might be to mount the magnets on a long two-wire
>pendulum to provide a single-large-arc movement with almost zero
>resistance.

Excellent idea.  If torque ruins it you might need the two wires to be
rigid to avoid the torque. Could hang the two top ends of the pendulum in a
knife edge joints maybe, like a scale.


>Hundreds of amps from a battery could be sent thru the
>wire.  (Or, an electrolytic capacitor could be discharged thru the
>wire to provide a pulse of 100,000 amps and we could use ballistic
>pendulum techniques to detect the impulse - JOKE!)
>
>Now, the magnets would be acted upon by a CCW torque, right?
>So, the suspension would need to be "stiff" against such torques.

You already figured that out, should have read ahead.

>This is interesting - I guess there would be a "~" shaped kink put in
>the wire (slight!) by the counter-torque, in the region of the magnets.
>I could check the turning torque on my table-top turntable with a
>run of straight wire near the magnets - as in my other tests.
>Comments?
>
>Frank Stenger

Great ideas.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 13:13:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05640;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351D5E45.2F04 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:32:05 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov Biot Solution - some additions
References: <v01530505b142cade62b3 [199.237.131.234]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"HX6fY2.0._N1.cMM7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17098
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip)

> Going to bed,
> 
OK, Horace, this is sounding pretty serious!  When you wake up and get
a chance, walk me thru the following to see if I have it straight:

1. We have two finite difference like current elements L and L' with
currents i and i'.
2. We draw a distance line, r, between the centers of the two elements.
3. At each element, we draw that element as the sum of two sub-elements,
one parallel to r and the other perpendicular to r.  This gives us 4
sub-elements - two at each end of r.
4. We ignore the sub-elements at each end of r that are parallel to
r, since they exert no force on each other.  This leaves us with one
sub-element at each end of r, normal to r, and parallel to one another.
5. If these elements, il and il' are in the same direction, they attract
- if the currents are opposite, they repell.  In either case, the
force, F, is given by:

	F = k(il)(il')/r^2

where il and il' are the "amp-meter" components normal to the line, r.

Is this a right way to look at it, Horace?  I can't find a discussion
of this aspect of Biot's law in my physics books - this looks like a
powerful tool if I understand it correctly!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 16:05:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09601;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530504b14333e45469 [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:07:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov Biot Solution - some additions
Resent-Message-ID: <"YsjiM2.0.wL2.d-O7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17099
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:32 PM 3/28/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>OK, Horace, this is sounding pretty serious!  When you wake up and get
>a chance, walk me thru the following to see if I have it straight:
>
>1. We have two finite difference like current elements L and L' with
>currents i and i'.
>2. We draw a distance line, r, between the centers of the two elements.
>3. At each element, we draw that element as the sum of two sub-elements,
>one parallel to r and the other perpendicular to r.  This gives us 4
>sub-elements - two at each end of r.
>4. We ignore the sub-elements at each end of r that are parallel to
>r, since they exert no force on each other.  This leaves us with one
>sub-element at each end of r, normal to r, and parallel to one another.
>5. If these elements, il and il' are in the same direction, they attract
>- if the currents are opposite, they repell.  In either case, the
>force, F, is given by:
>
>        F = k(il)(il')/r^2
>
>where il and il' are the "amp-meter" components normal to the line, r.
>
>Is this a right way to look at it, Horace?  I can't find a discussion
>of this aspect of Biot's law in my physics books - this looks like a
>powerful tool if I understand it correctly!
>
>Frank Stenger

You have it all completely right Frank.  There is a discussion of this in
"Physics", by Samuel A. Marantz, published by Benziger Brothers,NY, 1969.
It's a high school physics text I picked up for 50 cents at an Anchorge
School District discarded book sale.

This law and/or the highly related Ampere/Biot laws were used as a basis
for defining the international current standard.  Given two very long
parallel wires carrying i and i' current, the force F per unit length L is
given by:

   F/L = K i i'/r

As of the time of the above Marantz text, the standard was in place that
the current of one ampere is "that current, present in each of two long,
parallel conductors, which will produce a force of 2.0 x 10^-7 newtons."
This makes K above 2.0x10^-7 Wb/A-m.  It's exact. Awesome, isn't it?

>From this we can see that for the Biot relation of a field due to a current
element i we have:

   B = (2.0x10^-7 Wb/A-m) i/r

and for a field due to a (small) current element:

   B = (10^-7 Wb/A-m) i l /r^2

and for our especially useful Biot relation for force between current
elements we have:

   F = (10^-7 Wb/A-m) (il) (i'l')/r^2

In your texts you probaly have this simple and beautiful law disgused as
the Biot-Savart law, where B, L and R being vectors, we have:

   dB = (u0 i/(4Pi)) (dL x R)/r^3

or

   dB = (u0 i/(4Pi)) (dL sin(theta))/r^2

and a field B at point P is given by

   B = integral dB

which all has a beauty of its own I suppose, but can't compare in simplicty
to the orginal Ampere and Biot relationships IMHO.

By fully integrating everything you avoid the inconsistancies to which
using individual current elements can lead, like conservation of momentum,
angular momentum, or energy, if I understand all this correctly.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 16:09:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA10354;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351D8FB0.1E50 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:02:56 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
References: <v01530502b14312cd8e57 [199.237.131.227]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"s8iMB1.0.iX2.p1P7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17100
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> My estimate is the above magnets will move to the right, as per the Tylenol
> solution.  If the magnets are exchanged (flipped around) they will move to
> the left.

OK, I was afraid you would say that, Horace - now I'll have to run the
test!  If you're right, then we have a new way to propel maglev
trains - with a high-current DC buss parallel to the tracks!
If you're wrong, then the Biot analysis would be in doubt.  That would
be a downer!  
On with the experiment - will report as soon as I can.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 16:18:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA19635;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:15:38 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:15:38 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530505b14342fce059 [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:21:42 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"1ISqR2.0.io4.dAP7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17101
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:02 PM 3/28/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>
>> My estimate is the above magnets will move to the right, as per the Tylenol
>> solution.  If the magnets are exchanged (flipped around) they will move to
>> the left.
>
>OK, I was afraid you would say that, Horace - now I'll have to run the
>test!  If you're right, then we have a new way to propel maglev
>trains - with a high-current DC buss parallel to the tracks!

Hey - that is not all!  If the conductor is a long circular superconductor,
we have perpetual motion, free energy!  Put lots of magnets around the
superconductor mounted on an armature and you get - free energy motor
style!


>If you're wrong, then the Biot analysis would be in doubt.  That would
>be a downer!

Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, would it!   8^)

>On with the experiment - will report as soon as I can.
>
>Frank Stenger

Bravo!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 16:40:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16621;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b143488e2f7d [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:41:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"CTO0J3.0.X34.HUP7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17102
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 7:02 PM 3/28/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>
>> My estimate is the above magnets will move to the right, as per the Tylenol
>> solution.  If the magnets are exchanged (flipped around) they will move to
>> the left.
>
>OK, I was afraid you would say that, Horace - now I'll have to run the
>test!  If you're right, then we have a new way to propel maglev
>trains - with a high-current DC buss parallel to the tracks!

Good point!  I looked at the diagram again and noted that it does not work
if the wire sgment is long in relation to the magnet size.  The wire
segment in front of the magnet should be about the length of the magnet to
prove out the Biot analytical method.

Sorry, no free train rides soon!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 16:46:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18303;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:44:03 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 00:38:33 GMT
Message-ID: <355d8f51.110695654 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <3.0.32.19980327064618.00747608 agate.net> <351BDA5B.3861B097@ecg.csg.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <351BDA5B.3861B097 ecg.csg.mot.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: <"D-Gw11.0.tT4.EbP7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17103
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:56:59 -0600, John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
wrote:

>As for my ideas.....  to be honest, they are mostly unsubstantiated day dreams
>right now.  I am currently researching energy structures in an effort to better
>understand various aether theories floating around the lists and fringe science
>web pages.  To many it is madness and a waste of time, but to me it has been
>very interesting and insightful.  At present I am inclined to design
>experiments to try an induce energy vortexes.   

For a good list of aether sites on the web see Mountain Man's pages at
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/ and go to the aether pages.   IMO the
best sites are those of Steven Rado, Alan Pendleton and Henry L Lindner.

>For the sake of a starting point I am using as premises: 
>1) A fully conserved energy resonance structure for the universe. 
>2) A fluid dynamic model to describe fluctuations in this structure.
>3) Resonance structures manipulated and/or created by exploiting frequency
>locking.
>4) Localized densities as the vehicle for practical matter/spacetime
>manipulation. 

>Granted, it is a fragile house of cards, but I feel there is some underlying
>connection between localized energy densities and observed anomalous energy
>signatures, material transmutations, and gravity augmentation.  It is my
>impression that kinetic, acoustic, thermal, and electromagnetic attempts are
>all valid approaches to the problem.  Your idea caught my attention because it
>loosely fit a sketch and notes I had made in a lab book not too long ago.  What
>do you see it doing?  How do you see it working?

I think that your approach is a very worthwhile exercise.  The only
other thing that I would do is to also try a tensile model as an
alternative to a fluid dynamic one.  If you want someone to bounce ideas
off as you do this then I would be interested.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 19:12:30 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA07975;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:08:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:08:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351DBAF9.7663 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:07:37 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: TYLENOL + CODEINE < MARINOV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"56-bt2.0.Py1.3jR7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17104
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hey, Horace.  I set up the wire plus longitudinal track as follows:

    (+)current------------->----------------------->--------------(-)
				|-----|----|-----|
				|     |    |     |
				|  N  | 3/4|  S  |
				|     | wd |     |
				|     | sp |     |
				|-----|----|-----|
	________________________O________________O___________________
	plate glass level surface           4 ball-bearing rollers

Not the pendulum, Horace, but VERY good!  I used two of the 1/4 inch dia
shafts + 2 bearings each as axles for a 12 " by 2 1/2 inch wooden
cart.
I set up my resistors to flow 46 amps thru the #12 wire straight down
the table.
With the magnets on the turntable, I got a strong CCW torque (as we
expected) with the S facing the wire as the stable orientation.

Now, the view above actually shows a TOP view of the wire and magnets.
The wheels were really under the magnet, into the page, and the glass
plate was parallel to this page.  The gap between the magnets and the
wire as shown above was about 1/8 inch.

Horace, the cart did not budge with 46 amps in the wire - even with
slight nudges from my finger.
Then, I shorted out my limiting resistors and attached one of those
crude auto altermator/starter clip-over amp meters to the wire.
About 12 feet of #12 solid copper formed the limiting resistor in this
case.
At an indicated current of about 300 amps, the wire got hot, slackened
a bit, and you could almost see the wire form a "~" near the magnet!
But, the cart did not budge!  Horace, if you were there, I think you
would agree that the longitudinal force on the wire was zero.
As a check of the interaction of the magnets and wire, I set the
magnets with the N magnet facing the wire.  At 300 amps, the force
actually pushed the cart SIDEWAYS - I could hear the bearings squeek
across the glass for about 1/4 inch!

If, you have time, Horace, check the tylenol analysis against this case.
Perhaps in your sleep-deprived state you neglected to account for all
vectors?  I haven't yet got up the guts to do it myself so it's an
"easy-for-me-to-say" kind of thing.  I like the tylenol approach - we
can't let it go down in flames!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 19:19:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA21906;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:17:23 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:17:23 -0800
Message-ID: <351DBD58.60A2 interlaced.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:17:44 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
References: <v01530500b143488e2f7d [199.237.131.227]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FU12Z3.0.CM5.1rR7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17105
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
 I looked at the diagram again and noted that it does not work
> if the wire sgment is long in relation to the magnet size.  The wire
> segment in front of the magnet should be about the length of the magnet to
> prove out the Biot analytical method.
> 
> Sorry, no free train rides soon!
> 

Hey, that's OK, as long as the basic tylenol solution is sound.  I think
it's a neat tool to use on these problems.  BTW, see the experiment
results I just sent off before this post.  SMOKIN!  (wire, that is!)
(Ref. TYLENOL+CODEINE < MARINOV)

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 20:04:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28723;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:02:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:02:22 -0800
Message-ID: <351DBAAC.41F3 earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:06:20 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rmforall earthlink.net, Vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Hilster: Autodynamics
Content-Type: message/news
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"B3Hde2.0.h07.CVS7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17106
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: David de Hilster <dehilster earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,alt.startrek,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: New Book on Next Theory after Einstien
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:01:19 -0800
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Message-ID: <351D8F4B.D88D50C5 earthlink.net>
Reply-To: dehilster earthlink.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.34.79.206
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Xref: nntp.earthlink.net sci.physics.fusion:21008 sci.physics.accelerators:3033 alt.startrek:59764 rec.arts.sf.science:48491

---------------------------------------------------------
       P  R  E  S  S       R  E  L  E  A  S  E
---------------------------------------------------------

                      from the

     Society For the Advancement of Autodynamics

                 801 Pine Ave. #211
               Long Beach, CA  90813
             http://www.autodynamics.org
             email: saa autodynamics.org

---------------------------------------------------------
       P  R  E  S  S       R  E  L  E  A  S  E
---------------------------------------------------------
 

Friday March 27, 1998
 

For Immediate Release:
 
 

A new physics revolution is taking place.  A growing
number of students, engineers, and physicists around
the world have embraced this revolution and are beginning
to create the physics of the next millennium.  An now
there is a book available on the subject.

The book and theory is called “Autodynamics”: the next
paradigm in physics. In 1941, Ricardo Carezani, an
Argentinean physicist now living in Long Beach California,
found an error in Special Relativity, corrected it, and
discovered what Einstein came close, but never found.

After years of seclusion in Peron’s Argentina and many
years of hard work, the next great theory after Einstein
is finally available for all to read.
 

THE SAA & THE INTERNET

In 1994, the Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics
(the SAA) was established and in April of 1995, they
established a website, massing the most comprehensive
body of literature on this new theory.

Today, the SAA’s site attracts hundreds of new visitors a
day (over 100,000 visits since its inception) at its
website http://www.autodynamics.org.  There, visitors
find over a 100 pages of information on the subject
from simple articles for the layman, to technical articles
for hard-core physicists.
 

THE BOOK

Until now, the web was the most comprehensive collection
of works published on Autodynamics.  The publishing of
the SAA’s new book has changed all that.  After almost a
year of editing, including new material not available on
the web, this book represents a more comprehensive and
organized work, presenting the reader with virtually
everything known to date on the subject.

The book measures 8 1/2" x 11" (22 cm x 28 cm) and is
over 220 pages.
 

EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK

“...A brilliant young physics student in Argentina changed
all that.  Thanks to Ricardo Carezani, Scientists of the
third millennium will be able to look upon the 20th century
in a new light. Carezani shed that new light in 1943,
while the entire world was at war.  The age of the
enlightened physics of Autodynamics can said to have
occupied more than half the 20th century.  Ironically,
the most famous physics equation of the century - E = mc^2
discovered by Einstein - will be looked at not as the
first equation of Special Relativity, but of Autodynamics.
The familiar Special Relativity equations that described
the paradoxical world of increasing mass, decreasing
length, and dilation of time, will turn out to be a
footnote to a the simpler equations of Autodynamics that
describe the most basic action of the universe:  the
transformation of mass into energy (decay), and energy
into mass (energy absorption).”
 

COVER QUOTES:

(About the AD mass equation)

"... it is evident that if this equation is confirmed
and accepted as correct, world-renown and accepted
theories will be cast aside; this would significantly
modify the concept of many physical laws and the way man
wages his everyday battle to discover the intricate
building blocks of matter."

 - Engineer N. Alba, Reviewer of the first book on AD
   Published in 1951

"After all, the author has discovered in his "Autodynamics"
formulas a mathematical format which is able to fit all
the experimental data. ( I am taking the authors word that
it is so). This in itself is worthy of notice. Both Galileo
(Galilee) and Kepler really did not do any more than this."

 - From the Physic Essays' reviewer on  "Nucleus-Nucleus
   Collision and Autodynamics" paper.

"The most comprehensive and important work in physics since
Issac Newton."  -David de Hilster, SAA President
 

ORDER ONLINE

You can order your book online from the web at:

http://www.autodynamics.org

Credit cards accepted.

One can order by email by sending their name, address,
title, reason for buying, and form of payment to
book autodynamics.org.

Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.
 

COST

It cost $20 US for domestic (US) orders and $30 US for
international orders.  Delivery is included.  Rush orders
are extra.
 

FREE COPY FOR TEACHERS

The SAA is offering the book at no cost to teachers,
physics professor, and instructors.  Proof of position as
an instructor is needed to qualify.

This is a limited time offer.
 


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 20:05:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28974;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:03:44 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:03:44 -0800
Message-ID: <351DBAFE.6D24 earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:07:42 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
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: Death of Water Fuel Cell Pioneer Stanley A. Meyer
Content-Type: message/news
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"TRR_P1.0.T47.TWS7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17107
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Path: nntp.earthlink.net!news.alt.net!wnfeed!worldnet.att.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
From: lightner dmv.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of Water Fuel Cell Pioneer Stanley A. Meyer
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:51:24 -0600
Organization: http://www.blacklightpower.com/
Message-ID: <6fkcqj$78k$1 nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.146.27.45
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Mar 29 02:51:24 1998 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.02 [en] (Win16; I)

SERVICE HELD FOR GROVE CITY INVENTOR

March 27, 1998


    A memorial service was held last night for a Grove City inventor who  was
dead on arrival at Mount Carmel Medical Center after he became ill last
Friday night at a Grove City restaurant.

    Stanley A. Meyer, 57, suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm, said  Dr.
William Adrion, Franklin County coroner. However, Adrion will wait for
results of a toxicology examination before ruling on the cause of death, said
 Capt. Dennis Deskins of the Grove City police department.

    For at least the past 20 years, Meyer has been working on a water fuel
cell, a process that he claimed could cheaply remove massive amounts of
hydrogen from water and create fuel for everything from automobile engines  to
power plants and spaceships.

    Meyer's wife, Marilyn, other relatives and his attorney  refused to
comment. The memorial service was held at Evans Funeral Home, 4171 E.
Livingston Ave.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Received by H2OPWRD aol.com Friday 3/27/98 9:30PM

Hello,

I've noticed your posts in sci.energy.hydrogen concerning Stan Meyer's water
fuel cell technology.  Thought you might be interested that he passed away
last Friday.

He was eating dinner at a Grove City, OH restaurant, when he jumped up from
the table, yelled that he'd been poisoned, and rushed out into the parking
lot, where he collapsed and died.

He had just secured funding for a $50 million research center near Grove City,
and there was a police cordon set up around the land where the center was to
be built and around his home.

Eyewitnesses reported a number of local police and "men talking to their
sleeves" at the house.  His widow, family, and lawyer had no comment for the
local press.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 20:20:51 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA31560;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:18:29 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:18:29 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b1437d0ee8c5 [199.237.131.248]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:24:48 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
Resent-Message-ID: <"dQ4z23.0.2j7.JkS7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17109
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Since I may not be on vortex tomorrow, I would like to wish Happy Birthday
to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 20:21:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA31245;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:16:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:16:06 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b143729e7518 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 19:22:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: TYLENOL + CODEINE < MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"yf_vT3.0.yd7.3iS7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17108
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:07 PM 3/28/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip cool experiment]
>
>If, you have time, Horace, check the tylenol analysis against this case.
>Perhaps in your sleep-deprived state you neglected to account for all
>vectors?  I haven't yet got up the guts to do it myself so it's an
>"easy-for-me-to-say" kind of thing.  I like the tylenol approach - we
>can't let it go down in flames!
>
>Frank Stenger


Frank,

Great experiment!  I'm really glad you did it.  It may be a valuable
example regarding not Biot, but possibly some longitudinal force laws.
Besides, if a miracle occurred and it worked, we'd all be celebrating!

I'm really burned out and may take some time off tomorrow.  I think it's
time to do some serious analysis and I intend to write a computer program
to at least do a planar model.  That would permit quantitative results and
also possibly eventually  permit comparing Biot against Marinov for some
specific designs.  Here is what I have in mind for a planar model:

            --------------------------<--------------------------
            |                               i                   |
            |                                                   |
            |                 i                                 |
            |           -------------->--------------           |
            |           |                           |           |
            v i         |                           |           ^ i
            |           ^          i       i        v           |
            |           |      ------>-<------      |           |
            |    2i     |      ^      |      ^      |     2i    |
            |-->--------|      |      |2i    |      |---->------| current (-)
            |           |      |      |      |      |           |
            |           |      |      v      |      ^           |
            |           v      <------------->      |           |
            ^ i         |                           |           v i
            |           |                           |           |
            |           |           i               |           |
            |           -------------->--------------           |
            |                                                   |
            |                               i                   |
            --------------------------<--------------------------

The boxes above will be circular with lots of current elements.  Using
Biot's law for current elements, the model will compute total longitudinal
(tangential) force on the rings. It will be assumed everything is
stationary or that the outer circle (the ring) has a velocity (only
required for the Marinov evaluation.)  Does all this sound OK?

I still think it is very important to find out why Jeff Kooistra has a
hummin motor and you don't Frank, despite your excellent craftsmanship.
Maybe George could help out with that?  It would be nice if Jeff joined
vortex.  Also, if we get a good quantitative model then maybe the tests can
be further improved and made more definitive.

BTW in your write-up of the Biot equation for small current segments I
noticed you used a term that I keep getting wrong: il', which is supposed
to be i'l', but your description of it was correct.  Also, I wrote "By
fully integrating everything you avoid the inconsistancies to which using
individual current elements can lead, like conservation of momentum,
angular momentum, or energy, if I understand all this correctly."  I meant
to say "By fully integrating everything you avoid the inconsistancies to
which using individual current elements can lead, like *non-conservation*
of momentum, angular momentum, or energy."  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 21:50:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA13032;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:48:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:48:42 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 00:42:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman antioch-college.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>,
        John Schnurer <herman college.antioch-college.edu>
Subject: WSU Seminar, 4/1/98 (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980329004023.8899B-100000 college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dukij2.0.YB3.u2U7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17111
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	My old physics prof sent me this note.... and Vos in the area, 
come on down.  WSU= Wright state University, in Fairborn, Ohio, about 
2/10 miles from WPAFB.

			JHS


I just got  notice of a seminar talk on Wednesday, April 1   3:00 PM in 
201 Fawcett at Wright State.  A senior physics major, Jason P. Hundley, 
is to describe his work on "Possible Weight Reduction of a Mass Suspended 
Above a High Tc Superconductor". Says he will refer to "other research 
efforts".  I plan to go.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 21:58:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA14320;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:56:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:56:11 -0800
Message-ID: <351DE28D.19A0 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 00:56:29 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: TYLENOL + CODEINE < MARINOV
References: <v01530501b143729e7518 [199.237.131.236]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"USV9D.0.bV3.v9U7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17112
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip outline of computation plan)

  Does all this sound OK?

Sure, Horace.
> 
> I still think it is very important to find out why Jeff Kooistra has a
> hummin motor and you don't Frank, despite your excellent craftsmanship.

Horace, I think my weak magnets and high brush drag could explain
my no ring rotation result.  If your computer analysis shows something
fishy with the ring torque, maybe we can think up some doable way to
get low-friction contacts on my otherwise good ring rotor.

> Maybe George could help out with that?  It would be nice if Jeff joined
> vortex.  Also, if we get a good quantitative model then maybe the tests can
> be further improved and made more definitive.

Yes!

> 
> BTW in your write-up of the Biot equation for small current segments I
> noticed you used a term that I keep getting wrong: il', which is supposed
> to be i'l', but your description of it was correct.  

Yes, I worried a bit about the symbology, but, I think I get the
picture.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 23:03:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA03438;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:59:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b143a0e6b632 [12.64.35.125]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530505b14342fce059 [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:57:17 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"xUktM1.0.dr._4V7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17113
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  Hey - that is not all!  If the conductor is a long
   >  circular superconductor, we have perpetual
   >  motion, free energy!  Put lots of magnets around
   >  the superconductor mounted on an armature and
   >  you get - free energy motor style!

Hey, that's what I've been saying. Now replace your superconductor with all
your old SMOT magnets, and you'd have a rotary SMOT.

See? Just one little problem...

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 23:14:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA24158;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:11:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:11:16 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1439c87af16 [12.64.35.125]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b14312cd8e57 [199.237.131.227]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:10:52 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: QUESTION - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"YCayj1.0.Av5.HGV7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17114
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

>>If the Marinov motor torque is caused by some form of longitudinal
>>force acting on the electrons in the metal ring - thus producing
>>a counter-force or torque on the permanent magnets, then could we
>>not expect the magnet pair in the following sketch to be acted upon
>>by a force parallel to the current?
>>
>>          current ------>--------------->-------------------->---
>>                                |-------|-------|
>>                                |       |       | main magnet
>>                                |   N   |   S   | flux perpendicular
>>                                |       |       | to page
>>                                |-------|-------|
>>        ________________________O_______________O_________________

   >  My estimate is the above magnets will move to the
   >  right, as per the Tylenol solution.  If the magnets
   >  are exchanged (flipped around) they will move to
   >  the left.

FWIW, mine is that the two-magnet assembly will want to twist about an axis
between them and normal to the page. Draw your x's and o's around the wire,
and a big O and X for the N and S poles of the magnets. They will rotate 90
degrees and align with the x's and o's from the wire. I pretty much just
did this experiment with the ring fixed and the steel bars and magnets (and
just plain steel) free to rotate. Not sure *which* way the above will
rotate though; still waiting for my Excedrin to kick in.

***** Ok, just saw Frank's experimental results, guess my guess (would
have) been good. Good job Frank!

I also did some experiments yesterday where I had a rod set across some
other rods for current contacts, and had some of those SMOT arrays close to
the current carrying rod. No longitudinal movement in the rod, although I
had to check the polarity of the SMOT magnets by nearly getting hit in the
face with the rod the first time I tried it.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 23:48:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA12365;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:46:09 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:46:09 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b143a34e4445 [199.237.131.248]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:52:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov - brush number, etc.
Resent-Message-ID: <"MAG9l2.0.-03.-mV7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17115
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The first look at force vectors for the Marinov motor seemed to indicate
that short segments between brushes is better.  For that reason 4 and 8
brush variations, polarity alternating between brushes, should be
numerically analysed, multiple magnets, and an internal ring with multiple
brush locations.

Also a linear motor might be examined (* is brush):


              |         |         |         |         |
              v         ^         v         ^         v
              |         |         |         |         |
              *         *         *         *         *               rail
    -------------->----------<-------->---------<--------------  <=== motion
           ---->---- ----<---- ---->---- ----<---- ---->----
           |       | |       | |       | |       | |       |
           ^       v v       ^ ^       v v       ^ ^       v
           |       | |       | |       | |       | |       |
           ----<---- ---->---- ----<---- ---->---- ----<----


In addition, Marinov's formula should be looked at as applied to particle
accelerators, because v'/c for most magnets is about 0.01, thus it should
be feasible to accelerate near light speed particles with only a
longitudinal magnetic field if Marinov's formula holds true.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 23:48:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA12610;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:46:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:46:31 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <bc2f856b.351dfc22 aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 02:45:36 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"6D0YE.0.i43.KnV7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17116
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In a message dated 98-03-28 23:20:17 EST, you write:
> Since I may not be on vortex tomorrow, I would like to wish Happy Birthday
>  to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber.
>  Regards,
>  Horace Heffner 

Wow!  My bd Sunday also!
 
Happy Birthday Fred and Martin.

Vince
Las Vegas 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sat Mar 28 23:57:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA16394;
	Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b143af030467 [199.237.131.225]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:58:24 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
Resent-Message-ID: <"vgZkK2.0.404.-tV7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17117
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:45 AM 3/29/98, VCockeram wrote:
>In a message dated 98-03-28 23:20:17 EST, you write:
>> Since I may not be on vortex tomorrow, I would like to wish Happy Birthday
>>  to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber.
>>  Regards,
>>  Horace Heffner
>
>Wow!  My bd Sunday also!
>
>Happy Birthday Fred and Martin.
>
>Vince
>Las Vegas

Happy Birthday Vince!

Horace


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 02:50:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA00710;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 02:48:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 02:48:12 -0800
Message-ID: <00e801bd5aff$d96558e0$3e8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 03:45:46 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"sBbiN3.0.xA.gRY7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17118
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber

It is your Birthday Too Horace, or do you want to forget?    :-)

Happy Birthday Horace Heffner!

Lets Party!

Regards,  Frederick


>At 2:45 AM 3/29/98, VCockeram wrote:
>>In a message dated 98-03-28 23:20:17 EST, you write:
>>> Since I may not be on vortex tomorrow, I would like to wish Happy
Birthday
>>>  to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber.
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Horace Heffner
>>
>>Wow!  My bd Sunday also!
>>
>>Happy Birthday Fred and Martin.
>>
>>Vince
>>Las Vegas
>
>Happy Birthday Vince!
>
>Horace
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 05:17:09 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA15977;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:16:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:16:02 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:15:54 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803291315.FAA09315 slave1.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"7GVww3.0.Yv3.Hca7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17119
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>< Is this your idea or did you read this somewhere?>
>
>It's a direct quote from Schauberger's notes.  He was working on Project
>Saucer in Mauthausen Concentration Camp at the time.

        Well, I can only venture a guess, but it would seem that since
Schauberger was an Austrian, and he was working for the Germans during the
war, then he was probably writing his notes in the German language as well.
That would be the most natural thing for him to do in that situation, I
would think, and he was a naturalist, after all.  That would make your
direct quote a direct translation of a quote by someone named Olof
Alexandersson, whose name doesn't look German or English.  It looks kind of
Swedish actually.  Now, I have met a fair number of Germans and several
Swedes that speak English better than I do, but I suspect that this just may
be a case of poor translation.  Is the Andersson book a translation, or the
quote itself a translation?  Both maybe?  It may prove enlightening to have
the original notes, provided they are authentic, and have them retranslated
by a fluids scientist who is also bi-lingual.  If you have copies of the
actual notes, I have friends with the appropriate skills and background that
could give the notes another look.  There may be a crucial bit of meaning
surrounding the use of the word "colloidal" that is being lost. It may be
worth the effort to track it down.  

>
>There are many articles documenting the Schriever-Habermohl flying disc
>which flew in Prague in 1944.  It flew vertically reaching a height of 12
>km in 3.12 mins and at a horizontal flying speed of 2000 km/h.  This was
>around the same time Schauberger was "requested" to join in the Project.

        There is a sort of flying disk that works on the principles that
Schauberger was working on, called a Bernoulli Box.  I've been meaning to
chase down the patents on that one for some time to get a look at the exact
geometry of it, but it is essentially a levitating, rotating disk that is
used as a data storage medium for computers, much like a Winchester hard
disk drive.  The difference is that it is air driven instead of motor
driven, and relies on shock waves to make it levitate.  Iomega manufactures
them.  It looks like the Schriever-Habermohl thing got a little better
performance, but, again, I have to wonder about the authenticity of the
articles.  They may be articles about articles about translations of
articles written during a time when disinformation was being refined to an
artform for propaganda purposes.

        The German press and the press of the countries that the Germans
occupied were the personal property of Hermann Goebels, and they were all
saying basically the same thing, "We have fantastic new weapons, and we are
winning the war!".  Of course, it was all obviously untrue, but I don't
think that Goebels had any trouble finding people to say anything that he
wanted them to say.

        It was 54 years ago, so there should be a few eyewitnesses still
around, although most would have been children then.  Prague is also a large
city, so there should be a relatively large number, but you have to remember
that by 1944 all of Europe was like a giant blender demographically.  People
from 30 or 40 countries were displaced, massive amounts of records were
being destroyed, and the general situation was insane.  Verifying even the
location of an eyewitness at any given point in time back then would be
impossible today.
   
        I spent eight years over there, and interviewed hundreds of war
survivors.  By 1944, most people were either looking for food, looking for
lost relatives, or just looking down.  They were all separated from their
loved ones, and far from their homes.  Nobody actually believed anything
that was printed in the press anymore, no matter how desperate they were to
believe that there would be some sort of positive outcome for them.  And the
press reports only got wilder as the war came to a close.

        It was not what I would consider an ideal situation for accurate
scientific reporting, and I don't think that re-reporting anything that was
written under those circumstances is such a red hot idea either.  It's more
like another campfire story than anything.

>
>You could check out  "Living Water" by Olof Alexandersson ISBN 0 946551 57X
>(which is where I picked up this quote)  and a nice man by the name of Jim
>Day emailed me with some other refs, which I can't seem to find on my
>cluttered HD....perhaps you could repost them generally please Jim?

        If you go to the SciAm webpage, and type the word "vortex" into
their site search engine, you will get about twenty articles that are
pertinent to Schauberger's work.  There are good articles about the
properties of sharkskin, tornadoes, and a fantastic article with incredible
photos showing dolphins that blow air rings in water. and then swim through
them.  I don't recall Schauberger's name mentioned (maybe for political
reasons, who knows), but Bernoulli was credited, as well as all the current
American researchers.

>
><As for this form of vortex movement having the ability to carry with
>it its own means of power generation, well...  If you could enlighten us as
>to how exactly that is supposed to work>
>
>If I could do that I'd build one myself.  There are enough engineers around
>this group to brainstorm it.....aren't there???
  
        While I admire your attitude toward building one, I don't think that
there are enough engineers, period.  This list has only a handful of people
that I would call engineers. -Knuke

>
>-Soo
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 06:14:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA22686;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:13:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:13:10 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b14404e1dba3 [199.237.131.225]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:19:13 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"aVOTn.0.OY5.rRb7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17120
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is the simplest possible test I have found for a Biot based
longitudinal force:

              --(+)-P----
              |         |
              v         ^
        (+)   |         |  (-)
              *         *            B                            rail
    -------------->----------------------------------------  <=== motion
           ---->---- ----<----
           |       | |       |
           ^   S   v v   N   ^
           |       | |       |
           ----<---- ---->----


    * - brush
    > - current direction
    B - bearing, if rail is a wheel or ring
    P - power source

The magnets could be coils of wire with current flowing in the designated
direction.  The above design could be flipped over and the rail could be
comprised of a piece of copper laying on two contact points.  If the rail
scoots to the left then the longitudinal force is confirmed and Biot is
verified.  True?

To make a motor make the rail a conductive ring or disk and place bearing
at B.  What do you all think?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 06:22:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09972;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b1440985f29b [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:25:42 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nk_U.0.kR2.DZb7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17121
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is the simplest possible test I have found for a Biot based
longitudinal force:

              --(+)-P----
              |         |
              v         ^
        (+)   |         |  (-)
              *         *            B                     rail
    -------------->---------------------------------  <=== motion
           ---->---- ----<----
           |       | |       |
           ^   S   v v   N   ^
           |       | |       |
           ----<---- ---->----


    * - brush
    > - current direction
    B - bearing, if rail is a wheel or ring
    P - power source

Since the power current loop will cause the rail to be pushed towards the
magnets, the brush points should be on the opposite side of the rail from
that shown above, but the power loop still above the rail as shown.  This
is then a right side up picture of the test.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 06:38:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA25154;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:37:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:37:13 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b1440dcdf43c [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 05:43:33 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Puthoff and Shoulders confirmed?
Cc: Puthoff aol.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fu4VZ3.0.s86.Nob7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17122
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hal Puthoff has published theoretical rational for the formation of
condensed charge, balls of electrons.  This looks like a step towards
confirmation of his theory (just need to cram a lot more electrons in
there):

At 10:56 AM 3/27/98, AIP listserver wrote:
>PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
>The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
>Number 364 March 27, 1998   by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
>
>WEIRD BEHAVIOR IN QUANTUM DOTS. Interesting things
>happen when particles are confined in a tiny box.  Researchers at MIT
>led by Raymond Ashoori (617-253-5585) make themselves such a
>box, a quantum dot, out of semiconductors---a layer of gallium
>arsenide between layers of aluminum gallium arsenide.  On top of this
>sandwich sits a metal gate electrode which attracts electrons into the
>dot and controls the arrival or departure of electrons one at a time.
>Building up from just one electron, the MIT physicists collect a puddle
>of electrons and observe how the arrival of each newcomer must
>overcome (with the help of an increasing gate voltage) the mutual
>repulsion ("Coulomb blockade") of  those already in place.  For small
>dots (0.2 microns across) a graph of charge-vs-voltage would look
>like a staircase.  Such an effect is at the heart of single-electron
>transistors (SET), which act as sensitive detectors of electrical charge
>(just as superconducting quantum interference devices---SQUIDS---
>are sensitive detectors of magnetic flux).  For larger dots (0.5-1.2
>microns across), containing fewer than several hundred electrons, the
>MIT scientists were astonished to observe an unexpected and
>mysterious pairing: for each stepwise voltage increase not one but two
>electrons were able to join the puddle.  The pairing has not yet been
>explained but the data strongly suggest that it arises from a novel
>quantum effect that develops whenever electrons are localized into
>spatially isolated regions within the dots.  For medium-sized dots (0.5
>microns) the physics gets even weirder: the pairing occurs only for
>every fourth or fifth electron.  The goal now is to understand the
>underlying pairing mechanism. (Talk at the last week's APS meeting
>in Los Angeles.)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 07:08:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA14049;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 07:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 07:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803291501.KAA08708 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Re: WSU Seminar, 4/1/98 (fwd)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 98 10:04:26 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"xrSdP.0.QR3.5Cc7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17123
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> just got  notice of a seminar talk on Wednesday, April 1   3:00 PM in 
>201 Fawcett at Wright State.  A senior physics major, Jason P. Hundley, 
>is to describe his work on "Possible Weight Reduction of a Mass Suspended 
>Above a High Tc Superconductor". Says he will refer to "other research 
>efforts".  I plan to go.

John,

I hope you go and tape record this seminar. Please send me an audio tape 
if it turns out to have any meat in it. Need it for Infinite Energy. 
We'll transcribe it and post it on Vortex.

Best, 

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  Sun Mar 29 08:42:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04508;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803291635.LAA18244 mercury.mv.net>
Subject: Meyer IS dead
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 98 11:38:39 -0500
x-sender: zeropoint-ed pop.mv.net
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: "E.F. Mallove" <editor infinite-energy.com>
To: "VORTEX" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Message-ID: <"IkjAr1.0.H61.Fad7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17124
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

I just called the funeral home listed in the announcement of Meyer's 
death. I used directory information to get the number. The gentleman 
there at Evans Funeral Home confirms that Meyer had indeed died and that 
there was a service there. I hope this ends speculation about the reality 
of Meyer's death.

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  Sun Mar 29 08:49:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06340;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351E7AC1.4949 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 11:45:53 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
References: <v01530502b1440985f29b [199.237.131.223]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"7-cPT.0.vY1.Aid7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17125
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> Here is the simplest possible test I have found for a Biot based
> longitudinal force:
> 
>               --(+)-P----
>               |         |
>               v         ^
>         (+)   |         |  (-)
>               *         *            B                     rail
>     -------------->---------------------------------  <=== motion
>            ---->---- ----<----
>            |       | |       |
>            ^   S   v v   N   ^
>            |       | |       |
>            ----<---- ---->----
> 
>     * - brush
>     > - current direction
>     B - bearing, if rail is a wheel or ring
>     P - power source
> 
> Since the power current loop will cause the rail to be pushed towards the
> magnets, the brush points should be on the opposite side of the rail from
> that shown above, but the power loop still above the rail as shown.  This
> is then a right side up picture of the test.
> 
Horace, it's too bad the feed lines need to be opposite the magnets.
If they didn't, we could use a stiff conducting rod for the rail and
hang it from two pendulum-like feed wires at positions far to the left
and right.  I'm trying to get rid of brushes here!  However, if the 
feed wires are close as you show, I think both will be acted upon by
a Lorentz force to the left - so I could not get a good answer on the
horizontal rail force.  But, my tests (and Rick's) indicate no 
longitudinal force if the feeds are very remote. (just torque)
Now, if your analysis shows that an LF is produced in your sketch above,
doesn't it have to come from the feed lines? - or are the missing
far-rail currents a big deal?
Confused as usual ------ Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 10:11:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25148;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b1442f6551f5 [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:42:42 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"1vUSr1.0.n86.bre7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17126
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:45 AM 3/29/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>But, my tests (and Rick's) indicate no
>longitudinal force if the feeds are very remote. (just torque)


Whena you pointed out unlikely consequences like rail travel, free energy,
etc., causing me to take a second harder look, the effect of the rest of
the rail is exactly what I found.  If the rail is infinite, you can look at
each magnet current loop separately - and it doesn't matter where on the
rail they are!  So you can just look at a single current loop near the
rail:

    -----------X------------------------>-----------
           ---->----
           |       |
           ^   S   v
           |       |
           ----<----

By symmetry, the pull from the right on the wire past X is equal to the
pull from the left of X.  I suppose if the wire were a fluid in a narrow
container you could see the level increase at X from the compression.

>Now, if your analysis shows that an LF is produced in your sketch above,
>doesn't it have to come from the feed lines?

No, the power feed lines all reinforce to push the rail away from them, and
the longitudinal component on the rail from the feed loop is zero. That is
why I suggested putting the brushes on the side opposite the power feed
loop, so the rail would be pushed into the brushes making better contact.
I think The brushes might best be holes very close to the size of the
rails, and in something held nice and rigid, mounted in a solid frame with
the feed lines and the magnets.  Carbon or graphite might make a good
brush.


>- or are the missing
>far-rail currents a big deal?

Yes.  They are a prime issue.

Here is another prime issue. The test may not show anything conclusive. The
suggested direction of rail motion is the same as you would get from the
Lorentz effect of the magnetic fields on the lateral current entering and
leaving the rail.  8^(

To be a really good test, the magnetic field at the brush points from the
magnets would have to be nullified.


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 10:24:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28673;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b14438e68d88 [199.237.131.244]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:25:29 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"5FyS61.0.r_6.04f7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17127
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

OK, here is a good LF test, as far as I can see. No Lorentz forces I can
see, only Biot.  We need to take a careful look at that though.  Here is
side view:



        L      M       R
       | |    | |     | |
       | |    | |     | |
       |~|    |~|     |~|
       | |    | |     | |
->---=======================-------->-----------  "rail" very long
           ---->-c--                              both directions
           |       |
         a ^   S   v b
           |       |
           --d-<----

-->--  - wire with current direction indicated by >

===== - thin horizontal tube filled with mercury

 | |  - vertical glass column

 |~|  - mercury level


Now, with current left to right in the rail, as shown, Biot shows the
effects of the two opposing direction vertical current segments a and b of
the magnet and the horizontal leg c all will casue a pressure increase in
the mercury in the center column.  Only the more remote leg d opposes the
compression. Since there is no lateral brush current todeal with, and the
Biot analysis shows a clear compression force toward the central column,
and Lorentz does not, the test is definitive.  With rail current directed
to the right as shown, columns L and R should drop, and column M should
rise.  The difference in column height can be used to measure the force.
If the current direction is reversed, column M shoulld drop below level,
and columns L and R rise.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 10:42:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03301;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351E94C2.5CB4 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 13:36:50 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5phN_3.0.Tp.DKf7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17128
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace, Rick, others:

As a mechanical engineer, I should have spotted this before!
Consider:

  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
			|---<---|--->---|
			|	|	|
			V   N   ^   S   V
			|	|	|
			|--->---|---<---|
  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current


Now, in the sketch I show two parallel current conductors passing
above and below a standard Marinov magnet set.  The two conductor
segments Hg-->---tt--->--Hg in the top and bottom current lines are
simulating the top and bottom ring halves of a Marinov ring.

Now, a more subtle feature is that these two conductor segments are
mounted on a single rotor just as the Marinov ring would be.
If the main current conductors were not in the way, they would rotate
around the magnets just like a ring would.
Now, let's assume that we have somehow used blobs of Hg to complete
the circuits between the short segments and the main current lines.

Rick and I have already shown the obvious fact that, if the short
segments were pivoted - individually for a moment - at the points tt,
then the short segments would BOTH tend to torque CW as you can see
from the equivalent magnet currents shown in the sketch.  This can be
thought of as a simple "parallel-same-direction currents attract and
parallel-opposite-direction currents repel" effect.  The segments
would turn CW like see-saws until our Hg blobs broke circuit and stopped
the effect.

Now, back to the Marinov rotor case - with both segments rigidly fixed
to a single rotating body.  Now, if the current flows, the short
segments WILL STILL TEND TO ROTATE CW, AND, BECAUSE THEY ARE FIXED TO
A ROTOR, CAN ONLY CAUSE THE ROTOR TO ROTATE CW.  The rotor would do
this until the very limited movement of our Hg blobs failed and the
segments bumped into the ends of the main current conductors.
However, if the short segments were curved into circular ring halves,
the two torques at the tt points would still exist.  But now, since
we could feed the current thru brushes the ring segments could continue
to rotate and be continuously "renewed" by new ring sliding from under
the brushes.

The mechanical principle here is that a pure torque (i.e., a balanced
force couple) acting on ANY point of a rigid body will cause rotation
of that body about ANY axis, parallel to the torque vector, that the
body is free to rotate about.  In the case of the Marinov ring, that
axis is the axis of the rotor that supports the ring.  Hence, Jeff's
hummin motor!

At this point I think I (and Rick, right, Rick?) can vouch for the
individual torques about the tt points from our own tests.

I think my ring fails to rotate because I have relatively weak magnets
and high brush drag for my current level.

You can try this torque thing by using a long, flexible piece of plastic
rod or hose or a long spring to apply a torque to any turntable-like
thing around the house (fan, etc.).  It doesn't matter where the flex
rod is attached to the rotor - it turns just the same.
(HINT: use duct tape to stick it to the rotor - Red Green wise)

OK, discuss!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 11:10:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09559;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 11:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 11:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530504b144448e4ab5 [199.237.131.244]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:44:21 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest comprehensive LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"wjPd61.0.BL2.ojf7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17129
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

OK, here is a good LF test, as far as I can see. No Lorentz forces I can
see, except an upward force of the mercury into the column at the column
entry. Other than that, only Biot.  We need to take a careful look at that
though.  Here is side view:



        L      M       R
       | |    | |     | |
       | |    | |     | |
       |~|    |~|     |~|
       | |    | |     | |
->---=======================-------->-----------  "rail" very long
           ---->-c--                              both directions
           |       |
         a ^   S   v b
           |       |
           --d-<----

-->--  - wire with current direction indicated by >

===== - thin horizontal tube filled with mercury

 | |  - vertical glass column

 |~|  - mercury level


Possibly the mercury feed to column M could be taken at a horizontal or
downward angle, to prevent a Lorentz magnetohydrodymanic force from
increasing the pressure in the column.  At least the Lorentz pressure
applies the same direction to all columns, but unfortunately the field
strength would not be the same at the mercury feed to each column. An
alternate approach is to nullify the magnetic field at the mercury feed
point to the columns.

Now, with current left to right in the rail, as shown, Biot shows the
effects of the two opposing direction vertical current segments a and b of
the magnet and the horizontal leg c all will casue a pressure increase in
the mercury in the center column.  Only the more remote leg d opposes the
compression. Since there is no lateral brush current to deal with, and the
Biot analysis shows a clear compression force toward the central column,
and Lorentz does not, the test is definitive.  With rail current directed
to the right as shown, columns L and R should drop, and column M should
rise.  The difference in column height can be used to measure the force.
If the current direction is reversed, column M should drop below level, and
columns L and R rise.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 14:10:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA18984;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:05:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "R. Wormus" <rwormus lock-load.com>
Reply-To: rwormus lock-load.com
To: "Francis J. Stenger" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 12:04:18 -0700
Message-ID: <yam7392.910.137034656 mail.frii.com>
In-Reply-To: <351E94C2.5CB4 interlaced.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [040] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: LOCK+LOAD <R.  Wormus>
Subject: Re: Ball Lightining
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"kSmlD1.0.Te4.sMi7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17130
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank,
Here is alead for your Ball Lightining Project.  Keep us posted
__Ron


From: <stef mat.uni.torun.pl>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.plasma
Subject: RE : theory of BALL LIGHTNING
Date: 26 Mar 1998 11:07:45 -0500
Organization: Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika
Lines: 30
Sender: jmckelli cs.uml.edu
Approved: plasma woods.uml.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.980326164552.12671B-100000 Leon>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jupiter.cs.uml.edu
Xref: news.frii.com sci.physics.plasma:1112


Dear Sir,

I'm very interested in Your theory of BALL LIGHTNING.
Would You please send me more details (on-line paper).

If You haven't got Your paper on-line, please
let me know how to receive printed copy.

Yours Faithfully
Stefan Dydel, 
Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, 
Torun, Poland

stef mat.uni.torun.pl


/I made a theory of BALL LIGHTNIG. Theoretical model has been designed.
/Laboratory test have been carried out to confirm the theoretical model.
/A final complation of descript is nessesarry and making of total test
/condition.


/E-mail address: bluejo nts-varna.bg

/D-r eng. George-Mario Christov





From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 14:22:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21697;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b144788a94e2 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 13:21:37 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest comprehensive LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"PlHZ.0.vI5.NXi7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17131
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I built the following apparatus minus mercury, which  I do not have. The
tubes ware all 1/8" Tygon with 1/32" walls.  The gaps between L and M, and
M and R, were about 6". I used nichrome electrodes.  Since there was no
mercury I used 1g NaOH in 300 ml deionized water. Current at 32 V was only
2.7 mA, not nearly enough to do anything, but I thought it was worth a shot
anyway.



        L      M       R
       | |    | |     | |
       | |    | |     | |
       |~|    |~|     |~|
       | |    | |     | |
->---=======================-------->-----------  "rail" very long
           ---->-c--                              both directions
           |       |
         a ^   S   v b
           |       |
           --d-<----

-->--  - wire with current direction indicated by >

===== - thin horizontal tube filled with mercury

 | |  - vertical glass column

 |~|  - mercury level


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 16:22:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03636;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:19:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:19:24 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1444d423530 [12.64.66.163]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b14438e68d88 [199.237.131.244]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:13:29 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"NFUf33.0.nt.5Kk7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17132
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  With rail current directed to the right as shown,
   >  columns L and R should drop, and column M should
   >  rise.

Would a small trench of molten solder work as well here? Should be easy see
any bumps or motion in the fluid metal.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 16:22:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03730;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:19:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:19:32 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b144566c5c71 [12.64.66.144]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530504b1440dcdf43c [199.237.131.223]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:55:17 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Puthoff and Shoulders confirmed?
Resent-Message-ID: <"pNEaZ1.0.yt.6Kk7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17133
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  The pairing has not yet been explained but the data
   >  strongly suggest that it arises from a novel
   >  quantum effect that develops whenever electrons
   >  are localized into spatially isolated regions within
   >  the dots.

You know, if you go out and catch all of one sex of Parrot Fish on an
isolated coral reef, some of them will turn themselves into the opposite
sex so reproduction can continue.

Got any more free association tests? <G>

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 16:23:50 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03677;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:19:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:19:28 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b1444e4571f2 [12.64.66.144]>
In-Reply-To: <351E94C2.5CB4 interlaced.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:47:41 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"DSx-M.0.Iu.8Kk7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17134
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  But now, since we could feed the current thru
   >  brushes the ring segments could continue to rotate
   >  and be continuously "renewed" by new ring sliding
   >  from under the brushes.

Yes, I think you've got it Frank! This is what I was fumbling to say
before, how the ring moves but the geometry doesn't. Assuming we know how
it works then, is there any real longitudinal force at work here? I see
only torque between two concentric elements, very motor-like.

When Faraday first found the means to achieve continuous mechanical motion
from a current carrying wire, this is what he saw - a magnet floating in a
cup of mercury swirling around the vertical wire. Sort of an inverted
standard homopolar configuration. This rig is a split polarity homopolar
motor. The polarity split lets you take current both onto and off the disc
rather than the more conventional rim/axle connections. The apparent lack
of radial currents though is fascinating.

Also, it's more clear to me now what Tinsley was talking about in his
remarks regarding the torque all appearing suddenly right there at the
brushes. Imagine a standard homopolar generator, but the only thing moving
is the external circuit and brushes. I believe current will flow though
because of it simply being a matter of relatively moving reference frames,
and the entire back torque from the load on the external circuit must go
through the brushes. Weird.

Here's another analogy I worked out last night using only magnets: Imagine
a little Stonehenge of PMs arranged in a ring mounted on a turntable, half
the ring with the N poles facing inwards, the other half has S poles
inwards. The divisions between N and S inward facing magnets represents the
brush points. There's a pair of fixed magnets in the center arranged as in
the Marinov. The ring of magnets wants to rotate 90 degrees to find a lower
energy point relative to the center magnets. But as it rotates, a mechanism
flips the poles of the magnets around as they pass the 'brush' point. Now
the ring will turn continuously, if only the energy required to flip the
magnets over against the fields in that area didn't work against you. They
do though, so no OU here - but if you add energy by flipping the poles, the
ring would turn.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 16:56:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17069;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:54:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:54:12 -0800
Message-ID: <351EED48.614 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:54:32 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
References: <l03102800b1444d423530 [12.64.66.163]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"avrBa.0.dA4.pqk7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17135
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Horace -
> 
>    >  With rail current directed to the right as shown,
>    >  columns L and R should drop, and column M should
>    >  rise.
> 
> Would a small trench of molten solder work as well here? Should be easy see
> any bumps or motion in the fluid metal.
> 
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI

Hey, Horace, Rick may have something here!  I tended to overlook "pots"
of molten metal because it sounded kind of messy - but a glass or
ceramic trench of molten metal - that sounds interesting!  I wonder if
the right current level could keep the metal molten from I^2 R loss
and show the desired effects at the same time.  One big problem here
is if the currents are really large, they may cause "pinch" effects in
the trough that could mask the mid-point buldge.  You could try it at
the same current level with and without magnets to calibrate against
pinch effects.  Or, you could look for a bulge and then take the magnets
away to see if the bulge dissipates.  A partially full glass tube might
work for the trough, right?  It would be neat to evacuate the tube with
the metal (solder or lead?) in place with electrodes sealed in the tube.
Then, the hot metal wouldn't oxidize so fast.

Good idea, Rick!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 17:22:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA03934;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351EF2C1.5419 interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:17:53 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
References: <l03102801b1444e4571f2 [12.64.66.144]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GNZyH2.0.Oz.HCl7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17136
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 

> 
> Yes, I think you've got it Frank! This is what I was fumbling to say
> before, how the ring moves but the geometry doesn't. Assuming we know how
> it works then, is there any real longitudinal force at work here? I see
> only torque between two concentric elements, very motor-like.

Yes, Rick - I saw the torque effect on the single-wire + Marinov magnets
at the 300 amp tries I made.  You could see the hot (slack) wire twist
just opposite the magnet.  Then, this afternoon, I went out to the
garage and taped a 3' long piece of plastic welding rod (like plastic
spegitti) to the EDGE of my Marinov motor ring.  It was a vivid example
of how a torque twisting on the edge of the ring makes the ring rotate
about its center.  The EM torques trying to tip each of the ring halves
like a see-saw sum together and make the ring rotate about its central
shaft.  You can see that even RADIAL ring forces acting on the top left
and on the top right quadrants of the ring tend to twist that half CW
about the tt point in my drawing.  Same for the bottom half.  This
predicts the correct rotation AND is insensitive to brush location
details!
> 
> When Faraday first found the means to achieve continuous mechanical motion
> from a current carrying wire, this is what he saw - a magnet floating in a
> cup of mercury swirling around the vertical wire. Sort of an inverted
> standard homopolar configuration. This rig is a split polarity homopolar
> motor. The polarity split lets you take current both onto and off the disc
> rather than the more conventional rim/axle connections. The apparent lack
> of radial currents though is fascinating.
> 
> Also, it's more clear to me now what Tinsley was talking about in his
> remarks regarding the torque all appearing suddenly right there at the
> brushes. Imagine a standard homopolar generator, but the only thing moving
> is the external circuit and brushes. I believe current will flow though
> because of it simply being a matter of relatively moving reference frames,

Yes, I understand that this is the secret of understanding homopolar
machines.

> and the entire back torque from the load on the external circuit must go
> through the brushes. Weird.

Yes, but remember, as the external circuit rotates, so does the radial
current path across the face of the disk and/or magnet.  A steel magnet
works just fine without a conduction disk, I think.  It is weird.

> 
> Here's another analogy I worked out last night using only magnets: Imagine
> a little Stonehenge of PMs arranged in a ring mounted on a turntable, half
> the ring with the N poles facing inwards, the other half has S poles
> inwards. The divisions between N and S inward facing magnets represents the
> brush points. There's a pair of fixed magnets in the center arranged as in
> the Marinov. The ring of magnets wants to rotate 90 degrees to find a lower
> energy point relative to the center magnets. But as it rotates, a mechanism
> flips the poles of the magnets around as they pass the 'brush' point. Now
> the ring will turn continuously, if only the energy required to flip the
> magnets over against the fields in that area didn't work against you. They
> do though, so no OU here - but if you add energy by flipping the poles, the
> ring would turn.

Kinda like turning the stationary ring current on and off to make the
Marinov magnet rotate continuously.
> 

Frank Stenger......(or, Gtsml Dyrmhrt, if you move your fingers over one
			key on the keyboard!)

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 17:28:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22898;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:23:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:23:47 -0800
Message-ID: <351EF448.A6A1361C microtronics.com.au>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:54:24 +0930
From: Greg Watson <gwatson microtronics.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: FREE ENERGY <freenrg-l eskimo.com>, NEWMAN <newman-l@emachine.com>,
        VORTEX <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Status Report
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"qqkNY.0.eb5.XGl7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17137
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi All,

The DMEC deal is a mess.  I don't give it much hope of working.

The agreement expires late May, 1998.

If the SMOT kits are not shipped by DMEC by then, I will personally
REFUND each & every purchaser's money as a gesture of good faith.  This
refund DOESN'T cancel my personal obligation to ship a working OU device
to each of the original purchasers.  The refund just lets me sleep
better at night.

At present, a PMOD class device looks like the way to go.


Best Regards to you all,
 Greg Watson

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 19:02:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA10897;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 18:59:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 18:59:33 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b144af6844a9 [12.64.66.144]>
In-Reply-To: <351EF2C1.5419 interlaced.net>
References: <l03102801b1444e4571f2 [12.64.66.144]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:59:01 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"d8ii12.0.3g2.Jgm7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17138
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  Yes, but remember, as the external circuit
   >  rotates, so does the radial current path across the
   >  face of the disk and/or magnet.

Yes, but how important is the radial current? I think this is the lesson
for me from this Marinov thing, besides the force being torque and not
truly longitudinal. The radial current in a homopolar disc is a bit of a
red herring! It's just a commutation current electrically linking a series
of tightly fit concentric metal rings (conveniently called a "disc"). The
Marinov motor/generator, and probably other homopolar derivatives, a.k.a.
acyclic dynamos invented years ago, work fine with a thin ring.

Say you've got x molecules of copper. You can plate them out on a
non-conductive backing disc and spin that in a magnetic field, or you can
plate them onto a long hollow cylindrical backing and spin that. In either
case the device is reversable as motor or dynamo. The point is, even with a
thin metal layer on a non-conductive cylinder, the thing would still work.
Wouldn't it? Negligible or no radial current. It's all torque, and torque
is happy living in a thin ring.

Another way to visualize this radial transfer of torque is the example of
two charged thin rings mounted concentrically with their flat faces close.
If torque is applied to one ring so it accelerates, the other ring reacts
as if acted on by torque in the opposite direction, as if to conserve the
electrical 'momentum' between them. The one throws torque through the air
to the other! Isn't physics phun?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 19:20:34 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA18585;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:16:50 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:16:50 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980329221453.006f0df0 world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:14:53 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica world.std.com>
Subject: Spring '98 Information on cold fusion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"i4VX9.0.JY4.Xwm7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17139
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

  
      March 29, '98

     Cold Fusion Times  vol 6 number 2 (Spring '98) is on its way
to the printer and should be in subscriber's hands
shortly next week.
The cover page will be obtainable at the web site at that time.

 The COLD FUSION TIMES web site is located at
URL  http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html


 As always, the COLD FUSION TIMES selectively presents
focused hard-core science and engineering issues, with detailed
material and nuclear science analysis of developments in the
cold fusion field.
Discussions and a brief survey of some of the content in this issue
include the following:

The Spring 1998 issue (vol 6, num 2) of the COLD FUSION TIMES
focuses on the increasing number of conference papers and
 technical  journals which carry cold fusion articles.

  Focus is on the Italian ASTI conference and the
American Physical Society which each set some new landmarks.
Discussion of details re: the upcoming ICCF-7 and ANS meetings are
also featured.

  CF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
 More than a score of papers are reviewed in this issue.
  Cold Fusion Results in France, China, Italy, USA, and elsewhere
  Other Engineering and Research Updates

  COLD FUSION CONFERENCES FLOURISH
  Summary review, and excerpts, of selected papers
  Analysis of ASTI CF Conference
  CF & the American Physical Society meeting

  COLD FUSION TECHNICAL ISSUES PROLIFERATE
  Materials Issues of Loading Deuterium into Palladium and
        the Association with Excess Heat Production
  More Thermal, Nuclear, and Metallurgical Events Associated with Cold
Fusion
  More on Codeposition and other cold fusion advanced systems
  More Investigations of Cold Fusion Isotopic Anomalies
  Additional info on Cold Fusion Theory, Calorimetry, and
Electrochemistry
  Gas Loading, Solid State, Electrolysis Systems
  Impact of and results from Nickel and Palladium Systems
  Possible Theoretical Consequences of 'Cold Fusion' Experiments
  Nuclear physics and Material Science in the 'Cold Fusion' Effect in
'98
  ESD, EMI Issues

  CF UPDATES
  U.S. Air Force CF Insight
  Tribute to Cold Fusioneer Kevin Wolf
  Utah U Officially Ends Maintainance of CF Patent as several
 other CF patents issue

  Practical Information and Reference Vectors
  The best of the world's literature
  More journals you may have missed
  Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available
  "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" and more


  The COLD FUSION TIMES web site is located at
URL  http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

  The Cold Fusion Times web site is slowly being updated with
references, URLS and leads including
a now comprehensive 6 year cumulative index.

   Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com)



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 19:28:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19134;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:19:19 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:19:19 -0800
Message-ID: <002a01bd5b8a$4845f280$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Superstring Circles, or Aetheral  Vortexes?
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:16:13 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"39d3E3.0.ug4.rym7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17140
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortex theory holds that the velocity of rotation about an axis varies
inversely as the radius, and the product of v*r is a constant.

Thus at Radius r = zero, the velocity is infinite, a real singularity.  :-)

Is the constant for v*r = c (the velocity of light)or 137*c the "phase
velocity"?

For the electron: r = kq^2/E = 2.81E-15 meters.
Spin, mvr = hbar, v = hbar/(m*r) = 137*c.

How long are they, Ross?

Maxwell; Philosophical Magazine, March, April, May,1861, in a theory of
magnetic lines of force:

"A tube of magnetic force is a vortex whose axis of rotation coincides with
the direction of force, these vortexes would give rise to the forces
observed in the magnetic field."

And,who thinks that "vortexes" are simple?  :-)

Regards,    Frederick


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 19:34:58 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA21465;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:25:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:25:01 -0800
Message-ID: <351F109A.49DF interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:25:14 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
References: <l03102801b1444e4571f2 [12.64.66.144]> <l03102800b144af6844a9@[12.64.66.144]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9Hrpl2.0.0F5.92n7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17141
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 

> Another way to visualize this radial transfer of torque is the example of
> two charged thin rings mounted concentrically with their flat faces close.
> If torque is applied to one ring so it accelerates, the other ring reacts
> as if acted on by torque in the opposite direction, as if to conserve the
> electrical 'momentum' between them. The one throws torque through the air
> to the other! Isn't physics phun?

Yes, this is interesting, Rick!  Does this make sense?
When you start one charged ring rotating, this is equivalent to starting
a circular current flowing.  Now, does the other ring rotate by
an induced counter-emf by the flux building up from the first?
If you place 2 circular turns of conductor around a core and begin a
current build-up in one, a counter current build-up will start 
in the other from the counter emf - this is the way a transformer works.
Now, for the charged rings, is it the same sort of thing as in two
transformer windings?  The key may be in a rotating charged ring being
equivalent to a current.  Are the rings supposed to have the SAME
charge, i.e., + or -, or is one + and the other - like capacitor plates?
This might affect which way the second ring turns?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 19:47:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA27557;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:44:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:44:16 -0800
Message-ID: <351F1520.4ABE interlaced.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:44:32 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Superstring Circles, or Aetheral  Vortexes?
References: <002a01bd5b8a$4845f280$2d8cbfa8 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"WSafb.0.Qk6.FKn7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17142
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
> 
> Vortex theory holds that the velocity of rotation about an axis varies
> inversely as the radius, and the product of v*r is a constant.

Is v tangential velocity, Fred?  I thought r*omega was constant where
v = r*omega 	(omega being angular velocity)

So, I thought omega was the thing that approached infinity?  I await
enlightenment Oh ancient man of the desert. (Teach you to have a
birthday!)  
Another interesting item (to me, anyway):  If you have a ring current
of radius r and i varies as 1/r, then, the current goes to infinity
as r goes to zero.  But, since the magnetic dipole moment of the ring
current goes to zero like r^2, the ring will vanish as a dipole even
as the current becomes infinite.  And if that doesn't excite you, Fred,
then I have this groundhog-in-my-dam story.......

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 20:32:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA03326;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:28:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:28:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980329222823.008e36e0 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:28:23 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b144788a94e2 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"iRVE-.0.up.Fzn7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17143
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 01:21 PM 3/29/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:

>I built the following apparatus minus mercury, which  I do not have.

Want some?  I can send you some for free...it's not the cleanest in the
world but it is definitely a conductive metal liquid.  How much would you
need?

BTW, I haven't disappeared...I've been half-heartedly following the EM
escapades while concentrating on the construction of a new low-power-range
water-flow calorimeter design that I hope to show off at ICCF-7 (less than
1 month from now!)

Oh, yes...the RIFEX report is done awaiting only Hal's final editing of my
conclusions.  Should be available on our web site this week.  Best way to
get it will be to download the ~380k Word 97 file.  If you don't have Word
97, try to find someone who does.  I can also save it in Word 6.0 format
but the file size blossoms to 1.5 megs!  There are lots of graphics and
Word 97 does almost as well as Adobe Acrobat in compressing them.  Anybody
out there willing/able to take the Word 97 file and produce a .pdf file for
me?



Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 29 20:38:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04828;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:35:07 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:35:07 -0800
Message-ID: <004101bd5b95$f11dd200$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
From: "Joe Champion" <JoeC transmutation.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:40:18 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"K4jU9.0.EB1.v3o7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17144
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Anybody
>out there willing/able to take the Word 97 file and produce a .pdf file for
>me?
>


No problem Scott.

As soon as  the Word 97 file is up, I will format it to .pdf and email it
back.

Joe

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 20:40:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05058;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:36:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:36:46 -0800
Message-ID: <351F4B75.5608 bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:36:21 -0800
From: "Terry J. Blanton" <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
References: <3.0.5.32.19980329222823.008e36e0 mail.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4dOr42.0.xE1.R5o7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17145
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote:

[snip]

> Anybody
> out there willing/able to take the Word 97 file and produce a .pdf file for
> me?

The Microsoft web site also has a convertor for W97 to W6.0.

Terry

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 20:58:06 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09291;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:56:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:56:03 -0800
Message-ID: <005001bd5b97$cf9cf000$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Superstring Circles, or Aetheral  Vortexes?
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:53:02 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ExNId3.0.3H2.YNo7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17146
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 <fstenger interlaced.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Superstring Circles, or Aetheral Vortexes?


>Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>>
>> Vortex theory holds that the velocity of rotation about an axis varies
>> inversely as the radius, and the product of v*r is a constant.
>
>Is v tangential velocity, Fred?

Seems so, Frank.

>I thought r*omega was constant where
>v = r*omega (omega being angular velocity)

It is for a material body. But v = 1/r for a
vortex, ie., an aetheral hole says that as r goes to zero v (tangential)
goes to infinity,
just the inverse of v (tangential) = r*omega.
>
>So, I thought omega was the thing that approached infinity?

It does, omega = 2(pi)f. In the Superstring model: f = 1/[2(pi)*(LC)^1/2] r
= kq^2/E,
C = 2(pi)r*eo, L = 2(pi)r*uo.
in other words as mass-energy increases, the particle radius DECREASES,and
the frequency
INCREASES, consistent with the vortex theory
that as the radius increases velocity decreases. Are you confused yet?  :-)

Same thing for charge q (1.602E-19 Coul.) = CV
a constant, as C decreases potential V increases thus the  charge (q)on any
particle is constant. Since E = .5 CV^2,
V = (2*E/C)^1/2.
The capacitance of space: 8.84E-12 Farads/Meter
says that all you need for energy etc., is capacitance (C) and potential (V)
the rest is just side effects.  :-)


>I await
>enlightenment Oh ancient man of the desert. (Teach you to have a
>birthday!)

I think you have me confused with my Idol, one
"Yosemite Sam", Sam works for Joe Champion these days, easy money.  :-)
>Another interesting item (to me, anyway):  If you have a ring current
>of radius r and i varies as 1/r, then, the current goes to infinity
>as r goes to zero.

Oh No you don't,Frank! I'm staying out of
the marinated Marinov "LOOP".   :-)

  But, since the magnetic dipole moment of the ring
>current goes to zero like r^2, the ring will vanish as a dipole even
>as the current becomes infinite.  And if that doesn't excite you, Fred,
>then I have this groundhog-in-my-dam story.......

You Dam Right, No problem.

Regards,   Frederick
>
>Frank Stenger
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 21:12:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11378;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:08:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:08:58 -0800
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <75b7a485.351f289d aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:07:39 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"Jx5ZY.0.gn2.dZo7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17147
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Vortex Chemists...
A question;  Is there any known reactions between H2 gas and K metal,
or between H ions and K metal?  This question posed to me by Tom Stolper, and
it's a good one.

Experiment preparation is moving along.  I broke one of the built quartz
reactor tubes this evening attempting to fit a better upper electrode
holder...  No problem, I expect thing like this to happen.  I found a better
way to seal the upper end of the tube...O-rings in the brass fitting. Much
better way than all that RTV silicone goop. The tube was holding vacuum
very well and then I just _had_ to improve the electrode holder. Parts were
just a little out of line and suddenly I had quartz shards in my coffee. 
Will get a couple of more quartz lamps tomorrow. They are really easy
to cut in half and construct reactor tubes. (I didn't drink the coffee)

Still waiting for the gas supplies and the first photos from Filmworks.

Regards,
Vince 
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 21:26:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA13962;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:25:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:25:16 -0800
Message-ID: <007901bd5b9b$e8ef5760$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:22:57 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"jeFX62.0.-P3.woo7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17148
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode


>Vortex Chemists...
>A question;  Is there any known reactions between H2 gas and K metal,
>or between H ions and K metal?

Sure Vince, 2 K + H2 <---> 2 KH (potassium hydride) unstable at higher
temps.
>
>This question posed to me by Tom Stolper, and
>it's a good one.
>I broke one of the built quartz
>reactor tubes this evening attempting to fit a better upper electrode
>holder...

That's what you get for working on your Birthday and Sunday too...   :-)

Regards,    Frederick
>
>Regards,
>Vince
>Las Vegas Nevada
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Sun Mar 29 23:16:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA31052;
	Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:14:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:14:16 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:10:23 GMT
Message-ID: <352c44ef.18858881 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980329222823.008e36e0 mail.eden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980329222823.008e36e0 mail.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: <"Tby5V1.0.6b7.7Pq7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17149
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:28:23 -0600, Scott Little <little eden.com>
wrote:

>...the RIFEX report is done awaiting only Hal's final editing of my
>conclusions.  Should be available on our web site this week.  Best way to
>get it will be to download the ~380k Word 97 file.

If you have Word 97 you can save any file in HTML format, pictures and
all and makes things easy for everyone.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 01:19:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA14867;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:18:49 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:18:49 -0800
Message-ID: <351FE1EA.178C itl.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:18:18 -0800
From: Nick Palmer <nick7 itl.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Status Report
References: <351EF448.A6A1361C microtronics.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nahi73.0.De3.uDs7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17150
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

It's good to see Greg watson "surfacing" again on Vortex. He still seems 
pretty sincere to me. Remember, this all started with the SMOT, the OU 
performance of which others have failed to replicate. Remember that a 
computer sim of the field strengths showed the "blue hole" effect 
consistently. I do not know enough about magenetism to be sure this backs 
up the story that the blue hole can act as  an easy exit from the 
stronger field around it but it at least makes the SMOT seem more likely 
to exist as an anomaly. If the SMOT works, this makes eveything else more 
likely, whether RMOD, RMOG, PMOD etc.

Greg recently (12 Feb 98)sent me this private email which I hope he won't 
mind me reproducing here.


>Hi Nick,

>The Dmec deal is currently in a mess.

>I signed a letter of agreement which, I have been told by lawyers on
>BOTH sides, binds me very tightly for the period of the agreement.  If I
>step outside of the agreement, I could get a court restraining order
>slapped on me.  If I violated that court order, the next step is jail.

>The environmental association is not so much a money channel as a large
>quantity product channel for 3rd world power units.  I have downscaled
>my initial goal to 100 watts.  OK for lighting, comms, small cooking &
>water boiling for clean water.

>My current dealings and problems are with the Dmec local OZ money
>people.

>ONE very well known "Green" person has seen a self powered RMOG device
>under a Non disclosure.

>Thats about all I can tell you at present.

>Please don't loose faith.  I may have done the wrong thing in signing
>the agreement but I am NOT a crook.  The SMOT is real and will be
>delivered.  Read the data and study the Hyde patent.  They show the way.

>My very best regards,
> Greg

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 02:12:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA17218;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:06:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior axnd05.cern.ch>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Status Report
In-Reply-To: <351FE1EA.178C itl.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980330120202.19630B-100000 axnd05.cern.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bmifH3.0.yC4.Vys7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17151
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Nick Palmer wrote:

> I do not know enough about magenetism to be sure this backs 
> up the story that the blue hole can act as  an easy exit from the 
> stronger field around it but it at least makes the SMOT seem more likely 
> to exist as an anomaly. If the SMOT works, this makes eveything else more 
> likely, whether RMOD, RMOG, PMOD etc.
> 

Thanks very much for sharing your private email with us too. If just SMOT works
it will be major breakthrough in Physics that will have all sorts of
repercussions. I suspect that cheap, infinite energy will just be a minor
sideline. 

Cheers

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:11:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA20469;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b14524b3d2d8 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:12:42 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
Resent-Message-ID: <"gjBNy.0.g_4.7qt7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17152
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:28 PM 3/29/98, Scott Little wrote:
>At 01:21 PM 3/29/98 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>I built the following apparatus minus mercury, which  I do not have.
>
>Want some?  I can send you some for free...it's not the cleanest in the
>world but it is definitely a conductive metal liquid.  How much would you
>need?

Thanks Scott!

Tubing .175 cm radius,
3 legs 42 cm long to level

3 x 42 cm x Pi x (0.175 cm)^2 = 12.1 ml

So, 15 ml would provide some excess.

If you would happen to have an old small syringe barrel or some means of
loading the tubing I would appreciate it.   I got a mouthful of lye
syphoning the lye into the tubes.   It took some fiddling to achieve the
right level. I can reuturn everything when done - unless the experiment
actually vindicates Biot, in which case it could all go to the Smithsonian!
8^)  Wouldn't bet much on that though!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:12:53 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA20489;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b14529e10a42 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:12:46 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
Resent-Message-ID: <"T2vmp.0.305.Cqt7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17153
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:45 AM 3/29/98, Frederick J. Sparber wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 4:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
>
>It is your Birthday Too Horace, or do you want to forget?    :-)
>
>Happy Birthday Horace Heffner!
>
>Lets Party!
>
>Regards,  Frederick

Well, I did my part on the partying, which for me amounted to eating lots
of sweets. Ugh!  Good way to catch up on that sleep deficit!   Now I'll
have to see if I can digest all that good stuff Frank and Rick have been up
to as well.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:23:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA21791;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b1452f5c53e6 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:25:13 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"ryOZe1.0.LK5.t_t7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17154
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:13 AM 3/29/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Horace -
>
>   >  With rail current directed to the right as shown,
>   >  columns L and R should drop, and column M should
>   >  rise.
>
>Would a small trench of molten solder work as well here? Should be easy see
>any bumps or motion in the fluid metal.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

Good idea.  Trenches might have to be deep to avoid the lateral forces
enough until the longitudinal show up.  Also, if what I estimate to be the
Biot longitudinal force works, the welling up in the center could dump
solder all over. I won't really know until I get some calculations though.
If it's comparatively easy for you why not try it?  It would not be easy
for me!

Meanwhile my LaserWriter is making a nasty grinding noise. I cleaned the
filter and blower yesterday, and it went away for a while, but I think
maybe the bearings are shot.  8^(   Hopefully it will hold together for a
week or two until I can get a little calc program written.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:31:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA22845;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b1452a04133a [12.64.66.111]>
In-Reply-To: <351F109A.49DF interlaced.net>
References: <l03102801b1444e4571f2 [12.64.66.144]>
 <l03102800b144af6844a9 [12.64.66.144]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:28:07 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"BUnLz2.0.ta5.z8u7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17155
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank -

   >  Now, does the other ring rotate by an induced
   >  counter-emf by the flux building up from the
   >  first?

Yes. The 'driving' ring has to have angular acceleration to affect the
other ring.

   >  Now, for the charged rings, is it the same sort of
   >  thing as in two transformer windings?

As far as my bare minimum understanding will allow, yes.

   >  The key may be in a rotating charged ring being
   >  equivalent to a current.

Yes; moving and especially accelerating charges.

   >  Are the rings supposed to have the SAME charge,
   >  i.e., + or -, or is one + and the other - like
   >  capacitor plates? This might affect which way the
   >  second ring turns?

It would appear so from the math and from the notion that a positive charge
going south is as good as a negative one heading north. But to be honest,
you just went over my intelligence budget.<g> Seek Feynman, he had the
answers. The physical demo (or something quite similar) is described in one
of those lecture series books, but I forget both which one it was and the
details of the demonstration. Anyone remember this?

I was reminded of the ring thing from Jefimenko's book, but he doesn't go
into much conceptual detail. There it's just for examples of his
mathematical solutions which avoid magnetism as a source of induction. He
goes from charges in motion to an "electrokinetic field" (a.k.a. the
"motional electric field" by others who take a similar approach) which is
then responsible for the phenomena of induction. His idea is that magnetic
and electric fields don't really cause each other, they are just
simultaneous manifestations of time variable currents or current densities.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:43:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23737;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:42:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:42:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00b401bd5bd0$56a94160$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 04:38:14 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hojwa1.0.po5.BKu7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17156
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX


Horace Heffner wrote:

>I got a mouthful of lye
>syphoning the lye into the tubes. 

Geez Horace,couldn't you employ a safer method?

Next thing you know, people will call you a Lyer. :-)

Raw Mercury Too,you silver-tongued rascal.

Regards,   Frederick   

>
>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner          
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:48:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA32099;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:47:18 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:47:18 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530503b145328c13bd [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:53:40 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
Resent-Message-ID: <"NIZT13.0.Tr7.5Pu7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17157
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:36 PM 3/29/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Horace, Rick, others:
>
>As a mechanical engineer, I should have spotted this before!
>Consider:
>
>  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
>                        |---<---|--->---|
>                        |       |       |
>                        V   N   ^   S   V
>                        |       |       |
>                        |--->---|---<---|
>  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
>
>
>Now, in the sketch I show two parallel current conductors passing
>above and below a standard Marinov magnet set.  The two conductor
>segments Hg-->---tt--->--Hg in the top and bottom current lines are
>simulating the top and bottom ring halves of a Marinov ring.
>
>Now, a more subtle feature is that these two conductor segments are
>mounted on a single rotor just as the Marinov ring would be.
>If the main current conductors were not in the way, they would rotate
>around the magnets just like a ring would.

Yes. Like arrows attract, opposing repel, so there is clockwise force on
both parallel wires above.

>Now, let's assume that we have somehow used blobs of Hg to complete
>the circuits between the short segments and the main current lines.
>
>Rick and I have already shown the obvious fact that, if the short
>segments were pivoted - individually for a moment - at the points tt,
>then the short segments would BOTH tend to torque CW as you can see
>from the equivalent magnet currents shown in the sketch.  This can be
>thought of as a simple "parallel-same-direction currents attract and
>parallel-opposite-direction currents repel" effect.  The segments
>would turn CW like see-saws until our Hg blobs broke circuit and stopped
>the effect.

Yes.

>
>Now, back to the Marinov rotor case - with both segments rigidly fixed
>to a single rotating body.  Now, if the current flows, the short
>segments WILL STILL TEND TO ROTATE CW, AND, BECAUSE THEY ARE FIXED TO
>A ROTOR, CAN ONLY CAUSE THE ROTOR TO ROTATE CW.  The rotor would do
>this until the very limited movement of our Hg blobs failed and the
>segments bumped into the ends of the main current conductors.
>However, if the short segments were curved into circular ring halves,
>the two torques at the tt points would still exist.  But now, since
>we could feed the current thru brushes the ring segments could continue
>to rotate and be continuously "renewed" by new ring sliding from under
>the brushes.

Yes.

>
>The mechanical principle here is that a pure torque (i.e., a balanced
>force couple) acting on ANY point of a rigid body will cause rotation
>of that body about ANY axis, parallel to the torque vector, that the
>body is free to rotate about.  In the case of the Marinov ring, that
>axis is the axis of the rotor that supports the ring.

Yes.

>  Hence, Jeff's
>hummin motor!

Maybe not!

>
>At this point I think I (and Rick, right, Rick?) can vouch for the
>individual torques about the tt points from our own tests.

Yes.  Note also that these can be considered Lorentz forces in your diagram
above, due to vertical "return" B fields.

>
>I think my ring fails to rotate because I have relatively weak magnets
>and high brush drag for my current level.

Jeff held two copper wires against an aluminum foil rotor,if I understand
correctly.  This does not make sense to me.

>
>You can try this torque thing by using a long, flexible piece of plastic
>rod or hose or a long spring to apply a torque to any turntable-like
>thing around the house (fan, etc.).  It doesn't matter where the flex
>rod is attached to the rotor - it turns just the same.
>(HINT: use duct tape to stick it to the rotor - Red Green wise)
>
>OK, discuss!
>
>Frank Stenger

Nifty analysis Frank!

I'd like to see some calcs based on Lorentz, but suppose not necessary.

An FEA model will apply the torque OK, even considering the above.  I'll
have to code for torque carefully in the planar Biot based model, but not
make so much generality it turns into a year long project.  Not espacially
interested in doing Lorentz as well, at this point.  I've got other fish to
put back into the pan.

Come to think of it, can anyone think of a Lorentz reason for the
mercury/solder to well up in the center of the proposed experiment when
current to right, and sink when current to left?  If so it's not definitve,
unless quantities don't match, or unless some other test can be devised to
distinguish them, and maybe this is all moot - it's all Lorentz.  Still
want to do the mercury experiment though.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 03:53:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA00747;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:52:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:52:39 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530504b14538f99649 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:59:03 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
Resent-Message-ID: <"uuCeU3.0.WB.6Uu7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17158
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net>
>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 4:09 AM
>Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
>
>
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>I got a mouthful of lye
>>syphoning the lye into the tubes.
>
>Geez Horace,couldn't you employ a safer method?
>
>Next thing you know, people will call you a Lyer. :-)

It was only 3 g/l. Not a lye I'd want to swallow though.  8^)


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 04:40:32 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA07326;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 04:39:24 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 04:39:24 -0800
Message-ID: <00f501bd5bd8$8da05340$2d8cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:34:54 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"bICky2.0.No1.w9v7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17159
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net>
>>To: vortex-l eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 4:09 AM
>>Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
>>
>>
>>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>>>I got a mouthful of lye
>>>siphoning the lye into the tubes.
>>
>>Geez Horace,couldn't you employ a safer method?
>>
>>Next thing you know, people will call you a Lyer. :-)
>
>It was only 3 g/l. Not a lye I'd want to swallow though.  8^)

During WW II when gasoline was Very Scarce, but required for starting the
John Deere tractors after which they ran on kerosene, I was told to
try to siphon some gas out of the 39 Olds that had been setting on blocks
for several months whilst my older brother was off to the War in Europe,
D-Day + 2 months.

I must have inspired about a kilogram of tetraethyl lead into my 11 year
lungs along with a bunch of organic "peroxides".

No gas, but incredible ringing in the ears and shortness of breath.

Scared the poop out of me. No siphoning since.

Use a cheap tire pump, veterinary syringe, or grease gun.

Regards,   Frederick

>Regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 05:15:47 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA01926;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980330070555.008ebd60 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:05:55 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: Re: mercury, calorimetry, RIFEX
In-Reply-To: <004101bd5b95$f11dd200$629acccf champion.goodnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"6c02Z.0.0U.Gbv7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17160
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

20 ml of Hg and a plastic syringe body queued up for Horace.

Thanks Joe for the .pdf offer!  You could also just put the .pdf up on yr
web site temporarily and email me the URL (i.e. no need to modify/create
any of yr HTML to provide a link to it...just put it somewhere and tell me
where).

I realize that Word 97 can create HTML, that's how I make my simple web
experiment reports.  But the RIFEX report is 33 pages of carefully fitted
text and graphics!  I'll go ahead and make the HTML, but it won't print out
worth a damn.  Get the .doc (or the soon-to-be-created .pdf) if you want a
nice-looking copy on paper.


Scott Little 
EarthTech International, Suite 300, 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 Mar 30 05:30:44 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05698;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jack mail1.centuryinter.net
Message-ID: <351F4737.5DC8899A mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:18:15 +0000
From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11 mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Status Report
References: <351EF448.A6A1361C microtronics.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="x"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="x"
Resent-Message-ID: <"c9f412.0.xO1.qtv7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17161
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Greg Watson wrote:

Hi All,

The DMEC deal is a mess.
I don't give it much hope of working.
The agreement expires late May, 1998.

If the SMOT kits are not shipped by DMEC by then,
I will personally REFUND each & every purchaser's
money as a gesture of good faith.

Hi Greg,

Please keep the money I sent you.  Just send me
my SMOT kit when you are ready.

Jack Smith

P. S.  Scott Little wrote:

 http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.html
 
 "The force vectors F shown on the
 drawing [Image12.gif] result from the usual
 
 F = I x B
 
 that comes from Maxwell's eqns."

Jack Smith wrote:

Hi Scott,

Based on Horace Heffner's recent posts, would
you modify your expression for the 
"force vectors F" ?

Hello again, Greg,

Your input into the discussion of the Marinov
notor would be valuable.

Jack Smith


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 05:44:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA07329;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 05:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980330083707.006949e8 agate.net>
X-Sender: insearch agate.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:39:35 -0500
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Bo Atkinson <insearch agate.net>
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"fQQDr.0.Qo1.25w7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17162
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:56 AM 3/27/98 -0600, John E. Steck wrote:
< At present I am inclined to design
>experiments to try an induce energy vortexes.   


Perhaps we can brainstorm structurally speaking....

Starting small, does modeling varieties of  wave structures for sub atomic,
sub electronic entities interest you.....

By what ever name, could that most fundamental unit, (particle or wave
depending on school of thought),  have counter swirling fields with common
center/ origin?  One of the big features of my  spinductor structure is the
opposite swirling fields with common center.

If it is of interest,  we could talk this up to bigger sizes, eventually
getting around to tangible structures applicable to human scales.

anyone?


Bo  Atkinson                    

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 07:28:00 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25577;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <351FB5A7.A1B7536E ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:09:27 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Questions.....Re: Spinductor / Retroductor
References: <3.0.32.19980327064618.00747608 agate.net> <351BDA5B.3861B097@ecg.csg.mot.com> <355d8f51.110695654@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"UG6yE2.0.XF6.9Ux7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17163
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Ray Tomes wrote:

> For a good list of aether sites on the web see Mountain Man's pages at
> http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/ and go to the aether pages.   IMO the
> best sites are those of Steven Rado, Alan Pendleton and Henry L Lindner.

Thanks for the suggestion.  As with many great sites, I had it bookmarked, but
have not found the time to fully explore it.  Lots of interesting info over
there, narrowing down the focus helps.
 
> I think that your approach is a very worthwhile exercise.  The only
> other thing that I would do is to also try a tensile model as an
> alternative to a fluid dynamic one.  If you want someone to bounce ideas
> off as you do this then I would be interested.

As I run into road blocks you will most certainly hear me stick my foot in my
mouth online.  Quite a humbling array of smarts and talent on vortex.  

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 07:38:01 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA28220;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351FB9D4.3617 interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:27:16 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: OF COURSE! (I think) - MARINOV
References: <v01530503b145328c13bd [199.237.131.247]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"LjttZ.0.Zu6.Yex7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17164
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> >At this point I think I (and Rick, right, Rick?) can vouch for the
> >individual torques about the tt points from our own tests.
> 
> Yes.  Note also that these can be considered Lorentz forces in your diagram
> above, due to vertical "return" B fields.

Right, Horace!  My big mistake when I first looked at the Marinov ring
was in assuming that there must be net tangential forces somewhere on
the ring.  This is wrong.  When I realized that all that was needed to
rotate the ring was a net "pure" torque ANYWHERE on the ring, then it
all fell into place.  The two additive "see-saw" torques on the ring
halves stick out like sore thumbs.
This gives me a Lorentz explanation for the Marinov motor and, since it
is really a lousy motor from a practical standpoint, I tend to lose
interest in it.  But, having said that, I would still like to get my
model to rotate!  I may try a bit more with high currents and some type
of graphite brushes that would not spot-weld to the ring.  Just a short
pulse of current (a second or so) should do the job.

> 
> >

> Jeff held two copper wires against an aluminum foil rotor,if I understand
> correctly.  This does not make sense to me.

All I can say is that he must have some macho magnets!

> An FEA model will apply the torque OK, even considering the above.  I'll
> have to code for torque carefully in the planar Biot based model, but not
> make so much generality it turns into a year long project.  Not espacially
> interested in doing Lorentz as well, at this point.  I've got other fish to
> put back into the pan.

Yes.  If my pure torque thing is correct, then your Biot analysis needs
to code for pure-torque producing Biot couples as well as for tangential
forces.  This sounds like work!

> 
> Come to think of it, can anyone think of a Lorentz reason for the
> mercury/solder to well up in the center of the proposed experiment when
> current to right, and sink when current to left?  If so it's not definitve,
> unless quantities don't match, or unless some other test can be devised to
> distinguish them, and maybe this is all moot - it's all Lorentz.  Still
> want to do the mercury experiment though.

I don't have a quick answer, Horace, but if the Marinov motor works
via longitudinal force (and I don't think it does) then Scotts Hg
would make an interesting variation.
Place the Hg in a circular trough as per a Marinov ring - just Hg, no
solid ring.  The feed contacts could just be dipped into the Hg at two
opposite points.  Now, if the longitudinal forces are at work, then
would not the Hg start to circulate CW (N on left, S on right - current
to right>)?  A speck of paper floating on the Hg could serve as
a marker?  Now, if my Lorentz pure-torque explanation is right, I don't
think the Hg would circulate because its trough can't respond to pure
torque.  Does this sound right?  Gee, I could cut a neat trough in a
piece of 1/2 inch thick plexiglass I have, using my lathe.  But, there
are all kinds of ways to make a trough on a flat surface so I guess this
is not critical.  Your point of side forces pushing the Hg out of the
trough would be important, though!  I don't know - requires some
thought.  On with your Hg experiment!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 08:19:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07049;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351FB562.2B9F earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:08:18 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
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: CF: Murray: Shanahan: use sci.physics.fusion 03/30/98
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gyn_n2.0._j1.mBy7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17165
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Received: from rmforall.earthlink.net (1Cust155.tnt23.dfw5.da.uu.net [208.254.197.155])
	by denmark.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA17322;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351FB33F.4D97 earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:59:12 -0600
From: Rich Murray <rmforall earthlink.net>
Reply-To: rmforall earthlink.net
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rmforall earthlink.net, billb@eskimo.com, szpak@nosc.mil, bossp@nosc.mil,
        dashj psu4.pdx.edu, jstanly@mse.ogi.edu, dg@cco.caltech.edu,
        collis netcity.it, ell@lanl.gov, Flavio.Fontana@pirelli.com,
        sphkoji sci.shizuoka.ac.jp, knuke@aa.net, jdunn@ctc.org,
        bakealamos Juno.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com, editor@infinite-energy.com,
        barry math.ucla.edu, mikec@snip.net, mica@world.std.com,
        little eden.com, puthoff@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro,
        jchampion transmutation.com, aki@ix.netcom.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov,
        g-miley uiuc.edu, mizuno@athena.qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@msn.com,
        design73 aol.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        shellied sage.dri.edu, droege@fnal.gov, tchubb@aol.com,
        chubb ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, jaeger@eneco-usa.com,
        cincygrp ix.netcom.com, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil,
        jjones ebs330.eb.uah.edu, simonb@post.queensu.ca, norm.olson@pnl.gov,
        miles nhelab.iae.or.jp, z@ccyber.com, ldhansen@chemdept.byu.edu,
        76002.1473 compuserve.com, wolfy2@erols.com, rwall@ix.netcom.com,
        zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu,
        sejones physics1.ln.byu.edu, terry4@llnl.gov, wireless@amigo.net
Subject: CF: Murray: Shanahan: use sci.physics.fusion 03/30/98
References: <34AA67B2.3230 earthlink.net> <34AC64F1.20B9@earthlink.net> <34AC6C86.6EA6@earthlink.net> <34AEFCFB.39E1@earthlink.net> <34B0F513.24A8@earthlink.net> <34B1C4B2.72F0@earthlink.net> <34B5A2F4.6506@earthlink.net> <34B65404.6276@earthlink.net> <34
BC2AB6.77F7 earthlink.net> <34BC36BC.CB5@earthlink.net> <34BCDCAF.A1B@earthlink.net> <34BD9AC3.31D4@earthlink.net> <34BEAB94.73FC@earthlink.net> <34C04660.47AF@earthlink.net> <34C04DA2.16AC@earthlink.net> <34C439DD.75C8@earthlink.net> <34C578C0.1C32@earth
link.net> <34C6779A.369C earthlink.net> <34C7EAEC.AC6@earthlink.net> <34C822AB.5B9B@earthlink.net> <34C8B094.6977@earthlink.net> <34CD670D.1E0C@earthlink.net> <34CDFF1B.34D4@earthlink.net> <34CF224E.1014@earthlink.net> <34D01AC2.216A@earthlink.net> <34D31
63E.3C13 earthlink.net> <34D400B8.260@earthlink.net> <34D51CDA.4E43@earthlink.net> <34D5E39A.4B46@earthlink.net> <34D5E553.29FA@earthlink.net> <34D6A346.5E02@earthlink.net> <34D88B9E.1BAD@earthlink.net> <34D8995A.78A4@earthl!
																																																														 ink.net> <34D8F09C.6BDA earthlink.net> <34D9D680.4B88@earthlink.net> <34D9DF18.5206@earthlink.net> <34DA96D5.49DA@earthlink.net> <34DFC098.4EB3@earthlink.net> <34DFCF2E.4FE6@earthlink.net> <34
DFD6A4.4BCA earthlink.net> <34E086C2.5227@earthlink.net> <34E27F36.156@earthlink.net> <34E5922F.370A@earthlink.net> <34E8CD5D.7940@earthlink.net> <34E915C4.3864@earthlink.net> <34EA1D9E.2872@earthlink.net> <34EADEA7.1CF3@earthlink.net> <34ED1648.168C@eart
hlink.net> <34EDE6E0.5C23 earthlink.net> <34EE024C.3E82@earthlink.net> <34F1946E.4897@earthlink.net> <34F237E4.7DF5@earthlink.net> <34F36D92.7482@earthlink.net> <34F6F61E.7D86@earthlink.net> <34F6F8AA.1837@earthlink.net> <34F73CC1.437D@earthlink.net> <34F
73E74.655 earthlink.net> <34F8C76A.74D0@earthlink.net> <34FEFD1A.5D33@earthlink.net> <3501CB77.7E3@earthlink.net> <3501CC8C.1074@earthlink.net> <350200D5.F6E@earthlink.net> <3504077A.4714@earthlink.net> <35048733.2BD4@earthlin!
k.net> <3507265A.6688 earthlink.net> <3507E849..71E9@earthlink..net> <3507F075.5FAF@earthlink.net> <3509754E.71A@earthlink.net> <350B46CB.738D@earthlink.net> <350D875E.5C59@earthlink.net> <350DAD0F.535F@earthlink.net> <350EF2C0.638F@earthlink.net> <350F1C
98.6C7C earthlink.net> <350FE66B.74C2@earthlink.net> <3511F4E8.12B5@earthlink.net> <35129B81.6DB7@earthlink.net> <3512DE75.2B4E@earthlink.net> <3513C4D6.207D@earthlink.net> <351467AE.524F@earthlink.net> <35146962.45DB@earthlink.net> <35151676.330F@earthli
nk.net> <3515D3D7.4EEF earthlink.net> <3515FDDC.3919@earthlink.net> <35166389.35FD@earthlink.net> <3516808F.7FAD@earthlink.net> <35168284.325A@earthlink.net> <35173624.F60@earthlink.net> <35173888.2F66@earthlink.net> <3517D0D2.576B@earthlink.net> <3517D8A
C.15FE earthlink.net> <35191A32.79D0@earthlink.net> <35192280.59F7@earthlink.net> <351927C2.1C1C@earthlink.net> <35197EE9.6774@earthlink.net> <351983F1.52DC@earthlink.net> <351A738A.59CE@earthlink.net> <351A746E.67E9@earthlink!
.net> <351ADCAD.78D2 earthlink.net> <351BAFC3.7B8B@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

March 30, 1998   I like Kirk Shanahan's suggestion to use
sci.physics.fusion for our mailing list of over ninety, focussing on
civil discussions on the details of experiments and theories about cold
fusion and new energy research.  For me, the question is, are there now
any replicated experiments that show excess energy, radiation, or
transmutation, and, if no reliable replication can be achieved, then are
experiments now being set up that will still allow any ghosts to be
caught, by capturing enough specific data about each unpredictable event
to verify that a real reoccurent phenomena exists, as has been done this
century with cosmic ray, supernova, and gravitational lensing research?

I hope researchers will see the value of posting entire papers to
sci.physics.fusion or on the Net, inviting public criticism.  I am still
waiting to see some detailed, expert evaluation of the very interesting
ion band state fusion theories of Scott Chubb and a few others.

I will occasionally send items to the whole list directly, but will
mainly post to sci.physics.fusion.  For convenience, since there is a
lot of crank noise on spf, let's identify our posts in the subject line
with CF:  Example would be,  "CF: Murray: Shanahan: use
sci.physics.fusion 03/30/98".

I will also start reposting former critical posts by myself and others
over the last 18 months, so that anyone interested can save them, or
access them through DejaNews searches.  I will follow my policy of
offering both sides of every debate.  I'll systematically retitle the
posts to facilitate DejaNews searches: Example,  "CF: Murray: Miley CETI
beads 12/07/96".

As one,  Rich Murray
Room For All
1943  Otowi Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505-986-9103
rmforall earthlink.net


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 08:57:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13133;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:53:56 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:53:56 -0800
Message-ID: <351FCF4B.1AFD gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:58:51 -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: Puthoff and Shoulders confirmed?
References: <199803300335.TAA25056 mx1.eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cxccv.0.1D3.Xuy7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17166
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> For larger dots (0.5-1.2
> >microns across), containing fewer than several hundred electrons, the
> >MIT scientists were astonished to observe an unexpected and
> >mysterious pairing: for each stepwise voltage increase not one but two
> >electrons were able to join the puddle. 

Maybe this effect explains how "thin filament room temperature
superconductors" work. Maybe the filaments aresmall enough to pair
 up the electrons??

Tom Miller

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 09:23:14 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21969;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:19:48 -0800 (PST)
From: VCockeram <VCockeram aol.com>
Message-ID: <e2e3f01f.351fd3ab aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:17:28 EST
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: H2 Glow Discharge with a K electrode
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62
Resent-Message-ID: <"eKyeu.0.BN5.oGz7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17167
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

All,
I have a set of 8 jpg image files of the H2 glow discharge experiment
I am running. (actually getting set up to run)
I used pkzip to compress the files into a approx 620k .zip file.
Download takes about 3.5 minutes on my 28.8 modem.
Anyone interested please let me know and I will upload the file 
hydrino.zip to you.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
Las Vegas Nevada

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 09:43:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26687;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:39:58 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:39:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000101bd5c02$4e023760$188cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Happy Birthday to Martin Fleischmann and Fred Sparber
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:35:16 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"NjUMP3.0.mW6.eZz7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17168
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

>Well, I did my part on the partying, eating lots of sweets. Ugh!
>Good way to catch up on that sleep deficit.

Lets see, Vince celebrated his Sunday birthday
breaking quartz tubing.  :-)

I just spent a half a day at the local pub, and the rest of the day getting
across the street.
I was doing real well until somebody ran over my fingers.  :-(

P.S.   I don't drink either.  :-)

Regards,    Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 10:20:11 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA08310;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:03:05 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:03:05 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0885 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:02:20 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Resent-Message-ID: <"88csq.0.l12.Ovz7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17169
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

knuke
Thanks for the discussion. I'll look at your web page from time to time.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	knuke aa.net[SMTP:knuke@aa.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Friday, March 27, 1998 6:00 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	RE: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
> 
> Hank wrote:
> >knuke
> >	As an old sailor, I have seen many propellors damaged by
> >cavitation. Is there an adequate quantitative theory that explains
> why
> >so much damage is caused? Something that will predict the amount of
> >damage in a given situation? Is it possible that some nuclear events
> >occur?
> >
> >Hank Scudder
> 
> Hi Hank,
> 
>         There are a number of computational fluid dynamics
> calculations that
> have been presented by some highly respected prople that include
> equations
> that attempt to factor in the quantum forces that theoretically come
> to bear
> during cavitation.  I have some of the papers listed on my website,
> but
> there are alot more that I have seen and have yet to post.  As I was
> doing
> my research, I ran across the name of a fellow that used to be a
> professor
> of our own Barry Merriman that had done some of the mathmaticka for
> one of
> the major groups that was attempting to answer your first question.
> I'll
> have to have another look in the Bio's section of my website to get
> this
> guy's name, and exactly what his contribution was.  I've read all the
> papers, studied them, did my best to understand what they were saying,
> and I
> really admire the people that have made attempts to describe
> mathmatically
> the various phenomena related to cavitation, but I don't put much
> stock in
> the calcs just yet.  I am not a mathmatician, a scientist or even a
> very
> sophisticated engineer, as you know, and in almost every paper that I
> have
> read, I have been able to identify some obvious problems with the
> equations
> that I have seen so far.
> 
>         When I do my own work, I don't even bother to do the math
> unless
> it's a really simple problem or I'm forced by necessity.  I know that
> it's
> an unusual thing for an engineer to say, and I actually know people
> that go
> on about the beauty, elegance, blablabla, etc. of a well written math
> expression, but to me, math just make my head hurt.  I rely mostly on
> my
> experience, and my 5 or 20 (however many we are allowed to have these
> days)
> senses to tell me for example, if I should use a sched. 80 pipe over a
> sched. 40 pipe in a given situation, and while I have had a few
> surprises,
> that usually has sufficed for me.  I think that if you are capable and
> have
> the time to work through all of the calculations before you design and
> build
> something, then you should.  My reluctance to do all of that work is
> not
> always motivated by laziness either.  There are usually alot of other
> factors that come into play when making design decisions, the two most
> common being time and money.  Safety is also something that I rank
> pretty
> high when choosing materials or designing a system.  Intuition plays a
> certain role when I engineer something as well.  I generally just way
> overbuild the heck out of everything, just so I can sleep at night.
> I've
> also done some things that would look downright counterintuitive,
> illogical,
> or even stupid, to engineers who have had no experience with high seas
> or
> large explosions.
> 
>         If a system that I am working on is critical to the safety of
> individuals who will depend upon it, and something about the design
> bothers
> me for whatever reason, I have gone so far as to get down my knees and
> holler at any and all of the Dieties that might be paying attention,
> demanding that they point out the weak parts of the design until I am
> satisfied that the system will be sound.  Then I beg those Diety guys
> to
> keep the people that are going to use the system safe, even if they
> have to
> perform a miracle or two to make that happen.  I know that isn't very
> scientific or mathematical, if fact, I'm sure that it's a pretty
> humorous
> sight to watch, but it is a very common nautical thing, and I'm also
> sure
> you've seen marine engineers do some pretty superstitious stuff if you
> have
> spent any time at sea at all.
> 
>         I probably would get thrown out of NASA for some of my
> sloppier
> ideas, but then I've seen some of their work that has failed because
> they
> trusted their math, and ignored what their common sense or even their
> intuition may have told them about a situation.  Don't get me wrong, I
> have
> the highest respect for the engineers at NASA.  Their eggheads have
> performed many miracles with the methods that they employ, and their
> fatal
> error rate is pretty low for what they try to accomplish.  I also rely
> very
> heavily on my computers to perform whatever calculations that I need
> to do,
> and I read all of the published data that I can find, but in the end,
> I
> always stand back, well away from it all, I open my mind as wide as it
> will
> go, and I ask myself if everything is going to be alright before I
> ever
> throw a switch, open a valve, or strike an arc.  I don't think it's
> all that
> uncommon.
> 
>         I guess what I am saying is that I am certain that there
> currently
> is no set of calculations that will adequately predict what will occur
> during cavitation.  There will not be any set of calcs in the near
> future
> either for some simple reasons, most of which have to do with the
> difficulties involved when doing even simple fluid dynamic calcs.  The
> number of variables is just too high, and invariably some of the
> variables
> get left out, which causes the result of the calcs to be way off.  I
> have
> seen and used some very large, expensive math programs to calculate,
> for
> example, how much water will come out of a faucet on a third level
> deck, and
> how much pressure will the flow have when I turn it on full blast, and
> while
> 12 other people are also using water at various other points in the
> same
> system out of a possible 40 or 50 points.  The empirically observed
> result
> is _always_ different by a large amount from the calculated, predicted
> amount, and this is just for a common plumbing job.  The calcs just
> are not
> up to the task of accurately predicting what will happen in these very
> complex, seemingly chaotic, sometimes probablistic circumstances.
> Scientists should continue to endeavor to solve these problems with
> the hope
> of properly identifying, weighting, calculating all of the factors
> that can
> influence the result, but engineers should never put their entire
> trust in
> the results of any set of calculations.  To some extent, that applies
> to all
> branches of science and engineering, but with fluids, it is the rule
> that rulz.
> 
>         When you add to the difficulties of doing normal, classical
> fluid
> calculation the task of making a prediction based upon a theory you
> don't
> even know for certain to be true, you are sailing in very weird water
> indeed.  Add to that the fact that there several very different
> theories and
> approaches to the cavitation calcs that have been proffered, and you
> can see
> that we are dealing with a science that will have a long and
> interesting
> *infancy*.  The more we study it, the more variables we uncover, the
> more
> variables we uncover, the higher the level of complexity, the higher
> the
> level of complexity, the easier it is to make a mistake when we try to
> make
> a prediction based on any set of equations.  Ain't that just the way
> it goes.
> 
>         I think that guys like Bernoulli, Rayleigh, and Schauberger
> were
> geniuses.  They were not only at the top of their respective fields
> with
> regards to their abilities to do complex computations, but I also like
> to
> think that they were intellectually humble enough to realize that a
> human
> being's ability to do math is only slightly better than an ape's or
> even a
> fish's.  I find it amusing to think that humans are sometimes so
> arrogant as
> to think that they are such an intelligent species when compared to
> the
> fishes.  Heck, even with brains smaller than the tip of my little
> finger and
> probably very little training in superstring theory, there is still a
> huge
> number of questions that I would love to ask those stupid fishes if I
> only
> could, and I think that for the most part the fishes would probably
> have
> better answers than what the academic community has to offer.  Again,
> I say
> that with all due respect for what the academic community has
> accomplished.
> 
>         The bulk of the discoveries that will be made in the
> cavitation
> field will come as a result of old fashion hard work and careful
> analysis of
> the data.  There will be no shortcuts.  The currently available
> calculations
> will only serve to guide the general direction of the research, and
> the rest
> will be a long process of experimental trial, error, and careful
> measurement.  The math will eventually become sophisticated enough,
> but I
> don't expect it be really useful for at least another decade.  I also
> strongly believe that the efforts to improve the math will be rewarded
> by a
> large number of new processes and useful discoveries.  Maybe even free
> energy, who knows.
> 
>         To give you an idea of the number of variables that affect the
> cavitation phenomena, read the sonoluminescence papers.  Temperature
> and
> pressure gradients, EM fields, light of varying frequencies and
> intensities,
> sounds of varying frequency and intensity, different cell geometries,
> materials of construction, various working liquids and chemical
> combinations, impurity levels, entrained gases, the shape of the
> bubble as
> it collapses, ionic distributions, gravitational influences, charge,
> viscosity, nuclear cross sections, and a host of other factors that I
> am
> sure we haven't even considered yet will all affect the outcome of a
> given
> cavitation experiment.  It is quite alot to expect of a calculation
> even to
> include all of the possible variables that a cavitation engineer will
> encounter in real life.  Each of these variables will have to be
> isolated
> and painstakingly measured before any meaningful calculations can be
> generated.
> 
>         As for your question on nuclear reactions, I think that they
> have
> been already been observed and proven to exist by a fair number of
> qualified
> groups.  I've cited Putterman, Stringham, and George, as having
> reported
> nuclear events, but there are certainly others that I have yet to
> mention.
> They base their claims on SIMS analysis for the most part, and we are
> all
> familiar with that can of worms.  I've never done a SIMS analysis or
> had one
> done, but I have collected enough information on it to start a section
> on my
> website devoted to that subject.  I know of about a dozen different
> SIMS
> techniques, some of their weaknesses and strengths, and so forth.  It
> certainly warrants study if you are looking for that kind of reaction.
> Of
> course, the same can be said for calorimetry, but if any type of test
> is not
> properly done, using the appropriate techniques, the data is
> worthless.  I
> did start a section in the website devoted to calorimetry BTW, but I
> haven't
> had the time to fill it up.  I have alot to do on that webpage.
> 
>         The brass ring for some cavitation researchers is Tritium
> production
> because of its use in nuclear weapons.  The short half-life of Tritium
> requires that it be replaced relatively often, and it is currently
> expensive
> to make.  I'm more interested in the some of the other uses of
> cavitation,
> so I really don't follow the developments in that area very closely.
> I have
> read enough, however, to be concerned about the possible nuclear
> effects of
> some of the cavitation devices currently in use by the medical
> community.  I
> have read studies that have conclusively shown cavitation damage to
> tissue
> as a result of cavitation generated by some of the ultrasonic scanning
> devices currently in use.  Well meaning doctors have fried a number
> patients' of organs, brains mostly.  The damaged organ looks like a
> sponge
> with a bunch of very obvious holes in it.  This damage occurs, I
> believe,
> without the presence of radioactive materials, and I don't think that
> the
> studies have even begun to take into consideration what might happen
> to a
> common substance like barium, for example, that is very routinely
> present in
> a patient's bloodstream.  An entire branch of liability law has
> emerged
> recently just to handle the number of cavitation damage claims.  It is
> just
> another good reason to accelerate the research in this field, and make
> every
> effort to educate and inform the people that are using cavitation in
> their
> workplace.
> 
>         Well, I do go on don't I.  Hope I've stimulated some interest
> at any
> rate.  I've got work to do. Peace, Love, and Hippy Farts, -Knuke
> 
> Michael T. Huffman
> Huffman Technology Company
> 1825 Nagle Place #210
> Seattle, WA 98122
> (206)325-2461
> knuke aa.net
> http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm
>         
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 10:43:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09231;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b1458a1f94e7 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:42:08 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, Little, Stenger, Monteverde, Kooistra, Heffner
Resent-Message-ID: <"9aaUV2.0.4G2.tP-7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17170
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is a summary of results:

                      With (+) entering on
Analyst/Method        N pole side
--------------        -----------
Little/radial IxB     CW
Stenger/torque        CW
Monteverde/torque     CW
Kooistra/experiment   ?
Stenger/experiment    ?
Marinov/Marinov F     CCW
Marinov/experiment    CCW
Heffner/MHD           CCW  (my guess if pool used, as Marinov)
Heffner/Biot          CCW  (my guess for Stenger's expt.)
Heffner/pressure      CW   (discarded for Biot)


Please correct any errors or missing info.

At 10:18 PM 3/29/98, Taylor J. Smith wrote:

>P. S.  Scott Little wrote:
>
> http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.html
>
> "The force vectors F shown on the
> drawing [Image12.gif] result from the usual
>
> F = I x B
>
> that comes from Maxwell's eqns."
>
>Jack Smith wrote:
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>Based on Horace Heffner's recent posts, would
>you modify your expression for the
>"force vectors F" ?

Scott is using an abbreviated version of Lorentz above.  His very nice
Image12.gif looks correct, though maybe it is only part of the answer.  He
shows a torque which must be added to Frank's. Note that Frank shows a
clockwise torque to the rotor when (+) current enters on the face of the N
magnet (from viewer's perspective) and Scott shows a counterclockwise
torque when current enters from the S magnet side, so the two torques are
the additive.  Rick and Frank agree on the torque, and Scott and Frank and
Rick are in agreement about direction, so put them in the CW column.  I
wonder how this compares to Jeff Kooistra's rotational direction results?

If I recall correctly, my "eyeball" Biot analysis showed that the Biot LF
and the Scott's radial IxB forces were opposed.  This means no prediction
possible without quantitative comparison. However, I stuck my neck out and
said Biot should prevail, so call me CCW for Biot.  I think we all agree
that Little and Stenger are correct about their forces and torques.   If
the ring turns CCW then those forces would simply be less than the Biot
forces, IMHO.

My "magnetic pressure" argument agreed with Scott's radial force
assessment, so put that one in the CW column. (See there, I got a check in
both columns.  I'd make a good politition!)

As for Marinov, and my analysis of magnetohydrodynamic effects in 1996, we
have CW for (-) entering at N, CCW for (+) entering on N,  (see below) so
put Marinov and MHD both in the CCW column.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1996 posts:
[snip]
>    You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes.  You then
>flip one of the sections and let the two stick together.  The magnetic
>force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own.
>this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up.
>A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet.   This
>ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury.  Then
>two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of
>the magnet cut.  Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed
>through the electrodes and the ring rotates.
[snip]
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton

Horace Heffner responded:

If I visualize this correctly:

I suspect that if you replace the copper ring with an insulated (but
similarly dense) ring, it will still rotate.  That is because the surface
mercury itself should rotate around the magnet due to MHD type forces.  If
the negative pole is on the north side of the core, then four vortices (how
appropriate) should be created, one on the north side and one on the south
side of the magnet bar, one at each magnet boundary. For opposing vortices,
their main axis is colinear through the magnet bar purpendicular to the
axis of the bar, but they rotate in opposite directions. If the negative
pole is opposite the N pole of the bar, there will be an upwelling as the
electrons move through the field to the right of the N pole, and a
downwelling as they move to the left of the N pole. As the transition into
the returning field lines in the neighborhood of the S pole the fluid
motion is reversed. There is a downwelling on the right (as seen from the N
pole direction) and an upwelling on the left.  This means, as seen from the
N pole side, the N pole vortex rotates conterclockwise, and the S pole
vortex clockwise.

The (secondary) vortecies at the magnet boundaries rotate in a manner that
opposes the surface motion of the N and S pole vertices.  Their motion is
weak because it is not directly driven by MHD forces, because the electrons
in the vicinity are flowing much more purpendicular to the magnetic field
lines.  Their motion is mainly an indirect result of the motion of the
primary vortices.  The larger the container the assembly is placed in, you
would expect the less the secondary vortex motion, and the less continuity
in flow direction within them.

The net rotation of the surface mercury is therefore clockwise when the -
electrode is opposite the N pole.  Reversing the current, so the + terminal
is at the N pole side of the bar should reverse all the rotational
directions.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 11:04:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20216;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:00:13 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:00:13 -0800
From: Chuck Davis <roshicorp ROSHI.com>
To: Mark Bennett <rife-list eskimo.com>
CC: Jerry Decker <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:57:11 -0800
Message-ID: <yam7393.564.18441312 mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <199803301814.TAA27398 florence.pavilion.net>
X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.5 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
Subject: Re: Scalar Waves??
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"TJqWf3.0.fx4.yk-7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17172
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 30-Mar-98, Mark Bennett wrote:
>>Hi Mark!
>>
>>Yes, I've seen a couple of emails about cadcoil experiments....the
>>scariest one was when the guys were using a cadcoil to broadcast a RIFE
>>frequency about 3khz....they were looking at live blood and noticed the
>>blood cells were popping like balloons....they realized if its happening
>>on the slide, its happening in their bodies too...so they shut it off.
>>
  Need I be the only one to, if this is true, point out that this
  would one hell of an insidious weapon!!!

  And, according to JLN's experiments, you couldn't shield yourself
  from it, or could you? Though, it is said to be highly directional.

>>Patrick Flanagan had done some experiments with what he calls 'magnetic
>>topology' using cadcoils and left and right handed moebius
>>patterns...left drew energy from others INTO the body,...right pulled
>>energy fromt he body to radiate it away....most intriguing...I'll have to
>>ask if he'll let me post that as a file with .gifs...would spark all
>>kinds of research....I'll do that....
>>
>>As to Dale, yes I've known him for many years now and have link on the
>>front page to his svpvril site.....he's a good guy!!
>>--
>>               Jerry W. Decker   /   jdecker keelynet.com
>>        http://www.keelynet.com  /  "From an Art to a Science"
>>         Voice : (214) 324-8741  /   FAX :  (214) 324-8741
>>   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

Or, am I just being paranoid?

TrustNoOne...
-- 
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
    RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
 http://www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 11:07:48 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA14894;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351FEB6B.3EF7 interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:58:51 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Marinov, Little, Stenger, Monteverde, Kooistra, Heffner
References: <v01530500b1458a1f94e7 [199.237.131.247]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"sLMMz1.0.ee3.vk-7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17171
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
> Here is a summary of results:
> 
>                       With (+) entering on
> Analyst/Method        N pole side
> --------------        -----------
> Little/radial IxB     CW
> Stenger/torque        CW
> Monteverde/torque     CW
> Kooistra/experiment   ?
> Stenger/experiment    ?
> Marinov/Marinov F     CCW
> Marinov/experiment    CCW
> Heffner/MHD           CCW  (my guess if pool used, as Marinov)
> Heffner/Biot          CCW  (my guess for Stenger's expt.)
> Heffner/pressure      CW   (discarded for Biot)
> 
> Please correct any errors or missing info.
> 
Horace, I'm really confused!  Check out the sketch at:

	http://www.padrak.com/ine/SAPTUBE.html

and see what you make of it.  If the arrows mean + current, then the
Marinov torque would be CW, right?  The guy's battery polarity
convention is not the one I use unless the arrows are electron flow.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 11:12:55 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16784;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <351FED63.20EF interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:07:15 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Motor brush test-Marinov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ijMfD1.0.A64.ls-7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17173
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Marinov fans:

Just wanted you to know that I fitted my Marinov motor with some
graphite brushes and tried it again.  Still no luck!  It won't rotate.
The drag is still there and I think my magnets are too weak and, perhaps
they are not the correct geometry for max. torque.
If I put the 12 volt battery across the motor, I find I can get about
30 to 50 amps thru the ring.  The brush drop is in excess of 10 volts
so I'm putting about 400+ watts into the ring and brushes!  After about
3 seconds I have to stop and let the ring and brushes cool.
I first spin the rotor with my hand and then apply current - this so
I don't overheat one spot under each brush at rest.  I try rotation
in both directions in case my brain has mixed up the magnet polarity.
I think I'll put the motor "on ice" and maybe I can pick up some high-
energy magnets at R & D Electronics in Cleveland.
Without this motor running I feel my credibility is pretty weak so maybe
I should just sit and watch for a while!  Boy, without the brushes this
rotor will coast for 3 or 4 minutes with just a flick of the fingers.
Sigh!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 12:18:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26404;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:11:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:11:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530501b145a058cd64 [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:15:45 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov, Little, Stenger, Monteverde, Kooistra, Heffner
Resent-Message-ID: <"UPAUG2.0.NS6.In_7r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17174
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Here is a new summary of results:

                      [With (+) entering on N side]
Analyst/Method        Motor    Generator
--------------        ------   ------
Little/radial IxB     CW       some?
Stenger/torque        CW
Stenger/experiment    ?        none
Monteverde/torque     CW
Kooistra/experiment   CW?
Marinov/Marinov F     CW
Marinov/experiment    CW       Reinforcing (+) current
Heffner/MHD           CW
Heffner/Biot          CW       none?
Heffner/pressure      CW



I just checked the Tylenol solution and discovered that from the
perspective of the above table, (+) entering at N face, it is in the CW
column. The diagram I used (Fig. 7) was (+) entering from the S face
direction, so flow must be reversed, which puts this into the CW column
above:


                              <----- Long. Force
                        --->--------------->---------
                        |          | ^              |
                        |          |  \             |
                        |          v   \            |
                        |X    O------>-<------X   X |
                        |X    O^ X X X|O O O |X   X |
                        |X    O|      |      |X   X |
     (+)------->--------|     O| X S X|O N O |X     |---->-- current (-)
                        |O    O|      |      |X   O |
                        |O    O| X X X|O O O |X   O |
                        |O    O<------v------>X   O |
                        |           |   ^           |
                        |           |  /            |
                        |           v /             |
                        -------------->--------------
                            Long. Force ----->

                                    Fig. 7

This means it agrees with the magnetic pressure idea, and the direction of
both Scott's and Frank's analyses.

I looked at my MHD analysis, and there is a mistake.  The mercury direction
adjacent to the ring must be flowing in the I x B direction, so the MHD
analysis looks just like the radial current flow (which it is) analysis.
Since I thought the MHD analysis agreed with Marinov, I put him in the same
column.

I check Frank's reference <http://www.padrak.com/ine/SAPTUBE.html> which
shows Marinov producing a CW rotation,so that is now corrected.

I still don't know for sure where Kooistra is on this, though, but feel
pretty sure it he is in the CW column, so marked him "CW?".

As Frank said, for once we all agree.

Based on Frank's padrak reference above, I added another column for
generator effect.  I noticed that the radial element passing through the B
field at the brush should generate some current as with a homopolar motor.
If this starts a current, according to Marinov it should be self
reinforceing (thus providing free energy, what this is all aboout in the
first place!)  Frank's experiment showed otherwise, but he didn't try a big
current with load while driving the armature.  If it is not
self-reinforcing, then measuring the current then provides an estimate of
the amount of the radial effect in the motor, i.e. tha amount of
contribution of Scott's effect to the whole.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 12:26:12 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01315;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:14:22 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:14:22 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b145ae5b17d0 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:20:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov, Little, Stenger, Monteverde, Kooistra, Heffner
Resent-Message-ID: <"PDk-y2.0.TK.Rq_7r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17175
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:58 PM 3/30/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

>Horace, I'm really confused!

Nope, it's me again that was confused. See new posting.

At 2:07 PM 3/30/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>Without this motor running I feel my credibility is pretty weak so maybe
>I should just sit and watch for a while!
[snip]

Your credibility is tops with me!


Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 13:03:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA04027;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530504b145b07a973d [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:03:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
Resent-Message-ID: <"wQVfY.0.r-.iT08r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17176
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank is ready for a rest, Rick is ready for aspirin, and I'm ready for
both.  Well, after our present Marinov feeding frenzy, were do we stand?
We now have:

(1) several non-Marinov explanations for the Marinov motor, including both
Biot and Lorentz versions, but nothing quantitative yet.

(2) a non-longitudinal force explanation (Frank's) that discredits the
Marinov motor experiment as a definitive proof of Marinov's longitudinal
force principles. Without quantization, however, the longitudinal force
contribution can not be totally discredited, as it is in the same direction
as the other forces involved.

(3) one working version of the Marinov motor without MHD effects to worry
about (Jeff Kooistra's) but no working vortex member built motor yet.
Frank's motor, despite quality construction, appears not to work due to
weak magnets.

(4) some derivations from the Lorentz-Marinov equation that quantifies and
demonstrates the non-conservative nature of Marinov's longitudinal force,
and indicates a bit about where to look for and how to use Marinov's
longitudinal force.

(5) An experiment that might prove/disprove the Biot relation for current
segments, and which may demonstrate the existence of a longitudinal force
which is possibly independent of Marinov's, as it is based on the Biot
formulations.

(6) An experiment and some analysis that brings into doubt the proposed
generator aspect of the Marinov motor.  This is the least discussed area.

(7) We are all agreed that, without some demonstrated ou behavior, this is
a really lousy motor.  Maybe with some quantitative analysis we might be
able to really improve the design.

(8) Lots of real world experiments to draw from.


In progress:

The Biot longitudinal force experiment.

Frank Stenger's motor.

A finite element Biot based planar model computer program.

More longitudinal force theory.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 13:26:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06352;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:09:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Olson" <olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu>
Organization: University of Idaho
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:07:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Puthoff and Shoulders confirmed?
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <351FCF4B.1AFD gorge.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <256E407B6 hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"EfgcC3.0.4Z1.De08r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17177
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

> > For larger dots (0.5-1.2
> > >microns across), containing fewer than several hundred electrons, the
> > >MIT scientists were astonished to observe an unexpected and
> > >mysterious pairing: for each stepwise voltage increase not one but two
> > >electrons were able to join the puddle. 
> 
> Maybe this effect explains how "thin filament room temperature
> superconductors" work. Maybe the filaments aresmall enough to pair
>  up the electrons??
> 
> Tom Miller

Hey, this is a great possibility!  I wonder if the electrons are 
assumed to have opposite spin like a cooper pair.  It would seem that 
the lowest potential energy of the puddle would be with all spins 
parallel, but then again I have no idea why cooper pairs should form 
in ANY superconductor...

JAY OLSON

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 13:24:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16371;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:15:02 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:15:02 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:11:47 -0500
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
Subject: New paper from A. Takahashi
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver compuserve.com
Message-ID: <199803301614_MC2-3860-CAB9 compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-Message-ID: <"SRCf-2.0.e_3.Kj08r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17178
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Akito Takahashi has submitted a new paper to Fusion Technology. Takahashi et
al. are doing a valuable form of cold fusion which I think has been
overlooked. They mount a titanium sample in a specially designed chamber. They
bombard the samples with a deuteron beam, which loads the metal to a very high
level in a short time. Then they turn off the beam and observe neutrons with
two silicon surface barrier detectors (Si-SSD). Foils of different thickness
are placed in front of the Si-SSD which shift the neutron energy curve,
verifying it is the real McCoy (as it were). In the latest series of
experiments they are using a much thicker target to reduce bending and other
problems from heat build-up, and they pre-load the titanium with deuterium by
gas loading.

Takahashi says the results show a peculiar and highly unusual form of fusion
occurs in which three or four deuterons fuse together simultaneously. This
unpublished paper shows evidence for this "multibody" fusion and it includes a
lot of theoretical speculation, all of which is over my head. Here is the
abstract:


A. Takahashi, K. Maruta, K. Ochiai, H. Miyamaru, T. Iida, "Anomalous
Enhancement of Three-body Deuteron Fusion In Titanium-deuteride under Low
Energy D+ Beam Implantation," submitted to Fusion Technology, March 1998

Anomalous enhancement of three-body deuteron fusion reaction was observed by
low energy D+ ion beam implantation experiment with titanium-deuteride (TiDx :
x=1.4) using a Delta E-E charged-particle spectrometer. Enhancement ratio was
about 10^26, compared with the traditional theory estimation for the
beam-target interaction of random nuclear reaction process. Two characteristic
charged particles of 4.75MeV helium (3He) and 4.75MeV triton from the reaction
channel of 3D --> t + 3He + 9.5MeV were identified by the analysis of measured
1-dimensional and 2-dimensional spectral data. Experimentally obtained 3D
fusion rate was in the order of 10^3 f/s that is surprisingly large value.
Indication of strong enhancement of 4D fusion was also conceived from higher
energy Alpha-particle spectra.

Possible explanation is given by the hypothesis of simultaneous multibody
fusion induced with the coherent dynamic motion of 3 ~ 4 deuterons and many
electrons around special focal points in metal-deuteride lattice. Observed
enormous enhancement of 3D fusion rate suggests the possibility of
"nuclear-fusion-in-solid at room temperature", i.e., so called cold fusion,
which may open a new physics field between nuclear physics and solid-state
physics.


Takahashi's e-mail address is: akito nucl.eng.osaka-u.acjp

- Jed

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 13:28:59 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18655;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:24:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:24:32 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b145bcb08954 [12.64.35.192]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b1452f5c53e6 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:23:31 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"51iPp.0.IZ4.Es08r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17179
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

RE: channel of solder for LF test

  > If it's comparatively easy for you why not try it?

Ok, I probably will. I started chiselling at a piece of refractory ceramic
yesterday thinking "circular channel", but that stuff is damn hard - so I
think a small straight channel would be fine. Solder's only 425 degrees or
so, but the torch hot spots too much to use low temp materials and our oven
is down for the count, so it's propane on the hard stuff.

Sorry about your laser printer! I've been happier since I switched to
'disposable' Epson inkjets.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 13:43:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10456;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:32:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b145bf1218a8 [12.64.37.108]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b1458a1f94e7 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:30:05 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Marinov, Little, Stenger, Monteverde, Kooistra, Heffner
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id NAA10431
Resent-Message-ID: <"fDyDV1.0.IZ2.Kz08r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17180
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

   >  There is a downwelling on the right (as seen from
   >  the N pole direction) and an upwelling on the left.
   >  This means, as seen from the N pole side, the N
   >  pole vortex rotates conterclockwise, and the S pole
   >  vortex clockwise.

Good grief! You've discovered the cause of El Niño!

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 14:02:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13530;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19980330214628.19979.rocketmail send1a.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Anton Rager <a_rager yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"D9avw.0.IJ3.JD18r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17181
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello All,

I've been following the evolution of the thread for a while......and
don't really see the point.  Could someone enlighten me as to why
proof of the Marinov concept is so....so....so Vortexian and important?

Sleeping well in Denver,
==
Anton Rager
a_rager yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 14:02:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26095;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:56:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:56:51 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b145c5f99a82 [199.237.131.236]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:02:36 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biot - simplest possible LF test
Resent-Message-ID: <"C9nNZ3.0.YN6.XK18r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17182
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:23 AM 3/30/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Horace -
>
>RE: channel of solder for LF test
>
>  > If it's comparatively easy for you why not try it?
>
>Ok, I probably will. I started chiselling at a piece of refractory ceramic
>yesterday thinking "circular channel", but that stuff is damn hard - so I
>think a small straight channel would be fine. Solder's only 425 degrees or
>so, but the torch hot spots too much to use low temp materials and our oven
>is down for the count, so it's propane on the hard stuff.

Are your sure about 425 deg F?  Or maybe yo have a special oven?  My Weller
runs at 600 - 800.  Works a bit slow at 600.  Are you thinking 425 deg. C?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 14:24:36 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29923;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:16:54 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:16:54 -0800
Message-ID: <352019D2.37ADD336 microtronics.com.au>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:46:50 +0930
From: Greg Watson <gwatson microtronics.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com, FREE ENERGY <freenrg-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Status Report
References: <351EF448.A6A1361C microtronics.com.au> <351F4737.5DC8899A@mail.pc.centuryinter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"44orB2.0.GJ7.Kd18r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17183
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Taylor J. Smith wrote:
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Please keep the money I sent you.  Just send me
> my SMOT kit when you are ready.

Your money will be returned.  I should have never made the offer of
shipping a very quickly changing device.

My latest SMOT is like the Mk 3 (circular ramp), but very much easier to
duplicate and adjust.  It is what I intent to ship.

> 
> Jack Smith
> 
> P. S.  Scott Little wrote:
> 
>  http://www.eden.com/~little/magnets/marinov.html
> 
>  "The force vectors F shown on the
>  drawing [Image12.gif] result from the usual
> 
>  F = I x B
> 
>  that comes from Maxwell's eqns."
> 
> Jack Smith wrote:
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> Based on Horace Heffner's recent posts, would
> you modify your expression for the
> "force vectors F" ?
> 
> Hello again, Greg,
> 
> Your input into the discussion of the Marinov
> notor would be valuable.

When the agreement expires, there is much I will comment on!

> 
> Jack Smith

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the input and offer, but I really must return to my roots. 
All the money will be returned as my gesture of apology for getting you
all involved in my DMEC mess.

  Greg

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 14:51:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05502;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:46:33 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:46:33 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b145ce8c9e68 [199.237.131.226]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:52:25 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Magnet config for Frank?
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wa4ZJ3.0.oL1.7328r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17184
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank:

In the OF COURSE solution you showed:


  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
                        |---<---|--->---|
                        |       |       |
                        V   N   ^   S   V
                        |       |       |
                        |--->---|---<---|
  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current


It seems like you might get an equivalent torque force geometry with much
higher B if you used two side-by side pairs of opposing magnets (opposing
above and undeneath the ring) with some separation.  The following would
then be equivalent to the above, but the leakage flux is replaced with
direct flux between magnets:


                        -------      -------
                        |  S  |      |  N  |
              --ring----|     |------|     |---->-----
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
    (+)-->---*|         |     |      |     |         |*--->---(-)
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              |         |     |      |     |         |
              ----------|     |------|     |---->-----
                        |  S  |      |  N  |
                        -------      -------


This configuration was chosen to match you magnet type, if I recall
correctly (faces opposite the thin dimension,) but there are others.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 15:10:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10172;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:05:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:05:32 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b145d3f9e4c6 [199.237.131.247]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:11:37 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
Resent-Message-ID: <"4Rfif2.0.pU2.wK28r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17186
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 1:46 PM 3/30/98, Anton Rager wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I've been following the evolution of the thread for a while......and
>don't really see the point.  Could someone enlighten me as to why
>proof of the Marinov concept is so....so....so Vortexian and important?


The point is the existence of a longitudinal force, as predicted and
discussed by Marinov, Biot, Ampere, and others, indicates in most cases the
possibility of contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. of
the possibility creation of free energy.  Marinov's motor was heralded as
proof of such a force and as evidence for Marinov's theory that implies
such a force exists.

Discussion of longitudinal force gets into discussion of hompolar
generators, rail guns, etc. and their various assumed anomalies.  The
vortex has a long history of discussing these issues (see especially vortex
log for this time of year 1996) often initiated by one of the most
illustrius of vortex alumni - Chris Tinsley.   The initial discussion of
Marinov in particular, I believe was initiated by long time contributor
Lawrence E. Wharton in 1996, in honor of Frank Stenger (NASA retired,
former member of Apollo engineering team, etc.) joining the vortex list.

Last, but not least, it is well within the vortex charter:


*****************************************************************************
                         WELCOME TO VORTEX-L
*****************************************************************************

WARNING: AT LEAST READ THE RULES BELOW!

The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional
research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous
energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and
Potapov among others.)  Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any
anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free
energy" devices, chemical transmutation, gravity generation and detection,
and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims.  Please see the rules below.
This is a public, lightly-moderated list.  Interested parties are welcome
to subscribe.  PLEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE SUBSCRIBING.  There is no
charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted (see rules below for
suggested donation.)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 15:19:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25910;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:04:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:04:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:00:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: SMOT Status Report
In-Reply-To: <351FE1EA.178C itl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980330154948.13422B-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"75C4d.0.mK6.WJ28r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17185
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Nick Palmer wrote:

> It's good to see Greg watson "surfacing" again on Vortex. He still seems 
> pretty sincere to me. Remember, this all started with the SMOT, the OU 
> performance of which others have failed to replicate. Remember that a 
> computer sim of the field strengths showed the "blue hole" effect 
> consistently. I do not know enough about magenetism to be sure this backs 
> up the story that the blue hole can act as  an easy exit from the 
> stronger field around it but it at least makes the SMOT seem more likely 
> to exist as an anomaly. If the SMOT works, this makes eveything else more 
> likely, whether RMOD, RMOG, PMOD etc.
> 
> Greg recently (12 Feb 98)sent me this private email which I hope he won't 
> mind me reproducing here.
> 
> 
> >Hi Nick,
> 
> >The Dmec deal is currently in a mess.
> 
> >I signed a letter of agreement which, I have been told by lawyers on
> >BOTH sides, binds me very tightly for the period of the agreement.  If I
> >step outside of the agreement, I could get a court restraining order
> >slapped on me.  If I violated that court order, the next step is jail.
> 
> >The environmental association is not so much a money channel as a large
> >quantity product channel for 3rd world power units.  I have downscaled
> >my initial goal to 100 watts.  OK for lighting, comms, small cooking &
> >water boiling for clean water.
> 
> >My current dealings and problems are with the Dmec local OZ money
> >people.
> 
> >ONE very well known "Green" person has seen a self powered RMOG device
> >under a Non disclosure.
> 
> >Thats about all I can tell you at present.
> 
> >Please don't loose faith.  I may have done the wrong thing in signing
> >the agreement but I am NOT a crook.  The SMOT is real and will be
> >delivered.  Read the data and study the Hyde patent.  They show the way.
> 
> >My very best regards,
> > Greg
> 
> 
Nick, 
  I agree, the many that had hands on replication of the SMOT could
physically feel the anomaly of the blue-hole.. while it is not a 100vac
kick in the pants, it IS there!  Now, what can any of us do with it in
any of the mirade of different set-ups will be interesting to watch for in
the near-future (i hope). Personally, I would like to see a totally
mechanical application to base from, but, again the complexity of fine
machining and balance has always stop magnetologist (my newly coined word
<grin>) dead-cold at the null-area. Many EM designs here are starting to
resemble some of Telsa's old windings and that is encouraging for some in
that field.. I think it will take many men, many hours was what Telsa
quoted of this future work that we are attempting.  He's getting smarter
and smarter in my book.

Sorry I didn't snip any of the above, but it is truly important to keep
all of the rare now e-amils from greg in context (i think).  
  Here's to hoping he can soon find his road back home to the LIST.

Best to you & yours (all!)
-=se=-
ekwall2 diac.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 15:49:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06368;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:46:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:46:21 -0800
Message-ID: <19980330234550.14839.rocketmail send1b.yahoomail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:45:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Anton Rager <a_rager yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"knonN3.0.NZ1.Bx28r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17187
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Guess I forgot to include smileys.... :)

Not trying to be inflamatory.......Just wasn't sure what you guys were
chasing after.


==
Anton Rager
a_rager yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 15:51:33 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07007;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:49:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:49:00 -0800
Message-ID: <01BD5C03.D6FCF040 pm3-160.gpt.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk sunherald.infi.net>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>,
        "'freenrg-l eskimo.com'"
	 <freenrg-l eskimo.com>
Subject: FW: Batteries and isolation
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:46:58 -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 mx1.eskimo.com id PAA06941
Resent-Message-ID: <"MjHVh2.0.7j1.dz28r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17188
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



-----Original Message-----
From:	Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk sunherald.infi.net]
Sent:	Saturday, March 28, 1998 7:35 AM
To:	'freenrg-l eskimo.com'
Subject:	Batteries and isolation

>Greetings:

>Is there some kind of battery that I can get 5 amps out of ([not a car battery!], or an array of batteries) that will also accept 100kV >without being destroyed? Would I need to do something special to the battery to insulate it to 100kV?

>ALSO:

>I have a coil, and need to run 4 amps through it. How can I make sure that there is actually 4 amps going through it, and if not how >can I force the amps through it? Should I place something that will draw 4 amps at the output of the coil?

>Thanks,
>Kyle Randall Mcallister
>Email: stk sunherald.infi.net
>Phone: 228-875-0629
>Fax: 228-872-5837

No reply? I apologise if I'm asking many questions, but I am new to electronics. Physics is my specialty.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 16:18:16 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13353;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:10:58 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:10:58 -0800
Message-ID: <352034A2.656A interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:11:14 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Magnet config for Frank?
References: <v01530500b145ce8c9e68 [199.237.131.226]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"f2LqV1.0.YG3.HI38r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17189
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
(snip the details)

> It seems like you might get an equivalent torque force geometry with much
> higher B if you used two side-by side pairs of opposing magnets (opposing
> above and undeneath the ring) with some separation. 

Yes, Horace, this is a very good suggestion!  If my "pure torque"
approach holds water, then I should optimize the magnets to produce
such torques.  I will try to do this but I worked myself into a corner
by mounting the ring on a cup rim.  I only have access to one edge.
Still, maybe I can arrange the magnets to face close to the exposed
edge and at least use the flux from the face-center of the magnet poles.
As time permits, please check my logic about the torques from the
longitudinal force couple standpoint.  I feel uneasy about this even
though the MECHANICAL aspects seem to clearly check out.  I've tried
torques uning long plastic torsion rods, and my fingers - such torques
always produce ring rotation as you would expect.  Am I missing
something adding the Lorentz torques together or something more subtle?

Some misc. data on my Marinov motor ring and graphite brushes:
	>> break-loose torque (just starts moving) = ~ 45 gm-cm
	>> zero-current brush resistance (slow rotation) = 1 to 4 ohms
	>> 30 to 40 amp rolling brush drop = greater than 10 volts DC
	   Thus, heat load in brushes+ring = ~ 400 watts

It bothers me that I see no hint of torque when I spin the rotor in
either direction (i.e., spins better one way than the other) with
40 amps flowing.  This is one thing that makes me doubt my torque
couple theory.
But, I will see if I can modify the magnet arrangement to maximize such
torques.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 16:38:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18087;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:34:28 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:34:28 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b145e95b0803 [12.64.37.108]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:33:57 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: MARINOV: solder experiments
Resent-Message-ID: <"fpao93.0.XQ4.Ie38r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17190
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Just tried a few experiments with solder. Horace, there is a bulge in a
straight channel of current-carrying solder crossed by a magnet in the
expected MHD manner. Because of the field curvature off the end of the
small magnet I used, the central bulge was  upand out of the trough from
fields inclined maybe 45 degrees; the bulge would lean out and flood out on
the flats beside it. But it wasn't just driving out sideways, it did bulge
up. I had the magnet as flush with the surface as I could get it.

My attempt at a floating Marinov ring was a bust. The viscous drag of the
solder on the ring was ridiculous. There was some slag, but I doubt that
fluxing would have helped that much. the solder is very sticky, and the
copper #6 wire ring felt like it was stuck in soft glue when I tried to
turn it manually. I was using a pair of 1" kick-butt neodumiums and the
deep cycle battery, and the ring wouldn't turn.

Frank might be right about the solder not moving by itself without a solid
ring, because although it was jiggling a bit in the circular trough
presumably from various eddy currents, there was no net visible motion at
all. This might also be a viscous drag effect though, with the outer layers
of the solder stuck to the sides of the trough and only an inner core
flowing. Overall, I'd have to say that the viscous drag of solder with
other objects is really high and that makes it useless for most
experiments. It does bulge up well though above the level surface, so small
pools touching the undersideof a ring which is otherwise suspended might
make decent brush contacts.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 17:03:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16535;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:44:43 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803310044.QAA25130 slave3.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: RE: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Resent-Message-ID: <"LSygL3.0.H24.dp38r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17191
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>knuke
>Thanks for the discussion. I'll look at your web page from time to time.
>
>Hank

        Ply measure. I'll be posting update notices every few weeks or so,
and I will try (time permitting) to list the new stuff that has been added
so that people don't have to wade through the old stuff to find the new.
Mitch Schwartz and others do this, and it is helpful. -Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
Huffman Technology Company
1825 Nagle Place #210
Seattle, WA 98122
(206)325-2461
knuke aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm
  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 17:21:23 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26665;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:16:06 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:16:06 -0800
From: "George Holz" <george varisys.com>
To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Marinov - ring field measurements
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:16:12 -0500
Message-ID: <01bd5c42$97c9e5b0$3f6cd626 george.varisys.com>
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: <"y90IV.0.UW6.KF48r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17192
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Setup:
Positive 10 amp. current from bottom.
Sensor is Hall effect with active area approx. 75 x 40 mils.
Center of sensor was placed at 60 mils from wire in all measurements.
Center of sensor was at 70 mils from corner for corner measurements.
Wire diameter was 60 mils, ring diameter was 2.5", no torus.
Horizontal readings were taken at .125 in. intervals from the edge
of the vertical ( ring feed ) wire. Zero field was measured when
the sensor was directly above the vertical wire center.
Vertical readings were taken at.125 in. intervals starting
from the horiz. wire edge. The first reading is the corner reading.
Readings are in gauss and should be within +-.5 gauss.
-
-3.5 -4.0 -3.3 -3.4 -2.8 -2.4 0 +1.6 +2.4 +2.6 +2.8 +3.2 +3.6
-------------------------------------------------------------
+3.5 +4.0 +3.5 +4.1 +5.5 +6.6 ! -7.1 -5.5 -4.9 -4.1 -3.8
                              ! -7.0
                              ! -6.8
                              ! -6.7
                              ! -6.6
                              ! -7.1
                              ! -7.5
                              ! -6.9
                              ! -7.0

What do I conclude from this data? That the torus,located 
inside the ring will be influenced mainly by the field
gradient along the ring wire, especially if the fringing
fields fall off quickly in the radial direction. If
they do not fall off quickly, torque from this source
will be much smaller due to the interaction with the
opposite polarity fields on the other side of the wire.
The case is not so clear for the ring itself, it appears
that the field crowding caused by the feed wire fields
when added to the torus fringing fields could result
in extra unbalanced ring torque as suggested by Horace.
It is interesting to note how small the effects of the
feed wire field are just 60 mils inside the wire edge.
I'll have more comments on the other experiments 
tomorrow, just wanted to get this data out ASAP.
-
I have tried to get Jeff to join vortex, but he feels
he just doesn't have the time right now. I don't 
really have time to be his vortex connection / filter 
either, but I have posted almost all the info received 
from him to vortex. I'm trying to send the more important
vortex results back to him, so status summaries
are helpful, thanks Horace!

George Holz    george varisys.com
Varitronics Systems



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 17:50:31 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA32590;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:47:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:47:11 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b145fc4b2471 [199.237.131.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:53:12 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: solder experiments
Resent-Message-ID: <"owZCR1.0.yy7.Ri48r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17194
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 2:33 PM 3/30/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Just tried a few experiments with solder. Horace, there is a bulge in a
>straight channel of current-carrying solder crossed by a magnet in the
>expected MHD manner. Because of the field curvature off the end of the
>small magnet I used, the central bulge was  upand out of the trough from
>fields inclined maybe 45 degrees; the bulge would lean out and flood out on
>the flats beside it. But it wasn't just driving out sideways, it did bulge
>up. I had the magnet as flush with the surface as I could get it.
>
[snip]

Fantastic! That was fast!

Don't forget the other part of the test - which cinches it.  That is to
reverse the current to get a dip in the solder where the welling up was.
You can either  reverse the current or the magnet.  If you reverse both you
should be back to getting the welling up.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 17:55:10 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24581;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0888 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Motor brush test-Marinov
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:40:33 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"73G9o.0.y_5.ge48r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17193
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank
	Have you tried using your magnets in a conventional motor setup?
It would give you some idea of the best torque you could hope for.
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 30, 1998 11:07 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Motor brush test-Marinov
> 
> Marinov fans:
> 
> Just wanted you to know that I fitted my Marinov motor with some
> graphite brushes and tried it again.  Still no luck!  It won't rotate.
> The drag is still there and I think my magnets are too weak and,
> perhaps
> they are not the correct geometry for max. torque.
> If I put the 12 volt battery across the motor, I find I can get about
> 30 to 50 amps thru the ring.  The brush drop is in excess of 10 volts
> so I'm putting about 400+ watts into the ring and brushes!  After
> about
> 3 seconds I have to stop and let the ring and brushes cool.
> I first spin the rotor with my hand and then apply current - this so
> I don't overheat one spot under each brush at rest.  I try rotation
> in both directions in case my brain has mixed up the magnet polarity.
> I think I'll put the motor "on ice" and maybe I can pick up some high-
> energy magnets at R & D Electronics in Cleveland.
> Without this motor running I feel my credibility is pretty weak so
> maybe
> I should just sit and watch for a while!  Boy, without the brushes
> this
> rotor will coast for 3 or 4 minutes with just a flick of the fingers.
> Sigh!
> 
> Frank Stenger
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:10:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA29928;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35204F60.65FB interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:05:20 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Motor brush test-Marinov
References: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0888 xch-cpc-02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VTAVK2.0.WJ7.l-48r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17195
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scudder, Henry J wrote:
> 
> Frank
>         Have you tried using your magnets in a conventional motor setup?
> It would give you some idea of the best torque you could hope for.
> Hank
> 
Hank, I am going to try to do this sort of thing as best I can.  I
agree it would be very informative.  One problem I have is that my ring
is mounted on a cup-like rotor rim and I only have access to one edge
and the inside and outside (brush location now) of the ring.  But I
will still try to do something like you suggest!

Frank

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:23:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA08065;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:21:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:21:42 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:21:27 -0800
Message-Id: <199803310221.SAA10444 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: El Nino slows Earth down
Resent-Message-ID: <"N60X63.0.xz1.pC58r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17196
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>John Steck wrote:
>
>> El Nino slows Earth down
>
>Who knows, perhaps the title of this thread should be:
>Earth Slow Down Causes El Nino.
>
>Regards,
>Robert Stirniman

Correct.  But then you have to add, Earth's elliptical orbit blue shifts
aether waves from the sun during the fall, and red shifts them during the
spring, thus speeding and slowing the earths rotation, which when excessive,
in turn causes El Nino.

But then you have to explain how aether pulsations (similar to gravity waves
but due to aether flow velocity variations from fusion reactivity
variability in the solar core) couple to Earth's physical assymetries such
as mountains oceanic trenches etc.  

Ross Tessien


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:27:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03313;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:23:31 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:23:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:21:28 -0800
Message-Id: <199803310221.SAA10454 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: Vortex-l wants ROSS TESSIEN on ARTBELL Show (fwd)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gg_ib2.0.gp.VE58r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17198
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Ross, 
>  I just got this return mail fom Art Bell (radio fame) - I was surprized
>he picked out mine in the group to reply to,

Thanks for sending it.  I asked a few people to do so because my emails were
never answered.

Ross


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:34:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03266;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:23:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:23:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:21:25 -0800
Message-Id: <199803310221.SAA10437 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: El Nino & E=MC^2
Resent-Message-ID: <"mitHC3.0.xo.ME58r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17197
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Well, 200+ emails, most deleted, I'm back from checking that gravity still
works.
I was pushed down untracked fresh white powder snow off of the cliffs around
Bear Valley, sailed up the face of jumps and launched out off of cornices,
and each and every time the balance of the universe pushed me toward the
earth to glide down to the lift for another run.  OK, here goes a list of
responses to the weekend email:


>Energy is Mass. Matter is enourmous amounts of increasingly complex
>vibrations of energy. Enourmous amounts just happens to mean C^2.
>
>Matter is made up of energy. So C^2 amounts of energy in an very complex
>fibration patter is what matter really is. 
>Mark A. Collins

Why must this be so?  Because you and I were told it is so?  Because we
cannot find it in our minds to be able to think of the property of the
universe that is, mass, as residing in anything except "particles"?  

If "mass" is a measure of how much of the stuff of the ocean we call a
universe "ignorant fish that we are", then the amount of energy derived from
blasting that aether out of the standing wave **at the sound speed c**,
leads to the energy we see, and to an emission of some of the stuff of what
we call empty space.

But then, if we don't emit the stuff of empty space from any dense
repository, how is it that galaxies can expand via the Hubble flow?  The
only reason you allow this absurdity in your minds is because we are
comfortable with the idea that empty space is, well, empty.  If it is an
ocean, then to allow expansion without aether emission via exothermy or some
other process becomes intollerable.

So we think "well, the quantum vacuum is really intense with waves, but
there is nothing waving, light is composed of fields because I can't have
anything waving, spacetime is foamy because QM is uncertain, but there isn't
anything there foaming, it is just all in the math because I "know" that
spacetime is just a mathematical property of the universe and not some wave
topology".

The above is, well, IMO, silly.

Equivalency is IMO exactly as accurate as was the notion, "The earth is
flat", for those who never travelled around the globe.   Both notions make,
and made respectively, the same amount of sense to the leading thinkers of
the day, and the populous follow because they cannot think of anything
better, let alone understand all of the ramifications of the statements to
begin with.

Ross Tessien



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:38:54 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA11386;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:34:16 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:34:16 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530505b146077bc54e [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:40:33 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
Resent-Message-ID: <"yj54S1.0.nn2.aO58r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17199
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:45 PM 3/30/98, Anton Rager wrote:
>Guess I forgot to include smileys.... :)
>
>Not trying to be inflamatory.......Just wasn't sure what you guys were
>chasing after.

No inflammation.  My writing is just a bit droll (English major I ain't.).
Just trying to cover all the bases.   Sorry.

Ooops, almost forgot:   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:44:39 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA06074;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102803b145f958c98b [12.64.37.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:38:12 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: MARINOV: solder experiments (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d95u83.0.qU1.DU58r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17200
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I wrote:

   >  Because of the field curvature off the end of the
   >  small magnet I used, the central bulge was  upand
   >  out of the trough from fields inclined maybe 45
   >  degrees; the bulge would lean out and flood out on
   >  the flats beside it. But it wasn't just driving out
   >  sideways, it did bulge up. I had the magnet as flush
   >  with the surface as I could get it.

And I'm going to have to take that last part back. I'm not so sure now
that's what happened at all.

I went out to clean up the mess in the garage, but then thought I'd better
try the straight channel tests again - this time with the strong neos which
I could drop down below the top surface of the channel (the channel is
about 1.5 inches in from and parallel with the edge) and center a strong
field with the body of the solder, or with a stack of the smaller magnets
making a sort of longer bar magnet that would have a little bit larger area
of fairly straight out field off its face, and maybe even get magnets on
either side of the channel.

In *all* cases the solder tried to either come towards or away from the
pole face of the magnet, depending on polarity and current direction. It
was pretty definite too, and that 45 degree comment couldn't have applied
to some of the tests I did where the center of the pole face was aligned
well with the body of the channel. However, when I put the magnet above
with the field pointing straight down into the channel, the melt lunged out
sideways in the more normal expected sense. I think any bulge I saw in any
test was due to the surge of the solder coming up over the rim. But I tried
it again and again with magnets on the side, and once with short stacks of
the smaller ceramic magnets sitting on the surface on either side of the
channel with the field between them pointing right across the (top) surface
of the channel of solder, which bulges up substantially above the surface.
There it went every time, lunging sideways right towards one of the
magnets, in one case flowing right up to it and molding itself against the
face.

The fluid metal, flowing charge, eddy currents(?), curving magnetic fields
seem to have conspired together somehow to completely orthorotate the whole
mess 90 degrees from the expected action and send it surging along the
magnetic field lines. The movement towards the faces can be easily
explained by the top half of the pole face fields fanning out and curving
to an angle that would turn the force vector somewhat towards the face. The
melt, pinned against by gravity, is confined to move along a path towards
the pole. I'm not sure about the bottom though, the channel would just get
drained out in that area, and I'd have expected the metal to be pushed away
from the face in the lower half. So why did it work the same way whether
the magnet was on, a little above, or centered below the surface? With a
given polarity, it *always* lunges towards the pole face, never away!

I need to do some more tests with a narrow channel with easy access from
the sides to get the whole thing centered in some nice parallel field lines
between two magnets. I'm sure MHD works just fine when everything's inside
a tube, but I'd like to see how a very soft elastic tube of conducting
mercury behaves between magnets, preferably in zero-g.

Pass the aspirin please...

<thud>

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 18:53:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA07493;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:19 -0800 (PST)
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: cycles esosoft.com
Cc: KeelyNet-L-help lists.kz, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Science Frontiers: Some Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:43:29 GMT
Message-ID: <352f508d.10232968 kcbbs.gen.nz>
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: <"MQ9lv2.0.wq1.gc58r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17201
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Book Review
Science Frontiers: Some Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature
compiled by William R Corliss
published by The Sourcebook Project, POBox 107, Glen Arm, MD21057 USA
ISBN 0-915554-28-3

I just bought this book a few days ago and it will take quite a while to digest
because it is ~350 pages of small print with very many small articles.

Corliss has compiled articles about apparent anomalies and curiosities.
The articles are mostly from peer reviewed journals, so they are not from the
lunatic fringe.  They are reasonably sound facts (although he acknowledges that
some will certainly be mistakes) that just don't fit the present paradigm.  For
those that seek to go beyond present science in either theory or practice then
this book will have a wealth of interesting tidbits (thousands of them).

Corliss has a very wide interest and I find his comments are often (but not
always) insightful).  He makes no claim at completeness, but there is something
from almost every field of science here.  A fascinating book.

Some of the bits that interested me are articles on (just a sample) ...

* Megawalls across the Cosmos - regularly spaced walls of galaxies.

* Periodic extinctions at 26 million year intervals over the last 600 million
years.

* Long delayed radio echoes (of seconds - these are experienced in ham radio)

* Acacia trees that use ethylene signals to each other when antelope are eating
the leaves so that they all increase tannin production (within minutes) which
tastes bad.

* Anomalous short life spans for some particles - many experimenst show that
about 6% of particles have excessively short lives due to having higher
cross-sections.

* In accelerators, heavy nuclei seem to sometimes stick together for ~10^-19 sec
so that they look like double the normal atomic weight.
[my thought - does this relate to Mills theory?]

Remember these were all published in Science, Nature and similar journals.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 19:36:05 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12935;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530506b146085efaa5 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:30:16 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov - ring field measurements
Resent-Message-ID: <"ESpM43.0.0A3.z868r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17203
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:16 PM 3/30/98, George Holz wrote:
>Setup:
>Positive 10 amp. current from bottom.
>Sensor is Hall effect with active area approx. 75 x 40 mils.
>Center of sensor was placed at 60 mils from wire in all measurements.
>Center of sensor was at 70 mils from corner for corner measurements.
>Wire diameter was 60 mils, ring diameter was 2.5", no torus.
>Horizontal readings were taken at .125 in. intervals from the edge
>of the vertical ( ring feed ) wire. Zero field was measured when
>the sensor was directly above the vertical wire center.
>Vertical readings were taken at.125 in. intervals starting
>from the horiz. wire edge. The first reading is the corner reading.
>Readings are in gauss and should be within +-.5 gauss.
>-
>-3.5 -4.0 -3.3 -3.4 -2.8 -2.4 0 +1.6 +2.4 +2.6 +2.8 +3.2 +3.6  ^
>------------------------------------------------------------- /
>+3.5 +4.0 +3.5 +4.1 +5.5 +6.6 ! -7.1 -5.5 -4.9 -4.1 -3.8     /
>                              ! -7.0                        B
>                              ! -6.8  A
>                              ! -6.7
>                              ! -6.6
>                              ! -7.1
>                              ! -7.5
>                              ! -6.9
>                              ! -7.0
>
>What do I conclude from this data?

It's great data!  Nice job George.

I think it shows nicely why there is such a strong interaction between the
torus magnet and the brush feed wire that stablized the magnet so nicely in
Frank's Test 5.  The Lorentz force (magnetic pressure is really just
another form of interpretation of the same thing) on the brush feed wire
was pointed out by Michael J. Schaffer.  One reason it is so high, of
course, is that there is twice as much current there as in the ring.  Also,
unless held in by steel cap plates, the "leakage" or "return" magnetic
field tends to push itself out quite a ways with its own pressure, and thus
interact with the brush leads.

If a large magnetic field of say -6.6 were imposed on all this, you can see
how an unbalanced "pressure" would build up at A above.  My feeling was
that since magnetic fields push back, that there would be a push to the
right on every small ring segment contibuting to the field A, that the
field vector B in the ring on the right would be skewed (see B) and thus
repel the field from the brush leads.  An alernate way to look at this is
via Biot, which says current segments in opposite directions repel.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 19:47:13 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12860;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530507b1460ff8c3d7 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:30:22 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: solder experiments (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vcd3X3.0.i83.l868r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17202
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 4:38 PM 3/30/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>I wrote:
>
>   >  Because of the field curvature off the end of the
>   >  small magnet I used, the central bulge was  upand
>   >  out of the trough from fields inclined maybe 45
>   >  degrees; the bulge would lean out and flood out on
>   >  the flats beside it. But it wasn't just driving out
>   >  sideways, it did bulge up. I had the magnet as flush
>   >  with the surface as I could get it.
>
>And I'm going to have to take that last part back. I'm not so sure now
>that's what happened at all.
>

Rick,

The channel is supposed to go over the top of the *center* of a magnet,
purpendicular to the direction of the magnet.  Each spot in the trough
would then be equidistant from the poles at all times.  Here is top view:


           -------
           |  N  |
           |     |
           |     |
    ==================== trough
           |     |
           |     |
           |     |
           |  S  |
           -------




Here is the test again, with side view:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK, here is a good LF test, as far as I can see. No Lorentz forces I can
see, except an upward force of the mercury into the column at the column
entry. Other than that, only Biot.  We need to take a careful look at that
though.  Here is side view:



        L      M       R
       | |    | |     | |
       | |    | |     | |
       |~|    |~|     |~|
       | |    | |     | |
->---=======================-------->-----------  "rail" very long
           ---->-c--                              both directions
           |       |
         a ^   S   v b
           |       |
           --d-<----

-->--  - wire with current direction indicated by >

===== - thin horizontal tube filled with mercury

 | |  - vertical glass column

 |~|  - mercury level


Possibly the mercury feed to column M could be taken at a horizontal or
downward angle, to prevent a Lorentz magnetohydrodymanic force from
increasing the pressure in the column.  At least the Lorentz pressure
applies the same direction to all columns, but unfortunately the field
strength would not be the same at the mercury feed to each column. An
alternate approach is to nullify the magnetic field at the mercury feed
point to the columns.

Now, with current left to right in the rail, as shown, Biot shows the
effects of the two opposing direction vertical current segments a and b of
the magnet and the horizontal leg c all will cause a pressure increase in
the mercury in the center column.  Only the more remote leg d opposes the
compression. Since there is no lateral brush current to deal with, and the
Biot analysis shows a clear compression force toward the central column,
and Lorentz does not, the test is definitive.  With rail current directed
to the right as shown, columns L and R should drop, and column M should
rise.  The difference in column height can be used to measure the force.
If the current direction is reversed, column M should drop below level, and
columns L and R rise.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 20:10:20 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29027;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:08:32 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:08:32 -0800
Message-ID: <35206C4E.142C interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:08:46 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: STENGER GOOFED (again?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"44cgT1.0.H57.-m68r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17204
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Marinov fans:  I goofed again!

Recall my "OF COURSE (I think!)" post drawing:

  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
                        |---<---|--->---|
                        |       |       |
                        V   N   ^   S   V
                        |       |       |
                        |--->---|---<---|
  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current

Note that the Lorentz force vectors on the current segments between
the Hg blobs WOULD NOT pass thru the center of rotation at the centroid
of the magnets in the sketch.  So, I think my argument would hold up
FOR THIS LIMITED CASE!
However, I was rethinking the case with semi-circular segnents, where
all Lorentz forces went thru the center of ring rotation.  I'm sorry,
but there is no way a pair of radial Lorentz forces, one radial outward
thru the rotation center, the other radial inward thru the same center,
can cause a resultant torque about that center!  True, these forces
do have a torque resultant about a point on the ring 90 degrees from
either brush, but there is no resultant about the ring center!  

So, add the "pure torque on the ring halves" theory to Stenger's
Island of Lost Theories.
This explains why the few attempts I made to maximize these torques
were to no avail - nor would they be with stronger magnets.  I had
better go back and review my rotational dynamics - I've been out of
school way too long!
One problem, I still don't know why my motor does not work and Jeff's
does.  Weak magnets...?? I don't know.

Frank (back to the drawing board) Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 20:24:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA31338;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:21:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:21:46 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:20:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: El Nino slows Earth down
In-Reply-To: <199803310221.SAA10444 Au.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980330211636.15653A-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"P9Ymi.0.af7.Oz68r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17205
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:

> >John Steck wrote:
> >> El Nino slows Earth down
> >Who knows, perhaps the title of this thread should be:
> >Earth Slow Down Causes El Nino.
> >Regards,
> >Robert Stirniman
> 
> Correct.  But then you have to add, Earth's elliptical orbit blue shifts
> aether waves from the sun during the fall, and red shifts them during the
> spring, thus speeding and slowing the earths rotation, which when excessive,
> in turn causes El Nino.
-snip-
> Ross Tessien
> 
> 
> 
Ross,
  Did you see the request for telephone call from Art Bell last week to
you?  Just hadn't heard.  Glad your still out there! :)

steve (the middleman) ekwall
-=se=-
ekwall2 diac.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 20:29:18 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA32744;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:25:34 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:25:34 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:23:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Ekwall <ekwall2 diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2 november
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex-l wants ROSS TESSIEN on ARTBELL Show (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199803310221.SAA10454 Au.oro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.980330212159.15653B-100000 november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"-HWWS3.0.X_7.y078r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17206
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:

> >Ross, 
> >  I just got this return mail fom Art Bell (radio fame) - I was surprized
> >he picked out mine in the group to reply to,
> 
> Thanks for sending it.  I asked a few people to do so because my emails were
> never answered.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> 
Oops, NEVER MIND my just asked previous e-mail.. about did you get
this..that'll teach one to read
the relevant 'subject' lines first!

-=se=-

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 20:46:25 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29287;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:42:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199803310442.UAA21680 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 <mrandall earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Status Report
Resent-Message-ID: <"q_mxD.0.X97.4I78r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17207
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Greg,

>Please keep the money I sent you.  Just send me
>my SMOT kit when you are ready.
>
>Jack Smith

Same here.

How is your 10 Kw unit developing?  When can we buy one to power our homes?   

Regards,   Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 22:43:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA27429;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:38:10 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:38:10 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b1463f0e2a75 [12.64.66.51]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530507b1460ff8c3d7 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:37:46 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV: solder experiments (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jE3962.0.Qi6.Gz88r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17208
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  The channel is supposed to go over the top of the
   >  *center* of a magnet, purpendicular to the
   >  direction of the magnet.  Each spot in the trough
   >  would then be equidistant from the poles at all
   >  times.  Here is top view:
   >
   >
   >             -------
   >             |  N  |
   >             |     |
   >             |     |
   >      ==================== trough
   >             |     |
   >             |     |
   >             |     |
   >             |  S  |
   >             -------

Is that a bar magnet lying sideways, or are those the top pole faces of a
pair of Marinov style split magnets?

By the way, I'm sure I've made a mistake somehow in observing how the
solder moved in relation to the magnets. I know how it's supposed to move,
and somehow I must have failed to keep track of just what I was observing,
which pole of the magnet(s) were towards the channel, etc. I'll try those
again, and this too if you can calrify that one point above for me.

Thanks,

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 22:46:08 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA28519;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:44:00 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:44:00 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102803b14640c49164 [12.64.66.51]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b145fc4b2471 [199.237.131.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:43:36 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV: solder experiments
Resent-Message-ID: <"1LRZg.0.Nz6.l298r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17209
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

  > That was fast!

Yup. A lit-tle toooooo fast.    :)

Must try again with my eyes open and my brain turned on.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 23:08:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA32053;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:06:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:06:48 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b1463e988cd6 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:13:10 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: STENGER GOOFED (again?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"0bncC.0.iq7.5O98r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17210
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:08 PM 3/30/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
>Marinov fans:  I goofed again!
>
>Recall my "OF COURSE (I think!)" post drawing:

                  ^ F1
                  |              cw
>                 |          X        O
>  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
>                        |---<---|--->---|     |
>                        |       |       |     |
>                 ^ F3   V   N   ^   S   V     v F2
>                 |      |       |       |
>                 |      |--->---|---<---|
>  (+)-------->----------Hg-->---tt--->--Hg----------->---current
                             X        O        |
                                 cw            |
                                               v F4
                            Fig. 1
Frank,

Maybe this can be salvaged.    Attach your magic flexible torqe rod to
either point TT and you have cw rotation. The Lorentz force on the sides
oppose, torqueing to the ccw:


     F5  <-- |            F6  <--  |
             |                     |
           X ^ X                O  v  O
             |                     |
      -------|  ccw          ccw   |--------
             |                     |
          X  v  X                  ^
             |                  O  | O
             |  --> F7             |   --> F8

                      Fig. 1


We need a quantitative argument.  Well, the magnets do not operate on the
ring symmetrically.  Each magnet has a main influence on only three sides.
It is tough to estimate exactly how these are split.  However, we do know
the proximity of one magnet to the other saps a lot of the field to the top
and bottom above, i.e. to F1-F4.  Suppose we estimate they are split fairly
amongst the 8 force vector areas F1 - F8.  Suppose we put a steel plate on
the top and bottom sides of the magnets, eliminating the "leakage there to
the top and bottom of the ring, F1 - F4.  Bingo, the sides get the
predominant leakage flux, and Bingo!  Counterclockwise rotation.  Suppose
we put the iron plates on the sides.  Bingo again! Clockwise rotation.

Marinov specified that the magnets be semicircular and as close to the
inner diameter of the ring as possible.  If the circle was filled with iron
plate, to make a square magnet nearly semicircular, it could explain a lot.


Alright.  Is Jeff using steel plates?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 23:20:41 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA00019;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:11:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:11:31 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b1464845d2da [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:17:56 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: solder experiments (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"uVzMs3.0.8.XS98r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17211
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 8:37 PM 3/30/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Horace -
>
>   >  The channel is supposed to go over the top of the
>   >  *center* of a magnet, purpendicular to the
>   >  direction of the magnet.  Each spot in the trough
>   >  would then be equidistant from the poles at all
>   >  times.  Here is top view:
>   >
>   >
>   >             -------
>   >             |  N  |
>   >             |     |
>   >             |     |
>   >   (+) =========X========== trough
>   >             |     |
>   >             |     |
>   >             |     |
>   >             |  S  |
>   >             -------
>
>Is that a bar magnet lying sideways, or are those the top pole faces of a
>pair of Marinov style split magnets?

That's just a plain old bar magnet, any length. The force looked for goes
either towards X from both sides or away from it from both sides.

>
>By the way, I'm sure I've made a mistake somehow in observing how the
>solder moved in relation to the magnets. I know how it's supposed to move,
>and somehow I must have failed to keep track of just what I was observing,
>which pole of the magnet(s) were towards the channel, etc. I'll try those
>again, and this too if you can calrify that one point above for me.
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Mon Mar 30 23:46:04 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA24894;
	Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:43:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b14647180dfc [12.64.66.51]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:41:19 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: MARINOV: solder test for Horace
Resent-Message-ID: <"JIH2e3.0.t46.Kw98r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17212
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

Did a new experiment with a stack of SMOT magnets made up into a split bar
magnet style arrangement viewed here from the side:

  N    S
 ___  ___
|___||___|
|___||___|
|___||___|
|___||___|
  S    N

The pole faces are on the top and bottom of the stacks. Here is the view
from the top, superimposed over the solder channel both ways I tried it.
Poles are now facing you out of the page:


Orientation A.

                 _______
      	        |   N   |
   ------------ |_______| -----------
                 _______          solder channel
   ------------ |   S   | -----------
                |_______|





Orientation B.

                  |   |
                  |   | solder channel
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |
                 _______
      	        |   N   |
                |_______|
                 _______
                |   S   |
                |_______|
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |

This wasn't done using the earlier channel I had prepared, rather just a
very shallow hollow on the surface of some brick, and I probably didn't
even need that.

Orientation A caused the solder to 'twist' out of the shallow scoop. That
was cool looking, the solder trying to snake around in a '69' pattern. I
bunched the solder up again into a somewhat round puddle rather than the
elongated 'channel' puddle and tried it again, but it didn't look like it
was really circulating or that it really wanted to - but I can't be sure.
It looked like it was just being twisted up as with a screwdriver or
something - just two matched opposing bulges like standing waves in a
stream making an 'S' or '69' shape. Maybe it would have flowed around
continuously, but the solder's too thick to tell for sure.

Orientation B is the one you want! Yes, here there was a very nice, very
obvious central bulge that would rise up under the magnets in that
configuration. This time I'm sure of it. I'd flip the magnets over and
there would be a nice symmetrical depression, as if you were blowing down
on it with a straw. There was no doubt about it this time, despite my
confusion on the earlier tests. In those I was being thrown off by the
solder trying to bum rush the edeges of the magnets. Nothing like that
happened this time with the magnets stacked like I have them here; your
idea worked perfectly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

So.

What does all this mean?  ;)


- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 00:43:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA15872;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:41:42 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:41:42 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530502b1465152f35d [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:48:04 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
Resent-Message-ID: <"OsT_F.0.gt3.4nA8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17213
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 3:45 PM 3/30/98, Anton Rager wrote:
>Guess I forgot to include smileys.... :)
>
>Not trying to be inflamatory.......Just wasn't sure what you guys were
>chasing after.

No inflammation.  My writing is just a bit droll (English major I ain't.).
Just trying to cover all the bases.   Sorry.

Ooops, almost forgot:   8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner

Ooops, I didn't mean droll, I meant dull!  As in Adjective:  Arousing no
interest or curiosity.  dry, weary, sterile, monotonous, dreary, tedious,
tiresome, arid, stuffy, wearisome, aseptic, irksome, uninteresting, boring,
humdrum, tiring.

See!  Told you I ain't no English Major!  8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 00:45:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA01558;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530503b14656451ce5 [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:48:07 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: solder test for Horace
Resent-Message-ID: <"DXUQz3.0.CO.hoA8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17214
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 9:41 PM 3/30/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
[snip
>Orientation A.
>
>                 _______
>                |   N   |
>   ------------ |_______| -----------
>                 _______          solder channel
>   ------------ |   S   | -----------
>                |_______|
>
>
>Orientation B.
>
>                  |   |
>                  |   | solder channel
>                  |   |
>                  |   |
>                  |   |
>                 _______
>                |   N   |
>                |_______|
>                 _______
>                |   S   |
>                |_______|
>                  |   |
>                  |   |
>                  |   |
>                  |   |
>                  |   |
>
>This wasn't done using the earlier channel I had prepared, rather just a
>very shallow hollow on the surface of some brick, and I probably didn't
>even need that.
>
>Orientation A caused the solder to 'twist' out of the shallow scoop.

Are you positively sure that wasn't Orientation B?  Orientation B should
produce Frank's ~ curve.

[snip]
>
>Orientation B is the one you want!

I hate to break the news, but it isn't, nor is orientation A.

I assume your drawings are top views and the magnet end towards the trough
has the poles reversed, and hang over the top of the mercury.  In that case
with (+) on the left in Orientation A, the Lorentz force should lift the
solder under the magnet. With (-) on the left the solder should be pushed
down, and toward the sides.

[snip]
>
>What does all this mean?  ;)

It means a chance to do some more experiments if you want.  8^)

Sorry about my communication problem.

The channel is supposed to go over the top of the *center* of a magnet,
purpendicular to the direction of just a plain bar magnet.  Each spot in
the trough would then be equidistant from the poles at all times.  Here is
top view:


           -------
           |  N  |
           |     |
(+)        |     |
-->-====================--->---
           |     |
           |     | side
           |     |
           |  S  |
           -------
            end


          Fig 1 - Top View


Here is the side view:


              U  <--- B
   ------------------------
   | S                 N  |
   ------------------------

       Fig. 2 - Side View

   U - Trough
   B - Field direction


Here is the test again, with end view:


(+)                           (-)

->---==========X============--->--
           ---->-c--
           |       |
         a ^   S   v b
           |       |
           --d-<----

-->--  - wire with current direction indicated by >

===== - thin deep horizontal trough filled with mercury
         (in material not shown, laying on top of magnet)

        Fig. 3 - End View

With trough current directed to the right as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, a
rise should occur at X.   If the current direction, or magnet, is reversed,
there should be a depression at X.

Now the effect looked for is not just a rise across the whole trough, which
will occur from a Lorentz force due to B that will hide the force for which
we look. The longitudinal force will crunch the upwelled solder into a high
point at X by pulling inward towards X.  This is what makes a trough so
difficult to use for this.

When the current is right to left, the Lorentz force depresses the fluid,
but should also push it aside from the center of the trough out towards the
ends.



Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 01:44:03 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA22168;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:43:11 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:43:11 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b146674c9ef5 [12.64.66.216]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:42:49 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jJrnt.0.IQ5.jgB8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17215
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Yeah yeah, NEVER buy the 1.0 version.

As usual, just reverse everything in my previous message, here corrected:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Orientation A.

                 _______
      	        |   N   |
   ------------ |_______| -----------
   +              _______           -     solder channel
   ------------ |   S   | -----------
                |_______|


This causes a bulge (with the polarity shown) or
dip in the solder with the reverse polarity.
Note: magnets are *above* the solder channel; the
polarity labels are those of the faces on the top,
so the opposite polarities are actually pointing down
into the solder from the bottom faces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Orientation B.

                  |   |
                  |   | solder channel
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |
                 _______
      	        |   N   |
                |_______|
                 _______
                |   S   |
                |_______|
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |
                  |   |

This causes a twist or torque in the solder
Note: magnets are still *above* the solder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 03:29:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA30701;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:28:15 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:28:15 -0800
Message-ID: <00b201bd5c97$b0bf8340$588cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Cc: <rl_brodzinski pnl.gov>
Subject: Muon Decay
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:24:41 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"nsCls.0.dV7.EDD8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17216
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The rest mass-energy of the muon is 105.658 Mev, with a charge of (+/-)
1.6E-19 Coulombs,
Spin 1/2 hbar, and a lifetime of 2.2E-6 seconds.

It decays to an electron or positron and a neutrino (-*)or an antineutrino
(+*)each with charge 1.6E-19 Coulombs 90 degrees out of phase with that of
the electron or positron (but with 180 degrees phase difference from each
other)along with substantial difference in amplitude which accounts for the
"neutral" behavior toward regular particles.

If the resonance for the electron/positron portion is taken as Ee/alpha = 70
Mev, this subtracted from 105.659 Mev equals 35.658 Mev,the energy of the
"Tau Neutrino".

A Superstring Circle Lineup would be: [-(+*-*)]
for the negative muon or [+(-*+*)]for the positive muon giving the indicated
charge and net spin 1/2.

The neutrino-antineutrino pair (+*-*) should part company with the electron
or positron and split up carrying away most of the 105.568 Mev at very near
c velocity as the electron or positron radiates away any energy above it's
rest mass-energy.

Does this make sense?

Regards,   Frederick



From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 04:31:28 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA03577;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:29:03 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:29:03 -0800
From: rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Science Frontiers: Some Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:25:10 GMT
Message-ID: <3535df68.18605404 kcbbs.gen.nz>
References: <352f508d.10232968 kcbbs.gen.nz>
In-Reply-To: <352f508d.10232968 kcbbs.gen.nz>
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: <"kTgs02.0.Xt.E6E8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17217
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:43:29 GMT, rtomes kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) wrote:

>Book Review
>Science Frontiers: Some Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature

Hey Jerry, I'm coming through in stereo too!
Sorry folks I only posted this once.

-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
   Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 04:45:07 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA05509;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:43:46 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:43:46 -0800
From: "Clinton Rawls" <clint.rawls worldnet.att.net>
To: "John Steck" <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>, <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 06:46:23 -0600
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
Message-ID: <19980331124300.AAB24903 default>
Resent-Message-ID: <"2F0YW1.0.wL1.0KE8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17218
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi John,

You're talking my stuff now!  In your recent post (below), you make a quick
mention of "a couple of promising theories".  I would really like to know
what those are and more about your experimental results.  Can you share a
brief synopsis of them with us?  If not, I understand because the theories
and experimentation may be considered "proprietary information" and
Motorola would not want that information divulged to the general vortex
public.  Let us know the status anyway.  Thanks!

Best Wishes,

Clinton Rawls

| From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
| To: vortex-l eskimo.com
| Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
| Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 10:15 AM
| 
| Michael T Huffman wrote:
| >         As for this form of vortex movement having the ability to carry
with
| > it its own means of power generation, well...  If you could enlighten
us as
| > to how exactly that is supposed to work, I think that one of use could
dream
| > up a machine that would be able to take advantage of it. 
| 
| I think that is the question everyone is trying to figure out.  I am
making a
| specific effort to do just that.  Many questions, a couple of promising
| theories, some interpretationally relevant experimental results, but not
much
| more than that right now.  I call it energy density gradients, others
have
| referred to it as negative viscosity.  Both are hypothetical, hopefully
not for
| long.
|  

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 07:31:40 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17017;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <352109E4.1150 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:21:08 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: STENGER GOOFED (again?)
References: <v01530500b1463e988cd6 [199.237.131.239]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"4xNS1.0.p94.BiG8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17219
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 

> Maybe this can be salvaged.    Attach your magic flexible torqe rod to
> either point TT and you have cw rotation. The Lorentz force on the sides
> oppose, torqueing to the ccw:
> 
>      F5  <-- |            F6  <--  |
>              |                     |
>            X ^ X                O  v  O
>              |                     |
>       -------|  ccw          ccw   |--------
>              |                     |
>           X  v  X                  ^
>              |                  O  | O
>              |  --> F7             |   --> F8
> 
>                       Fig. 1
> 

Horace, there is a subtlety here that I missed.  A pure moment (torque)
can always be repaced by a force couple of two parallel, equal forces
separated by some distance.  The action of such a couple on a body
is INDEPENDENT OF THE AXIS OF ROTATION YOU CHOOSE - thus, my conclusion
that because the Lorentz forces could cause a torque about my tt points,
the same torque would be felt about the ring center and cause it to
rotate.  But, the Lorentz force torque about point tt FOR THE RING CASE
is NOT A COUPLE.  The action of the radial Lorentz forces on the ring
cause torque which IS DEPENDENT UPON YOUR CHOICE OF CENTER OF ROTATION.
It happens that these forces all pass thru the ring axis and have no
torque resultant there.
Now, I'm not saying that there are no net tangential forces acting on
the ring - I have not done a quantitative analysis of the kind you're
working on.
However, consider that NONE OF MY TESTS GIVE ANY INDICATION OF SUCH
LONGITUDINAL FORCES:
	>My motor won't run (could be weak magnets but, man, I see NO
	                    HINT of torque!)
	>None of my fixed-conductor tests show ANY SIGN OF LONGITUDINAL
	      FORCES.
	>ALL OF MY TESTS show plenty of torques ACTING ON THE MARINOV
	      MAGNETS.  At 300 amps, my ceramic magnets are PUSHED
	      SIDEWAYS ON THE TEST CART - SLIDING THE WHEELS OF THE
	      CART SIDEWAYS when the magnets and conductor are oriented
	      to provide a sideways Lorentz force.

You and Rick have a chance to pin this Marinov ring rotation down.
If you can't get your Hg, and Rick can't get his hot metal to rotate
around a circular trough or tube, using a Marinov magnet configuration
- then something is rotten in Denmark.  The MHD forces in an open
channel are tricky but an obvious rotation would be pretty convincing!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 08:13:21 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25453;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500b146b4e1f5bf [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:09:05 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"yLqIT3.0.XD6.JGH8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17220
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:42 PM 3/30/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
>Yeah yeah, NEVER buy the 1.0 version.
>
>As usual, just reverse everything in my previous message, here corrected:
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Orientation A.
>
>                 _______
>                |   N   |
>   ------------ |_______| -----------
>   +              __X____           -     solder channel
>   ------------ |   S   | -----------
>                |_______|
                   |   |
                   |   | side channel
                   |   |
                   |   |
                   |   |

              Fig. 1 - Top view
>
>This causes a bulge (with the polarity shown) or
>dip in the solder with the reverse polarity.
>Note: magnets are *above* the solder channel; the
>polarity labels are those of the faces on the top,
>so the opposite polarities are actually pointing down
>into the solder from the bottom faces.


OK, these tests actually got the expected results.  Initially I thought the
above orientation is not as good as the one I showed because there is a
strong bend in the field at the tip, and the opposing magnets dilute the
force, but the test was successful as far as it went, and doing the test as
I proposed would not have provided any other informaion, so the situation
is *very good* as far as it has gone. In fact the above orientation is even
better for what has to happen to discern the longitudinal force using
trenches vs tubing, so what you did is better than what I asked.

The biggest problem now is the difficulty sorting out the Lorentz force
which is primarily vertical in the above configuration, from the Biot
longitudinal force, which pushes the solder away from the midpoint X marked
above, or towards X if the magnet or current (not both) is reversed in Fig.
1.

To actually determine if there is a longitudinal force, it is necessary to
determine the pressure change at the *bottom* of the channel at X.  Mercury
in tubes is very good for this.

Here is a way to do this with trenches.  Reverse the magnet poles above so
the upwelling occurs.  Use a T solder channel, i.e. add a side channel as
shown above in Fig. 1 where I modified your drawing.  Or use a + shaped
channel, and block the flow in one of the side channels.  Set level so the
side channel is uphill. Note there is no current flowing in the side
channel, so it can be used as an equivalent to the mercury pressure tube.
The higher up the channel the solder is pushed when the current is on, the
greater the longitudinal force pushing inward in the main channel towards
X.

Now, what would be good would be to have the side channel much deeper than
the main channel, and an insulating (ceramic) barrier, that is deeper than
the main channel, placed between the main channel and the side channel, and
which forces the solder to flow downwards below the normal bottom level of
the main channel before entering the side channel. See Fig. 2.  In other
words, when the solder is welling up, the Lorentz force is pullling up,
there should not be an increased pressure on the *bottom* of the main
channel, despite the increased depth of solder above the bottom at point X.
Only the longitudinal force should increase pressure on the bottom of the
channel by pulling inwards from both sides.  Fig. 2 is a cross section of
Fig. 1 looking in the direction of current flow, from the (+) end.


               |           |  |           |
               |     N     |  |     S     |
                ------------  -------------
                             X
 ---------------------- - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - -
 Bottom level of      |Main Trench|    |  Side Trench
 of main trench ----> |...........|Bar.|       ------------------
                      |           |    |       |  uphill --->
                      |           ------       |
                      |                        |
                      ---------------------------- or side trench could
                                                   stay at this depth


                   Fig. 2 - Cross section at point X

Another way this could be pullled off is to drill a vertical hole at X,
then Drill a slanted hole from the side trench, entering the bottom of the
vertical hole from the right side (above in Fig. 2), creating the barrier.

If this is too much to do I understand!

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 08:39:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01187;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00cf01bd5cc2$0bd10360$588cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Cyclone Separator for Gas Vortex Generation
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:28:22 -0700
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 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"ODJ6k.0.yH.QhH8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17222
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

An off-the-shelf cyclone separator using a recirculating compressor running
a hydrogenous
gas hydrogen, steam, anhydrous ammonia, methane or propane etc., might
generate enough Quasi-Neutrons (or Hydrinos) to be of interest.

Search keywords CYCLONE SEPARATORS.

Might be more efficient than liquid cavitation O/U effects.

Regards,   Frederick

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 08:41:46 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01134;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00ce01bd5cc2$0a79b0c0$588cbfa8 default>
Reply-To: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
From: "Frederick J. Sparber" <fjsparb sprintmail.com>
To: "Vortex-L" <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: 97 (http://chemengineer.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa110397.htm)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:21:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01BD5C86.677D9B60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Resent-Message-ID: <"pKmLM3.0.RH.MhH8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17221
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_002B_01BD5C86.677D9B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



http://chemengineer.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa110397.htm

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BD5C86.677D9B60
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="97.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="97.url"

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://chemengineer.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa110397.htm
Modified=4066C304C15CBD0148

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BD5C86.677D9B60--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 09:42:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16064;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:13:58 -0800
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199803311713.JAA32725 slave2.aa.net>
X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman)
Subject: Vortex Charter
Resent-Message-ID: <"RI4JT2.0.vw3.vcI8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17223
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Vorts.

        Horace threw up the Vortex Charter once again, and there is
something in there that has been bothering me for a long time, but I've
never mentioned it.  Schaeffer's name is spelled incorrectly.  It's not a
real big deal, and I'm pretty terrible when it comes even to remembering
names, let alone spelling them correctly.  Nobody's ever discussed Schaeffer
except me, and besides Jed, Gene, Bill and myself, (maybe Scott remembers
him) I don't think anyone on this list even knows who he was.  He does have
surviving family members, however, and out of respect to his family, I would
like to see the charter corrected.  -Knuke

Michael T. Huffman
1825 Nagle Place #210
Seattle, WA 98122
(206)325-2461
knuke aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~knuke/index.htm

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 10:24:56 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25342;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35215298.5744 bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:31:20 -0800
From: Terry Blanton <commengr bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: commengr bellsouth.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20  (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vortex <vortex-l eskimo.com>
Subject: Gravitational Lens Observed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"b76UZ.0.mB6.sCJ8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17228
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Giant bullseye found in space  
By Keay Davidson  
EXAMINER SCIENCE WRITER 
Monday, March 30, 1998  
©1998 San Francisco Examiner  

Image predicted by Einstein's theory              

TV magicians pretend to make the Statue of Liberty disappear and to
vaporize airplanes behind curtains -- but they can't top Mother Nature's
newly discovered magic trick. 

What may be the most spectacular optical illusion in the universe -- a
monstrous bullseye or cosmic mirage in the night sky -- has been spotted
by British astronomers. The bullseye, which resembles a series of fuzzy
rings-within-rings like those on a dart board, isn't a physical object. 

Rather, it formed when a phenomenon called a gravitational lens twisted
light from a nearby galaxy into the shape of a bullseye, fulfilling a
prediction that famed physicist Albert Einstein made in the 1930s. 

"At first sight it looks artificial, and we thought it was some kind of
defect in the image," said Ian Browne of the University of Manchester,
one of the discoverers. "But then we realized we were actually looking
at a perfect Einstein ring!" 

The bullseye -- which, if real, would be hundreds or thousands of
light-years across -- has been detected both by the Hubble Space
Telescope and the 135-mile-wide Merlin array of six radiotelescopes in
England. A light-year is 6 trillion miles, the distance that a beam of
light travels in a year. The nearest star to Earth is 4 light-years
away. 

"The Hubble picture (of the "ring') is a beautiful demonstration of
Einstein's ideas since, for the first time, it shows a complete ring
surrounding the galaxy that created it," said a statement issued by
astronomer Jacqueline Milton of the Royal Astronomical Society. 

For almost two decades, astronomers have cataloged numerous
gravitational lenses across the universe, but none as grandiose as the
bullseye. Previous gravitational lenses showed blob- or banana-shaped
glows, formed when the gravitational lens -- actually the combined
gravity of millions of stars -- twists light from a galaxy into a
strange shape. 

In the 1910s, astronomers first detected evidence that the gravitational
pull of the sun can affect light from a star, causing it to appear to be
in a slightly different position in the sky. 

Einstein predicted this effect as part of his general theory of
relativity. Later, in the 1930s, he forecast that under the right
conditions, light from a galaxy could be twisted into a perfect ring
shape. 

Einstein's theory offered a new concept of gravity, according to which
gravity is not an invisible force that grabs distant objects, as his
famed predecessor Sir Isaac Newton had believed. Rather, gravity results
from the warping of space and time themselves. 

Bizarre as it still sounds, the general theory of relativity has became
the bedrock of modern cosmology -- the study of the origin, evolution
and fate of the cosmos. The discovery of the giant ring is a reminder
that humans inhabit an Einsteinian universe. 

 The image is reproduced on the Web at 

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/merlin/press/PR9801/picture1.html

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 10:44:22 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16341;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:41:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:41:17 -0800
Message-ID: <352138DB.3712 interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:41:31 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Motor brush test-Marinov
References: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0889 xch-cpc-02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6t4sI2.0.D_3.BZJ8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17229
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scudder, Henry J wrote:
> 
> Frank
>         Don't forget you have to commutate somehow, to get continuous
> motion, otherwise you would have a meter movement type of motor, which
> may be what you really want anyhow, when I think about it. You could
> measure torque with a spring scale by hooking onto the rotor outer edge.

Hank, I have given up on my pet "torque couple" theory involving
radial Lorentz forces.  However, this still leaves the question of
the mysterious longitudinal force.  I have thought of doing what you
suggest but I was worried that I would then need to pin down the force
contributed by the current feed clips.  I think this is a big feature
of Mike Schaffer's view of this device.
However, I like the idea of a flexible current feed doubling as a
torque meter.  I'll see if I can come up with a scheme to separate out
ring torque from feed-clip torque.

Frank S.

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 10:54:29 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11799;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:03:55 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:03:55 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b146c892a880 [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:24:51 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: STENGER GOOFED (again?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"0XPPL2.0.et2.80J8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17226
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 10:21 AM 3/31/98, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
[snip]
>It happens that these forces all pass thru the ring axis and have no
>torque resultant there.

Yes. Had me fooled! Those square approximations to circles due to asci
drawing do take their toll!  8^(

So, the Marinov motor is alive and well again as a possible demonstrator of
longitudinal force.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 11:02:26 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19468;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:53:45 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:53:45 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F088B xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Motor brush test-Marinov
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:52:55 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"ViE0m.0.4m4.tkJ8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17230
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank
	Could you use the spring as the conductor to the brushes, and
then measure the torque on that portion of the circuit?
Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Tuesday, March 31, 1998 10:41 AM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Motor brush test-Marinov
> 
> Scudder, Henry J wrote:
> > 
> > Frank
> >         Don't forget you have to commutate somehow, to get
> continuous
> > motion, otherwise you would have a meter movement type of motor,
> which
> > may be what you really want anyhow, when I think about it. You could
> > measure torque with a spring scale by hooking onto the rotor outer
> edge.
> 
> Hank, I have given up on my pet "torque couple" theory involving
> radial Lorentz forces.  However, this still leaves the question of
> the mysterious longitudinal force.  I have thought of doing what you
> suggest but I was worried that I would then need to pin down the force
> contributed by the current feed clips.  I think this is a big feature
> of Mike Schaffer's view of this device.
> However, I like the idea of a flexible current feed doubling as a
> torque meter.  I'll see if I can come up with a scheme to separate out
> ring torque from feed-clip torque.
> 
> Frank S.
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 12:12:02 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA08927;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:05:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:05:27 -0800
Message-ID: <19980331194052.4880.rocketmail send1d.yahoomail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:40:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Anton Rager <a_rager yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Marinov - what is our status?  A summary.
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"tmvs_1.0.9B2.4oK8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17231
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hello again,

Questions/Comments after digesting Horace's reply

---Horace Heffner <hheffner corecom.net> wrote:
>

> The point is the existence of a longitudinal force, as predicted and
> discussed by Marinov, Biot, Ampere, and others, indicates in most
cases the
> possibility of contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics,
i.e. of
> the possibility creation of free energy.  Marinov's motor was
heralded as
> proof of such a force and as evidence for Marinov's theory that
implies
> such a force exists.
> 

Does anyone have a good link for more info on how this longitudinal
force could be harnessed for OU/FE applications?  I want to know more
about the practicle applications of the effect while you guys are
verifing the Marinov thingy. If we assume that it exists, what does
that actually mean?

I think someone mentioned that the Marinov motor was a long way from
OU.....is that correct?


> Discussion of longitudinal force gets into discussion of hompolar
> generators, rail guns, etc. and their various assumed anomalies.

I think I follow with the Homopolar example, but rail gun anomalies? 
Guess I need to dig thru the archives a bit more....and pay more
attention to Vortex.  Ahhh......I need my own little time machine so I
can put the rest of the world on hold for a bit ;)

Should have finished that EE degree. [whacking self in head to
randomize neural activity]

Later,
==
Anton Rager
a_rager yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 12:26:35 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10297;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:00:51 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:00:51 -0800
Message-ID: <51894749C42BD111AACB00805F191B5C8F0889 xch-cpc-02>
From: "Scudder, Henry J" <Henry.Scudder West.Boeing.com>
To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Motor brush test-Marinov
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:59:59 -0800
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Resent-Message-ID: <"F18UI2.0.GW2.CzI8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17225
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank
	Don't forget you have to commutate somehow, to get continuous
motion, otherwise you would have a meter movement type of motor, which
may be what you really want anyhow, when I think about it. You could
measure torque with a spring scale by hooking onto the rotor outer edge.

Hank

> ----------
> From: 	Francis J. Stenger[SMTP:fstenger interlaced.net]
> Reply To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Sent: 	Monday, March 30, 1998 6:05 PM
> To: 	vortex-l eskimo.com
> Subject: 	Re: Motor brush test-Marinov
> 
> Scudder, Henry J wrote:
> > 
> > Frank
> >         Have you tried using your magnets in a conventional motor
> setup?
> > It would give you some idea of the best torque you could hope for.
> > Hank
> > 
> Hank, I am going to try to do this sort of thing as best I can.  I
> agree it would be very informative.  One problem I have is that my
> ring
> is mounted on a cup-like rotor rim and I only have access to one edge
> and the inside and outside (brush location now) of the ring.  But I
> will still try to do something like you suggest!
> 
> Frank
> 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 12:59:49 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23601;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:54:21 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:54:21 -0800
Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste ecg.csg.mot.com )
Sender: johnste ecg.csg.mot.com
Message-Id: <35212CD7.A0E851EC ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:50:15 -0600
From: John Steck <johnste ecg.csg.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Schauberger's Fish Fetish
References: <19980331124300.AAB24903 default>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8CZs.0.Xm5.sVL8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17232
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Clinton Rawls wrote:

> You're talking my stuff now!  In your recent post (below), you make a quick
> mention of "a couple of promising theories".  I would really like to know
> what those are and more about your experimental results.  Can you share a
> brief synopsis of them with us?

Yes and no.  I would be more than happy to present an outline of my suspicions
and details of experiments I've tried, but I think the best format would be on
a webpage not clogging bandwidth.  After all, the lot of it is extremely fringe
right now and not really relevant on vortex until I have some toys for everyone
to play with  8^).   I am currently in the process of registering a domain and
finding an ISP to call home (any recommendations from the peanut gallery?). 
Unfortunately, I don't see having anything in place until June.

> If not, I understand because the theories
> and experimentation may be considered "proprietary information" and
> Motorola would not want that information divulged to the general vortex
> public.  Let us know the status anyway.  Thanks!

Welcome to the razors edge I walk.  This research isn't even close to my job
description, so at present there is no conflict of interest nor is there
anything proprietary to worry about.  Vortex will most certainly hear from me
if I stumble across anything interesting.

Thanks for the interest!

-- 
John E. Steck
Prototype Tool Engineering
Motorola CSS, Libertyville

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 13:09:38 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09901;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:00:12 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:00:12 -0800
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:06:21 -0800
Message-Id: <199803311606.IAA19777 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: El Nino slows Earth down
Resent-Message-ID: <"_64TL1.0.1Q2.cyI8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17224
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ross Tessien wrote:
>
>> >John Steck wrote:
>> >> El Nino slows Earth down
>> >Who knows, perhaps the title of this thread should be:
>> >Earth Slow Down Causes El Nino.
>> >Regards,
>> >Robert Stirniman
>> 
>> Correct.  But then you have to add, Earth's elliptical orbit blue shifts
>> aether waves from the sun during the fall, and red shifts them during the
>> spring, thus speeding and slowing the earths rotation, which when excessive,
>> in turn causes El Nino.
>-snip-
>> Ross Tessien

Clarification:

The reason that the accelerations are greater some times than others is due
to libration.  You can think of libration as a sort of bouncing back and
forth between two soft stops, like a pin ball.  For the moon, it is easier
to grasp.  The moon, most think, always points at the earth.  This is due to
a mass assymetry and to the moon's rotation having been damped out somehow
(how is a debate).  

But, the moon doesn't really point perfectly toward the earth all the time.
It wavers back and forth about 5 degrees, so we can see a little more of the
disk of the moon than if it was perfectly pointing at the earth all the time.

As for the earth, the situation is just one knotch more complicated.  The
earth is rotating relative to the source of oscillatory energy.  So it is
"Phase" locked to the oscillations, and must rotate at specific velocity if
it is to remain locked to the solar oscillations.  Otherwise, it will break
out of phase lock and precess.  It could lock again at a next node, but that
is yet more compicated to discuss, though entirely possible at some of the
solar acoustic frequencies.

Now, what happens, is there is a nominal orientation of the earths mass
assymetric features (mountains, trenches) which lead to a best possible fit
to the solar sloshing of aether wave emission.  But if the earth falls
behind or gets ahead of these incident waves, they then begin to speed or
slow the earths rotation, respectively.

The phase nodes are the cushions as in the pin ball example, and the
mountains must be at top dead center of as the waves pass by and distort the
shape of the earth slightly.

If the sun gradually changes it's own resonant frequency, then it is
possible for the earth to accumulate phase error, and the intensity of the
libration can increase.  This indeed occurs over the solar cycle, though I
have not found info linking the frequency variance in the solar cycle to the
earths motions yet.

I am studying the meanders of the jet stream seeking velocities and features
demonstrating a link to the various solar acoustic periodicities.  Also,
storm front migration velocities factor in to this where there is a doppler
shift to incident wave energy.

Later, Ross Tessien

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 15:13:17 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19976;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:07:01 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:07:01 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b14704ab9887 [12.64.66.206]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b146b4e1f5bf [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="============_-1320742833==_============"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:27:35 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZpaIr2.0.zt4.JSN8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17233
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

--============_-1320742833==_============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Horace -

This is like trying to have a conversation on a long distance line with a
bad time lag. What happened was that before I saw your note showing that
the configuration you were thinking of was just a bar magnet lying under
the solder, I had gone ahead and done the experiment. Then in the distance
between my garage and my computer (about 75'), my brain turned things 90
degrees, thus the faulty first write-up. Then the correction, then finally
I see your messages.

>From your first message responding to the tests, before both my correction
and your subsequent message about the 'T' channel:

   >  Now the effect looked for is not just a rise across
   >  the whole trough, which will occur from a Lorentz
   >  force due to B that will hide the force for which we
   >  look. The longitudinal force will crunch the
   >  upwelled solder into a high point at X by pulling
   >  inward towards X.  This is what makes a trough so
   >  difficult to use for this.

The whole channel doesn't bunch up, the magnet assembly pulls up a nice
peak right under the magnets, almost as if it were a single magnet
attracting something ferrous. It does, in the configuration I used, just
what you describe here.

In your message regarding the 'T' channel:

   >  To actually determine if there is a longitudinal
   >  force, it is necessary to determine the pressure
   >  change at the *bottom* of the channel at X.
   >  Mercury in tubes is very good for this.

I've had it with ASCII art - here's a hand drawn sketch attached. It's a
GIF, I hope nobody has any problem reading GIF. It shows what I believe are
the force directions a conducting wire can be expected to feel near the
pole of a magnet. The wire is viewed end on, from the '+' terminal. Now if
you duplicate the sketch, flip the copy horizontally and place it on the
left of the original, you'd have those force arrows smooshing together
there in the middle between the magnets. The solder shows exactly that,
even showing the little 'peaking' effect close in to the magnets. If I
bring them really close, there's like a little fin of metal reaching right
up to touch the crack between magnet poles.

By following those arrows in from the outboard areas of a pair of magnets
close together as above, they can be seen in positions that would sweep in
solder from all over, pushing down on it further out from the magnets,
across as you get in closer, and finally upwards under the magnets. With
the pushing down in combination with the inward sweep, and the need for
fluid to drain in from the outer areas to replace fluid lost to the bulge
forming under the magnets, I can't see how the 'T' setup is going to show
us anything. Even assuming there's no current in the 'T', the fluid will
drain from there to replace fluid drawn up in the bulge.

I hope I'm not (again) just totally misunderstanding what you're getting at.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI





--============_-1320742833==_============
Content-Type: image/gif; name="forcefield.gif"
 ; x-mac-type="47494666"
 ; x-mac-creator="3842494D"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="forcefield.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--============_-1320742833==_============--

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 15:32:43 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28827;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:27:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b1471c2a1dda [12.64.37.105]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:51:48 -1000
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l eskimo.com>
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: MARINOV: solder rotation!
Resent-Message-ID: <"o_RMq3.0.F27.DlN8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17234
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gnorts -

I just saw positive, clear-cut, continuous rotation in a solder blob, as
well as in an aluminum ring floating on the solder. Neither effect was the
least bit ambiguous; this is definite, strong circulation.

I thought I'd try something different this afternoon. I have a little
shallow round melting crucible about 2 1/2" across which I filled up with
solder. Then I tried something new that made all the difference to the
observations: *flux*. <g> (we Real Men don't need no steenking flux you
see, we join disimilar metals and so forth by the brute force of our
personalities alone...)

With flux clearing away the surface slag, a nice super-shiny blob of
apparently low viscosity metal appeared in the crucible where once was only
a grey sticky glob. The rotation under the magnets (from orientation 'B' in
my previous corrected messages) was perfectly obvious, and a small aluminum
ring bent from welding rod confirmed it as well. It had been hiding
underneath all that slag before. I kind off thought some of those ripples
had looked suspicious.

With conventional current and magnets as shown, the rotation was clockwise.
Note again that the labelled magnet poles are the *tops* of the magnets
with the magnets above the solder, so the poles facing down are opposite;
that is, the top magnet labelled 'S' in the drawing has its N pole facing
down into the solder.

                    +
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    0 wire contacts to pool
               - - - - - -

     - - - -  solder pool  - - - -
                 _______
      	        |   S   |
- - - - - -     |_______|    - - - - - -
                 _______
                |   N   |      circulation is clockwise
     - - - -    |_______|   - - - -

              - - - - - - -

                    0
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    -

This result is not unexpected, as there are obvious 'radial' currents under
the magnetic fields. No longitudinal force is yet apparent to me. I think
things get more interesting when we convert the pool to a ring, then make
the ring very thin, maybe even infintessimally thin, virtually eliminating
those I X B currents under the magnets. Would it still turn? According to
Jeff Kooistra's work, it seems that it would.

By the way, the rotation is a vortex, fastest in the center under the
magnets. I can see little features swirling around under there quite
rapidly, and there was a slight depression over the whole area of activity.
I don't know if the depression is from the centrifugal force of the
swirling motion or from part of the magnetic forces. I got the impression
it was from the magnets though, as it seemed to appear right as I brought
up the magnets before the solder had spun up to full speed, but I could
easily be wrong there.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 18:55:24 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA11458;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:50:39 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:50:39 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500b147555fbeee [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:56:46 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"zknOl1.0.vo2.-jQ8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17235
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I took my daughter to violin lessons and did some errands, and look at all
the stuff you did Rick! Science marches forward!

At 11:27 AM 3/31/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:

[snip]
>The whole channel doesn't bunch up, the magnet assembly pulls up a nice
>peak right under the magnets, almost as if it were a single magnet
>attracting something ferrous. It does, in the configuration I used, just
>what you describe here.

This is an excellent sign, but not proof of anything. This is exactly what
you would expect from the Lorentz force.  The N and S poles create a B
field in a cup shape that dips down into the trough.  Current normal to the
field produces an upwelling into the cup.  The B field cup directs the
upwelling solder toward the gap between the magnets.

>
>In your message regarding the 'T' channel:
>
>   >  To actually determine if there is a longitudinal
>   >  force, it is necessary to determine the pressure
>   >  change at the *bottom* of the channel at X.
>   >  Mercury in tubes is very good for this.
>
>I've had it with ASCII art - here's a hand drawn sketch attached. It's a
>GIF, I hope nobody has any problem reading GIF. It shows what I believe are
>the force directions a conducting wire can be expected to feel near the
>pole of a magnet. The wire is viewed end on, from the '+' terminal. Now if
>you duplicate the sketch, flip the copy horizontally and place it on the
>left of the original, you'd have those force arrows smooshing together
>there in the middle between the magnets. The solder shows exactly that,
>even showing the little 'peaking' effect close in to the magnets. If I
>bring them really close, there's like a little fin of metal reaching right
>up to touch the crack between magnet poles.
>
>By following those arrows in from the outboard areas of a pair of magnets
>close together as above, they can be seen in positions that would sweep in
>solder from all over, pushing down on it further out from the magnets,
>across as you get in closer, and finally upwards under the magnets. With
>the pushing down in combination with the inward sweep, and the need for
>fluid to drain in from the outer areas to replace fluid lost to the bulge
>forming under the magnets, I can't see how the 'T' setup is going to show
>us anything. Even assuming there's no current in the 'T', the fluid will
>drain from there to replace fluid drawn up in the bulge.

You have just demonstrated how counterintuitive the method and/or the Biot
longitudinal force I am suggesting actually is.  The fluid that moves
upwards due to the Lorentz force exerts no extra downward force on the
fluid below it.  The pressure below the upwelling then should be purely a
function of the fluid level.  Since the upwelling takes volume from the
fluid, if anything, the pressure at X (the point at the bottom of the
trench exactly at the center of the magnets) should be reduced.  This is
the beauty of the idea.  For once all factors point to a actions opposed to
the longitudinal force.  So, a pumping action, that continually pumps fluid
downward through a hole at X would be positive confirming evidence of the
proposed longitudinal force.  You said it yourself - you would expect the
fluid in the side trough to drain to feed the swelling bump.  A surprizing
and counterintuitive outpouring of fluid down the hole and into the side
trough would be very strong evidence for the Biot formula based
longitudinal force I am proposing.

BTW, how much current are you using Rick?

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 20:12:52 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25362;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:03:17 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:03:17 -0800
X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b14765865a29 [12.64.66.33]>
In-Reply-To: <v01530500b147555fbeee [199.237.131.245]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:02:07 -1000
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Rick Monteverde <monteverde worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-6KEq3.0.CC6.2oR8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17236
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace -

   >  You have just demonstrated how counterintuitive
   >  the method and/or the Biot longitudinal force I am
   >  suggesting actually is.

You are truly too kind. Actually, I'm just stump stoopid. :)

No, I still don't get it. I'll have to think about this a while, I've been
obsessed with a nasty little problem I'm having with some urethane resin
that's crucial to a project that's crucial, etc. etc. Last night at one
point I was *wearing* the resin like a honey-glazed ham after a little boo
boo involving a jar of resin and some nitrogen I was trying to squirt on it
from the valve of a high pressure tank without a regulator on it.  :(

   >  A surprizing and counterintuitive outpouring of
   >  fluid down the hole and into the side trough would
   >  be very strong evidence for the Biot formula based
   >  longitudinal force I am proposing.

I just don't see either what you're getting at, or what's counterintuitive
about it. I could suck some water in a dish up into a bulge with a vacuum
cleaner hose, and the water everywhere else in the dish is going to drop
slightly, because of the water used up by the bulge. I think you are saying
that the solder in the 'T' side spur has an access tunnel to a point under
the magnets. Are you saying that because of that, the 'T' level will be
*higher* than the level of the solder down a ways in the normal channel
away from the magnets? That point under the magnets also links
hydrostatically with points along the regular channel.

This would be kind of hard to build, but I could cast the thing in
reinforced plaster and heat it up in a kiln first before doing the
experiment. I think it would crack on cooling from the solder shrinkage, so
I'd just get one chance with the casting.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 21:41:27 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA09229;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:37:48 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:37:48 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980331222542.008e0100 mail.eden.com>
X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:25:42 -0600
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little eden.com>
Subject: more from the Tribune
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"s9RKJ3.0.7G2.gAT8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17237
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>From the Salt Lake City Tribune, Monday March 30, comes a doozy of a
follow-up article to the earlier one about the U of U abandoning their cold
fusion patents.   Of particular interest are the statements about
"physicists"...<g>

BTW, the URL for this article is:

http://www.sltrib.com/1998/mar/03301998/commenta/30292.htm


Cold Fusion `Observation' at U. Took Undeserved Criticism
  BY CHARLES G. BEAUDETTE

The Tribune recently carried a report that the University of
Utah was abandoning its patent applications on the work of Fleischmann and
Pons.

Unfortunately, the article included the questionable remark that ``the
scientists and the U. found the real heat came from the scorching they
received via the scientific establishment.'' 

Plainly the writer was having a little fun, but the scientific literature
now holds 190 full-length reports of the generation of anomalous (excess)
power in many configurations of experiment and calorimeter (to measure the
heat). It is this heat that is actually ``the real heat.''  More than eight
firms are now developing heat-generating products derived from the
Fleischmann/Pons experiments. Three companies in this country have recently
raised millions
of dollars to support that research, all of this based on experimental
results. Wall Street is watching closely. 

More than 1,200 papers in the field have been published in the past nine
years, and several hundred scientists will convene in Vancouver next month
for the seventh international conference on cold fusion, the first of which
was held in Salt Lake City in March of 1990. ``The real heat,'' as referred
to in the article, was actually rhetorical heat, with little calorie
content, but it did, indeed, scorch the university. What often goes
unnoticed is that the scorching was applied full-force just 39 days after
the press conference announcement  March 23, 1989. 

On May 1st, there was an annual physics conference at Baltimore where the
rhetoric peaked. In general, it did not come from scientists; more
specifically, it came from physicists. The Fleischmann/Pons experiment,
which the literature shows needs 70 days to run, was pronounced mistaken
only 39 days after the announcement. Clearly not much evaluation had been
done in that short time. The principle argument used against the
Fleischmann/Pons experiment at that meeting -- ``a lack of stirring'' --
has not been used again nor ever defended from its critical dismissal
during the past nine years. The two chemists were wrong in their nuclear
measurements, but their heat measurements were superb. You can look 'em up. 

Note that most of the ``heat'' came from the ad hominem attack at that
Baltimore meeting when the two university chemists were called
``incompetent and possible delusional.'' Only W. J. Broad, of The New York
Times, the next morning in a news story, had the common sense and courage
to point out that the charge was obviously wrong, that they were not
incompetent: ``They were far from that.'' But the media repeated what was
declared at the meeting.  So their heat measurements were valid. Nobody can
suggest a source for this new energy
other than a nuclear process of some sort. Except, that is, for the chemist
who says the heat comes from ``recombination,'' but that suggestion has
been scrutinized carefully and discarded on the basis of experimental
measurements in working cells. Otherwise, the discourse concerns exactly
what new kind of nuclear reaction process  supplies the anomalous power.
For example, four laboratories, starting in 1991, have reported helium-four
as a nuclear product in the effluent gases from cells generating anomalous
power. 

The confusion in this field seems to have developed because physicists were
calorimetrically challenged; physicists don't do heat. Chemists do do heat
(measuring), and as a group they have applauded Fleischmann and Pons's
work. There was also involved, surprisingly, a misunderstanding of how
science works. 
The interpretive mistake was to declaim against the two chemists for not
having proved a new science complete and entire. But what they announced in
March of 1989 was simply a new scientific observation. It opened up a new
science, so that in the ensuing decades a base of understanding of the
observation could be constructed by engaging the resources and talents of
scientists everywhere. 

The observation was without a scientifically established base of
understanding, as is the usual practice in science. For example, in 1911,
H.K. Onnes observed (discovered) superconductivity, but science, 87 years
later, still does not know or understand the mechanism whereby electrical
conduction without resistance is possible; thus, he offered a scientific
observation without a base of understanding. The physicists neglected the
small matter of a mere scientific observation. 

I am confident that some day the University of Utah will reap the
recognition that is its due, perhaps even during my lifetime. 
      
Charles Beaudette, a retired electrical engineering consultant, is
currently working on a book about cold fusion. 

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 21:45:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA10502;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:43:27 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:43:27 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530501b14781c42d48 [199.237.131.239]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:44:41 -0900
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
Resent-Message-ID: <"iVjFX3.0.qZ2.zFT8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17238
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 6:02 PM 3/31/98, Rick Monteverde wrote:
[snip]
>
>This would be kind of hard to build, but I could cast the thing in
>reinforced plaster and heat it up in a kiln first before doing the
>experiment. I think it would crack on cooling from the solder shrinkage, so
>I'd just get one chance with the casting.
>
>- Rick Monteverde
>Honolulu, HI

Rick,

You have done a lot on a very low percentage shot.  It sounds like it would
be best just to wait a day or two for the mercury to get here.  It's on its
way. All I have to do is pour it in and try it (I hope.) I'm working on
anoher project also, and haven't even started the FEA programming yet, so I
fully relate to your time crunch.  Let's give it a rest for a while.

Regards,

Horace Heffner          


From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 22:03:57 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA07744;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3521D79E.4BD6 interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 00:58:54 -0500
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger interlaced.net>
Organization: NASA (Retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: MARINOV: test for Horace V1.1 (correction)
References: <v01530500b147555fbeee [199.237.131.245]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5xRZN.0.uu1.hVT8r" mx2>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17239
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Horace Heffner wrote:
> 
>
> BTW, how much current are you using Rick?

Yes!  Rick and Horace, remember that if a liquid metal conductor
changes cross section, the current will tend to follow these changes.
This leads to radial components within the liquid metal.  These radial
current components then lead to Lorentz pinch-related forces that are
LONGITUDINAL in direction - as if we needed anything else to complicate
the situation!  It may be that such forces are overshadowed by a
really strong magnet interacting with a relatively weak current, but
if the current is large then these radial components may be important.
This is why I wish I could come up with some way to measure torque
on a solid ring without using brushes - Hank Scudder was thinking of
something like a meter movement suspension - but I can't come up with
a foolproof answer yet.  These liquid metal tests may give great
results but look out for complex current paths in the metal when it
changes shape, and look out for large radial current paths in large
pools of metal.

I can't believe we're still trying to figure this out!  Horace, have
you made any headway on your program yet?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request eskimo.com  Tue Mar 31 23:39:15 1998
Received: (from smartlst localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA27889;
	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:35:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:35:31 -0800
Message-ID: <19980401073455.11276.qmail hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [194.73.204.17]
From: "Rob King" <kingrs hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: Re: more from the Tribune
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:34:54 PST
Resent-Message-ID: <"5vgpb3.0.hp6.1vU8r" mx1>
Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l eskimo.com> archive/latest/17240
X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Vortexians,

April 1, 1998

I have just managed to get my SMOT kit running.
The RIFEX kit is boiling water like its going out of fashion.
My water fuel cell is producing hydrogen and oxygen at a massive rate 
and only powered by a small torch battery.
I got the SEARL generator running and full tilt, knocking out 7KW.
The Thesta-Distatica is now running, producing about 3kw, although I am 
worried about the radiation from it.
I have just heard that CERN got their TOKOMAK running, the plasma is 
stable and output energy exceeds all expectations.
:-)

It was a year ago today that Greg announced he had got the SMOT running, 
lets hope the kits will ship end of May like he said.

Also I was wondering what will happen to all of Stan Meyers water fuel 
cell equipment, and experimental devices.  
It has to go somewhere, unless he invisaged his own demise and put 
things in place in case of that happening and to have it all destroyed.


Cheers

Rob King




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com